Critical Social Justice / Woke-sekoilu

[zupi]

En tiedä, miten monelle käsite on tuttu, mutta tuo Critical Social Justice, CSJ, käytännössä sisältää kaikki vasurien nykyiset ääliöteoriat. Ajattelin, että tälle voisi avata uuden ketjun, kun itsekin on tullut aiemmin heiteltyä asiaan liittyviä kirjoituksia ketjuun jos toiseenkin. Voi siirtää esim. olemassa olevaan kulttuurimarxismi ketjuun (itsekin vasta löysin tuon ketjun, näytti olleen hiljaisena jo lähes vuoden), mutta tämä lienee kuitenkin hieman eri asia. CSJ:ssä on mukana marxismin piirteitä, mutta tuo ei ilmeisesti ole kuitenkaan tuon ääliömäisyyden päälähde. Selittänee myöskin sitä, miksi "vanhan ajan" vasurit ilmeisesti olivat vuosi sitten Ruotsissa pohdiskelemassa vähän uusia kuvioita (tuon kulttuurimarxismiketjun viimeisimmän vastauksen perusteella).

https://hommaforum.org/index.php/topic,71398.600.html

Alkuun siis määrittely (Helen Pluckrose).

Critical Social Justice has some intellectual underpinnings in “critical” neo-Marxism, but it is mostly grounded in postmodern notions of power, knowledge and language, which view society as constructed of oppressive systems of power and privilege that legitimize some forms of knowledge over others, which then creates ways of speaking about things—discourses—that perpetuate the oppressive power structures. Most people, it argues, are blithely unaware of those oppressive discourses and need theorists and activists to reveal them to us.

CSJ manifests in current scholarship as postcolonial and decolonial theory, Critical Race Theory, queer theory, intersectional feminist, disability and fat studies or simply as (Critical) Social Justice Scholarship. It appears in activism as a drive to decolonize everything, see whiteness and white fragility everywhere and scrutinise language for evidence of transphobia, ableism and fatphobia. It is colloquially referred to as wokeism to indicate an awareness of the oppressive power structures of white supremacy, patriarchy, imperialism, cisnormativity, fatphobia etc. that the majority of us are sleepwalking through.

Itse vasta törmäsin tähän käsitteeseen seuraavassa Quillettin haastattelussa. Haastateltavana on siis Helen Pluckrose, joka kirjoitti kesällä yhdessä James Lindsayn kanssa kirjan "Cynical Theories", josta näyttikin olevan jo maininta Hommalla (en ole itse kirjaa lukenut). Kyseessä siis sama parivaljakko, joka yhdessä Peter Boghossianin kanssa teki pikku jekun "tiede"maailmalle pari vuotta sitten. Kyseessä siis itsensä (oikeiksi?) vasemmistoliberaaleiksi mieltävät tutkijat. Tämä kyllä käy hyvin selvästi ilmi ainakin Pluckrosen kirjoituksista, joka ilmeisesti vielä uskoo, että vasurit voivat "korjata itsensä". Lindsay taitaa olla vähän fiksumpi, oli jo äänestänyt Trumpia tämän vuoden vaaleissa. 

https://hommaforum.org/index.php/topic,1542.msg3246483.html#msg3246483
https://hommaforum.org/index.php/topic,108907.msg2946003.html#msg2946003

https://quillette.com/2020/12/16/on-activist-scholarship-an-interview-with-helen-pluckrose/

On Activist Scholarship: An Interview with Helen Pluckrose

In recent years, free speech and inquiry have come under attack on college campuses, ethical relativism has spread, and demands to decolonize syllabi and rid them of canonical white male texts and thinkers have become increasingly common. Hostility to reason, objectivity, and Enlightenment universalism now disfigures some social science and humanities departments, and these alarming ideological trends have trickled down into mainstream culture where they affect the lives of ordinary people.

In their book, Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity—and Why This Harms Everybody, Helen Pluckrose and James A. Lindsay look at how postmodern theory and activism have come to replace traditional scholarship, and the threats these anti-Enlightenment beliefs pose to liberal democracy. I caught up with Pluckrose, an essayist and editor of Areo magazine to discuss her book. She lives in England.

Haastattelijana tässä siis Jason D. Hill. Tästä eteenpäin Hillin kommentit/kysymykset normaalilla tekstilla, Pluckrosen vastaukset kursiivilla.

(...) The book covers a lot of territory from postcolonial studies, to critical race theory, fat studies and disability studies, queer theory, feminism and gender studies and, of course the philosophical rubric that ties them all together: postmodernism: First, can you tell our readers Why you and James Lindsay decided to write this book now? Postmodernism has been around in our universities for a long time. Why the sudden urgency?

(...) The reason the pushback is suddenly so much more evident to people outside the universities is because the current manifestation of postmodern ideas of power, knowledge, and language is Critical Social Justice (CSJ) scholarship and activism. CSJ’s influence has increasingly been being felt much more broadly than just in the universities. Books like Kendi’s How to be an Antiracist and DiAngelo’s White Fragility are best sellers. People are being no-platformed, fired, and cancelled for disagreeing with these ideas. (...) Since the brutal death of George Floyd and the BLM protests, my colleagues and I have been inundated by requests for assistance from individuals whose employer, university or children’s school is trying to impose mandatory “antiracist” training of a thoroughly illiberal kind rooted in critical race theory ideas about invisible systems of whiteness underlain by bad science about “implicit bias.” We have had to set up a Discord server to try to triage this and help people convince their employers to allow them to reject racism from their own philosophical, ethical or religious beliefs and not this highly theoretical and political one. It is important to note that people of all races object to this kind of “antiracist” training and that black people are politically and intellectually diverse. Similarly, many women reject intersectional concepts of feminism, few LGBT people have even read queer theory, the majority of trans people just want to be left alone to live as feels authentic and most obese and disabled people have no wish to take this aspect of themselves on as a political identity.

Define for our readers the four or so basic tenets of postmodernism and why having spawned so many disciplinary satellites you regard it as the danger that it is?

The postmodern ideas that have survived into the successive waves of “theory” culminating in Critical Social Justice are rooted in an understanding of knowledge as a product of power perpetuated by discourses. (...) The critical theorists exist to deconstruct these discourses and make their oppressive nature visible. This results in the breakdown of boundaries and categories through which we understand things like emotion and reason, fact and fiction, male and female. It also produces a profound cultural relativism and a neurotic focus on language and language policing as well as a rejection of individuality and humanism in favor of identity politics. This is a problem because of the resulting threats to freedom of belief and speech, the divisive tribalism and the rejection of science, reason and liberalism.

I am always wary of speaking in terms of attacks on the “West” because postmodernism, CSJ and the kind of postcolonial and decolonial theory that forms part of it is very much a Western phenomenon. It doesn’t really have much of a presence anywhere else yet. Meanwhile, the antidote to it—science, reason, and liberalism—are values held by people everywhere. However, it is fair to say that postcolonial theory and postmodernism generally demonizes the West as a colonial, white supremacist, capitalist dystopia. Its greatest threat is to science and rigorous empirical research and its problematization of all historical figures and drive to “decolonize” knowledge.

Is there hope in the academy for a renaissance? Will reason, logic, rational discourse, and a commitment to universal liberal values prevail? Or have things turned an irreversible corner? Are these activist scholars and their work national security threats?

(...) However, I do think we should not underestimate the current threat. I don’t think it would be going too far to say that what we are witnessing right now is an attempted cultural revolution. I don’t think it can win in the long term because it is too irrational and self-contradictory and results in circular firing squads. The big question is what will push it back? My fear is that it will be a populist, anti-intellectual, anti-equality movement from the Right and that this would be just as illiberal as Critical Social Justice and could actually roll back advances made for racial, gender, and LGBT equality.

(...) It amuses me that I am currently accused of being far-right by social justice types because, before I criticized CSJ, I focused on religious irrationalism and illiberalism and then I was accused of being far-left because I focused most on Christianity. However, I became far-right as soon as I extended the same criticisms to Islam. (...)

Quillettelta löytyy myös (heinäkuulta) juttu tuosta itse kirjasta.

https://quillette.com/2020/07/20/the-truth-according-to-social-justice-a-review-of-cynical-theories/

The Truth According to Social Justice—A Review of ‘Cynical Theories’

(...) Even when 150 artists and writers signed an open letter in none other than Harper’s Magazine, decrying “a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity,” the response from many has been to mock these concerns and dismiss them as “paranoid,” or “privileged.”

The backlash to the Harper’s Letter comes on the heels of John McWhorter’s thesis that anti-racism is a new religion, David French suggesting that a secular fundamentalist revival is occurring on the Left, and Andrew Sullivan asking whether “intersectionality [is] a religion?” In short, there is indeed something of a militant crusade that lies at the heart of what Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay call “Social Justice in Action,” the title of chapter nine in their sensational new book, Cynical Theories, which explains “How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity―and Why This Harms Everybody.”

(...)

The book explains a half-century arc of intellectual history culminating in our current state of histrionic overreach in the name of social justice. Cynical Theories superbly exposes a history of ideas which, in challenging unifying narratives and universal values, have come to threaten free speech, honest debate, and the valuing of reason itself.

The story begins in universities and culminates in the dogmas of Social Justice. However Pluckrose and Lindsay do not suggest that working towards a more just society is an unworthy cause. They argue instead that the crusade marching in the name of critical social justice is often not about social justice at all. It is about a nakedly illiberal set of cynical theories that find their origin in the ideas of postmodern intellectuals dating back to the late 1960s. These ideas have coalesced into a central thesis which posits that truth, knowledge, and morality are so wrapped up in discourses of power and privilege that they must be understood as socially constructed rather than as the fruits of objective inquiry. In the words of Robin DiAngelo, “there is no objective, neutral reality.”

If there is a mantra for postmodernism the denial of objective reality would be it. (...)

From the opening pages, one gets the sense that Pluckrose and Lindsay have immersed themselves in every noteworthy work of postmodern scholarship available. They begin by identifying two postmodern principles and four postmodern themes. The postmodern knowledge principle refers to a “radical skepticism about whether objective knowledge or truth is obtainable and a commitment to cultural constructivism.” The postmodern political principle is the “belief that society is formed of systems of power and hierarchies, which decide what can be known and how.” The four postmodern themes are: (1) the blurring of conceptual boundaries such as that between health and sickness or truth and belief, (2) the power of language to construct reality rather than to merely articulate the intent of an author or an objective reality that we can discover, (3) cultural relativism, and (4) the loss of the individual or a universal human nature in favor of compilations of socially constructed intersectional identities.

(...)

This summary necessarily oversimplifies a half-century of evolving ideas. Indeed, Pluckrose and Lindsay devote six of their 10 chapters to explaining how these ideas have morphed and mutated, beginning with postcolonial theory, and working their way into queer theory, several waves of feminism, gender studies, disability and fat studies, critical race theory, and intersectionality. They demonstrate an impressive erudition as they analyze postmodern texts to uncover the meaning of things like standpoint theory, epistemic violence, and positionality, and explain how social justice scholars resolve the contradiction between “radical relativism and dogmatic absolutism” by favoring “interpretations of marginalized people’s experience” which are “consistent with Theory” while explaining away all others as an internalization of dominant ideologies or cynical self-interest.

(...) In this phase, social justice activism treats Theory as reality, and thus as the one and only way to view and interpret reality.

And so what we are left with is “The Truth According to Social Justice.” Teaching, write Pluckrose and Lindsay, “is now supposed to be a political act, and only one type of politics is acceptable—identity politics, as defined by Social Justice and Theory.” In this third phase, postmodernism pushes into everything, applying its deconstructive methods everywhere in the task of creating social change. Not without noticing the inherent irony, they observe that “postmodernism has become a grand, sweeping explanation for society—a meta-narrative—of its own.” As such, it functions as a set of pre-existing theories into which activists shoehorn the situational intricacies of experience. This has led to the dogmatism we see in militant social justice activism, “a tradition of faith that is actively hostile to reason, falsification, disconfirmation, and disagreement of any kind.”

As Theory developed, however, reasonable and humane concerns about oppression and marginalization mutated into an ideological virus spreading through scholarship and society (...) The Truth According to Social Justice abandons the liberal commitment to reason, science, and debate as a failure to “decolonize” our minds from the influence of Enlightenment institutions erected to benefit straight, white men. In sum, politics matters more than truth.

What Cynical Theories expresses is not a paranoid state of mind. It is a genuine concern about the threat that social justice activism, identity politics, and the legacy of postmodernism poses to Enlightenment liberalism and the belief that “disagreement and debate [are] means to getting at the truth.” The book explains how we have arrived at a state in which social justice scholarship treats the principles and themes of postmodernism as The Truth, where no dissent is tolerated, and anyone who disagrees must be cancelled.

Ja vieläpä yksi Pluckrosen kirjoitus parin viikon takaa, alussa ollut lainaus on tästä kirjoituksesta. Omasta mielestäni Pluckrose ei vieläkään ole täysin ymmärtänyt tilanteen vakavuutta.

https://areomagazine.com/2020/12/02/is-critical-social-justice-the-biggest-problem-in-the-world/

Is Critical Social Justice the Biggest Problem in the World?

I have always disagreed with people who liken the aims of Critical Social Justice (CSJ) activism to those of communist regimes. Last year, I still believed that, unlike communism, which has a clear end game of seizing the means of production for the proletariat, CSJ cannot become totalitarian because it is too contradictory, divided and irrational and too often operates like a circular firing squad since its proponents often lack a common goal.

(...)

However, over the over the past six months, it has become clear that CSJ can become totalitarian. Beginning in 2019, factionalism within CSJ has been gradually replaced by hierarchies. First, white women ceased to be a priority: the white women’s tears and Karen memes demonstrated their fall from oppressed to oppressor. White gay men also fell foul of the system by frequently failing to be woke and lesbians were automatically suspected of being TERFs (trans-exclusionary radical feminists). Asians, Jews and Hispanics became “white adjacent” because large numbers of them failed to espouse Critical Race Theory. Over the last six months, the idea of combating anti-blackness and transphobia has taken centre stage and, with it, totalitarian aims to revolutionise society by abolishing the police, compelling white people to confess their inherent complicity in white supremacy and punishing and silencing anyone who disbelieves in the queer and gender theories behind trans activism.

It should be clear by now that there is a genuine and serious problem here that affects the real world, not just the ivory tower and a few mad activists. There is ample evidence of Critical Race Theory and trans activism being imposed on the workplaces, universities and schools of average people. Anyone still claiming that the Social Justice left is just a few fringe loons must be wilfully blind.

(...)

Nevertheless, Critical Social Justice is a legitimate danger to liberal secular democracies.

We are in the midst of an attempted cultural revolution. This must be acknowledged, understood, faced head on and defeated.

People who anticipate that CSJ could evolve into something akin to a Maoist revolution complete with struggle sessions are not conjuring this possibility out of nowhere. Many people within the movement strongly advocate such a scenario and they enjoy a public respectability that right-wing authoritarian extremists do not. Neither are people wrong to think that Trump would oppose CSJ over-reach more forcefully than Biden will. Biden may not oppose it at all. This doesn’t make Trump a likely saviour of liberal, secular democracy, however.

(...)

This all adds up to a recipe for disaster unless the liberal left acts fast to publicly discredit Critical Social Justice and assert an alternative worthy of respect. At the same time, an ethical conservative right needs to reject populist conspiracy theories and post-truth narratives in favour of a rational and consistent conservatism that has integrity.

The question now is not which side is worse but: How can we, making common cause with people from both left and right, defend the values of liberal secular democracies, including freedom of belief and speech and respect for science and reason, and push back the ideological lunacy before it spirals out of control and takes all of us with it?

Erityisen vaaralliseksi tuon ideologian tekee se, että mielestäni (ja luultavasti muutaman muunkin Hommalaisen mielestä) monissa maissa perinteinen valtamätä ja superrikkaat globalistit (sekä oikealla että vasemmalla) ovat osittain liittoutuneet noiden hullujen kanssa, CSJ kun tarjoaa näppärän keinon hiljentää kaikki kritiikki ja eriävät mielipiteet, sekä suojella omaa mädättynyttä valtaa. Bidenkin tulee antamaan noiden hullujen puuhastella ihan rauhassa ja vapaasti, ehkä jopa kannustaa heitä, kunhan eivät liikaa käy vastustamaan valtaeliitin hankkeita. Kova usko tuntuu valtaeliitillä olevan siihen, että noita hulluja pystyy pidempiä aikoja kontrolloimaan.

Heitetään vielä loppuun joitakin aiempia, asiaan liittyviä (omia) kirjoituksia.

https://hommaforum.org/index.php/topic,126935.msg3218487.html#msg3218487
https://hommaforum.org/index.php/topic,117192.msg3221205.html#msg3221205
https://hommaforum.org/index.php/topic,130391.msg3225294.html#msg3225294
https://hommaforum.org/index.php/topic,128607.msg3230515.html#msg3230515

[Lalli IsoTalo]

Tutustamatta tähän aiheeseen sen tarkemmin: kaikki nämä vasemmiston "critical" -jutut kriittisiä vain kaikkea sitä kohtaan, mikä teki länsimaista maailman johtavan kulttuurin renessanssin jälkeen. Logiikka, tieteellinen ajattelu ja sen sellainen selkopäisyys on tarkoitus korvata kaiken sen vastakohdalla, jota kutsutaan länsimaiseksi sivistykseksi.

Tästä hyvä esimerkki on se, että kotimainen - eikä moni muukaan paikallinen Wikipedia - ei ole edes saanut suomennettua "critical thinking" -artikkelia, joka on länsimaisen tieteellisen ajattelun ytimessä.

Critical thinking is the analysis of facts to form a judgment. The subject ... generally include the
- rational,
- skeptical,
- unbiased analysis, or
- evaluation of factual evidence.

Vasemmiston "kriittisyys" on näennäismystistä kielenkääntötemppuilua, jonka tarkoitus on pitää orjat orjina, ja orjien isännät isäntinä.

Kriittinen ajattelu on se, mikä vapauttaa orjat isäntien vallasta.

Mutta se on myrkkyä eliitille. Vastalääkkeeksi eliitti on kehittänyt "kriittisen teorian", "kriittisen rotuteorian", "kriittisen sosiaalisen oikeusmukaisuuden" ja mitähän vielä seuraavaksi.

[nochWunder]

Näitä pukkaa koko ajan lisää. Nimiä ja käsitteitä. Ne voidaan tiivistää termillä alistustyökalut.

Kriittinen rotuteorian, intersektionaalinen feminismin ja tämä kriittisen sosiaalisen oikeuden taustalla on kehittää yliopistoissa välineitä joilla voidaan tieteellisessä viitekehyksessä luoda ihmisten sortovälineitä. Niiden avulla voidaan pikku hiljaa lykätä mm. oikeuslaitosta siihen suuntaan, että vääriajattelijoilta voidaan alkaa kohdella kuin elukoita ja siunata se toiminta oikein asiantuntijataholta.

Siksi minä vertaan tätä aikaa Natsisaksaan. Juutalaisille tehtiin paljolti samoja juttuja. Niillekin löydettiin tieteellinen viitekehys.

Dehumanisaatio, kriminalisaatio ja lopuksi kansanmurha.

[Chrattac]

Sen verran tuohon mun kirjasuositteluun lisään, että kirja on näemmä nyt Pirkanmaallekin hankinnassa, löytyy tunnuksilla kun hakee PIKI-puolelta (ei näemmä ilman tunnuksia) ja sitä voi jo varata. Suosittelen lämpimästi lukemaan kyseisen teoksen, sisältää hyvin paljon lainauksia ja lähdeviitteitä. Lainauksia lukiessa voi vain pyöritellä silmiään, että miten kummallisia (ja jopa vaarallisia) ajatusmalleja tuolla kuplassa on.

Nähdäkseni isoin ongelma on se, että näiden teorioiden dogmaan kuuluu se, että arvostelu painetaan villaisella. Perusteena on se, että ”teoriaa saa kyllä arvostella, mutta vain siltä kantilta, että teoria on oikeassa, muuta väittävät eivät vain ymmärrä teoriaa”. Lisämausteena se, että esimerkiksi intersektionaalisuudessa, jossa on koitettu määritellä esim millaista syrjintää vaikka musta transseksuaali lesbo kokee, mutta jos löytyy em. demografiaan kuuluva henkilö joka väittää teoriaa vastaan on kyseessä joko omanedun tavoittelu tai valkoisen patriarkaalisen ja kolonialistisen sortovallan aivopesemä henkilö, eikä näin hänen individualistisia kokemuksiaan tarvitse ottaa vakavasti.

Erityisen mielenkiintoista on noista polveutuva postkolonialistinen teoria, joka määrittelee esimerkiksi tieteen sorroksi sekä kolonialismiksi ja siten koittaa argumentoida, miksi sellainen länsimainen tiede ei sovellu esimerkiksi Intiassa tehtäväksi – ajatushan on ihan päätön ja intialaiset itsekin ovat ko. ajatusmallia oikeutetusti kritisoineet, mutta tällä ei tietenkään ole dogmaan mitään vaikutusta, koska he vain toteuttavat sortomalleja tietämättömyyttään. Löytyy myös ajatusmalleja, että ableismin syrjii tarkoituksella vammaisia (disabled) ja näiden vammaisuutta pitäisi juhlia, ajatus on sinällää hyvä mutta kun heitetään härän pyllyä, koska aihe juotetaan kiinni sellaiseen ajatteluun että esimerkiksi kuurona tai kuulovammaisena syntyneelle kuulokojeen hankkiminen olisi jonkinsortin väkivaltaa. Tai masennus on sellainen identiteetin osa, jota ei edes tulisi pyrkiä parantamaan vaan sitä pitäisi juhlia kuin jotain ihonväriä tai seksuaalista suuntautumista.

Suosittelen ehdottomasti hankkimaan kyseisen opuksen luettavakseen. Helmet alueella tosiaan on kirjastossa ja näemmä tulossa nyt myös Pirkanmaalle. Jos noilla alueilla ei asu ja kirjastosta ei opusta löydä voi aina toki laittaa menemään hankintaehdotusta, joka sitten johtaa johonkin tai ei johda mihinkään. Turussa ainakin taitaa moinen opus lentää suoraan uuniin poltettavaksi, ainakin muistelen että siellä taisi olla tämä epämiellyttävien kirjojen tuhoamisella kehuskellut kirjastotäti.

E: Pari typoa

[hamppari]

Nähtävästi nämä Social Justice Warriors on samaa porukkaa. Youtubeen kun laittaa hakusanoiksi vaikka "sjw fails", niin näkee näitä idiootteja toiminnassa.

Toinen ryhmä, en tiedä onko samaa porukkaa, on Sovereign Citizens. Heidän mielestään esimerkiksi ajokorttia, vakuutuksia tai rekisteröintä ei autossa tarvita. "I'm not driving, I'm travelling." on heidän vakiovastauksenta poliisille. Ja lopputulos on useimmiten sama: poliisi särkee auton ikkunan, vetää sätkivän ja kiljuvan idiootin ulos ja paiskaa katuun. Bonuksena joskus taserikin surraa.

Kolmas idioottiporukka on First Amendment Auditors. He tunkevat kameroineen oikeustaloille, sairaaloihin ja mihin tahansa sisään pääsevät. He tulkitsevat, että heillä on oikeus kuvata missä vain, vaikka rikkoisivat muiden oikeutta yksityisyyteen. Nämä ovat kyllä niin häiritseviä videoita, että niistä ei pysty katselemaan kuin loppuratkaisun.

[Sator Arepo]

Vihollinen on hyvä tuntea, joten suosittelen hommalaisille tutustumista aihepiiriin. "Teoreetikkojen" omat tekstit ovat tavallaan paras lähde, mutta varsin usein ne on muotoiltu mahdollisimman monimutkaisesti ja vaikeatajuisesti. Tarkoituksena luonnollisesti se, että jutut vaikuttavat syvällisemmiltä kuin mitä ne todellisuudessa ovat, ja vähän yksinkertaiseksi itsensä tunteva lukija on valmiimpi nielemään ne pureksimatta.

Useimmille suosittelen New Discourses -sivustoa, jolla on myös YouTube-kanava. Siellä käydään näitä juttuja läpi suodattaen pois tuo tahallinen vaikeaselkoisuus, yksinkertaistamatta niitä kuitenkaan liikaa. Koska yksi kriittisen teorian käyttämä temppu on heidän ikioma jargoninsa, ja niiden ihmisten pilkkaaminen jotka eivät sitä sisäistä ("etkö sä edes tajua mitä valkoinen ylivalta tarkoittaa haha"), sivuilta löytyy myös ns. woke-sanakirja. Taustapiruna häärii zupin mainitsema James Lindsay.

[zupi]

Näitä pukkaa koko ajan lisää. Nimiä ja käsitteitä. Ne voidaan tiivistää termillä alistustyökalut.

Kriittinen rotuteorian, intersektionaalinen feminismin ja tämä kriittisen sosiaalisen oikeuden taustalla on kehittää yliopistoissa välineitä joilla voidaan tieteellisessä viitekehyksessä luoda ihmisten sortovälineitä.  (...)

Itse ymmärsin nuo kirjoittelut siten, että tämä CSJ:ksi nimetty teoria olisi se, mikä on "soluttautunut" ja muuttanut kaikki nuo yksittäiset "sosiaalisen oikeuden" liikkeet sellaisiksi paskatunkioiksi, mitä ne nykyisin ovat. Sinänsä nuo kaikki liikkeet lienee sellaisia, mitkä on aikoinaan alkaneet jostain ihan todellisesta tarpeesta / hyvästä tarkoituksesta, mutta ajan myötä muuttuneet sitten täysin toisenlaisiksi. Jos tuo ymmärrykseni on oikea, niin sitten voikin kiinnittää huomiota esim seuraaviin kohtiin:

It appears in activism as a drive to decolonize everything, see whiteness and white fragility everywhere and scrutinise language for evidence of transphobia, ableism and fatphobia.

Hostility to reason, objectivity, and Enlightenment universalism now disfigures some social science and humanities departments, and these alarming ideological trends have trickled down into mainstream culture where they affect the lives of ordinary people.

CSJ and the kind of postcolonial and decolonial theory that forms part of it is very much a Western phenomenon. It doesn’t really have much of a presence anywhere else yet. Meanwhile, the antidote to it—science, reason, and liberalism—are values held by people everywhere.

mock these concerns and dismiss them as “paranoid,” or “privileged.”

In this third phase, postmodernism pushes into everything, applying its deconstructive methods everywhere in the task of creating social change

Mielestäni tuota paskaa on alettu käyttää myös esim. pakolaisten/"turvapaikanhakijoiden"/maahanmuuton ja ilmastonmuutoksen vastaisten toimien kohdalla. Näilläkin molemmilla siis lienee ollut joskus aikoinaan ihan hyvä tarkoitus, mutta nyt ne on jalostettu noilla CSJ:n teeseillä ihan täysin muuksi. Suhtautuminen on sama, jos yrität selittää, ettei nykyisin länsimaissa suunnitelluilla toimilla näiden asioiden suhteen ole juuri mitään tekemistä järjen ja alkuperäisen tarkoituksen kanssa, verrattuna siihen, ettet ole valmis lankeamaan polvillesi tunnustamaan synnynnäistä rasistisuuttasi: Olet natsismusrassismus, joka ei välitä paskaakaan muista ihmisistä, oman kotimaan lapset mukaan lukien (jotka tulevat myös siis kärsimään hyvin pian hyvin kauhean kuoleman sinun kusipäisyytesi vuoksi).

Ja tästä päästäänkin sitten siihen, että kaikilla noilla liikkeillä tehdään nykyisin rahaa. Tai tarkemmin sanoen, rahaa siirretään tavallisten kansalaisten taskusta ihan muihin taskuihin. Maahanmuuton kohdalla rahantekorahansiirto taisi jo nousta vähän uudelle tasolle, mutta varsinainen kruununjalokivi on tietenkin ilmastonmuutoksen vastaiset toimet. Siksipä ne toimenpiteet pitääkin länsimaissa tehdä mahdollisimman typerillä ja kalliilla tavoilla. Ja eri mieltä olevat teilataan kunnon CSJ-tyyliin välittömästi.

En vaan edelleenkään usko, että tuo paska olisi levinnyt näin laajalle, ja edelleen leviäisi, ellei sillä olisi tosi isojen mätäpoikien ja -tyttöjen tuki. Ja tuon tuen syynä ei todellakaan ole mikään oikeudenmukaisuus. Luulenpa myös, ettei ilmastonmuutos ole sekään viimeinen asia, jonka kohdalla tuota sontaa käytetään kaiken (järkevän) vastustuksen eliminointiin.

Noiden hullujen ja superrikkaiden / valtaeliitin perverssin liittoutuman ymmärtäminen on vain jotenkin helpompaa, jos tuo CSJ ei kirjoituksen mukaisesti perustu kuin pieneltä osin marxismiin.

[Chrattac]

Itse ymmärsin nuo kirjoittelut siten, että tämä CSJ:ksi nimetty teoria olisi se, mikä on "soluttautunut" ja muuttanut kaikki nuo yksittäiset "sosiaalisen oikeuden" liikkeet sellaisiksi paskatunkioiksi, mitä ne nykyisin ovat. Sinänsä nuo kaikki liikkeet lienee sellaisia, mitkä on aikoinaan alkaneet jostain ihan todellisesta tarpeesta / hyvästä tarkoituksesta, mutta ajan myötä muuttuneet sitten täysin toisenlaisiksi. Jos tuo ymmärrykseni on oikea, niin sitten voikin kiinnittää huomiota esim seuraaviin kohtiin:

Itse asiassa kirjassaan Lindsay ja Pluckrose osoittaa, että juuret ovat postmoderneissa teorioissa (tässä tosin eksaktisti käyttäisin itse jälkistrukturalismiä) ja muun muassa Jacques Derridan luomaa dekonstruktioajattelua (Derrida itse käsitteli oikeastaan vain sanojen merkitystä) sovelletaan paljoltikin lähes kaikkeen. Toinen, mihin teoria pohjaa hyvin pitkälti on Michel Foucaultin valta-tieto kytkökseen, jossa muun muassa määritellään se, että itse yhteiskunnassa käytettävä tieto sisältää tietynlaisen valtarakenteen ja vallassa olevat määrittelevät sen, mitä tieto on. ”Power-Knowledge” -hakusanalla löytää aiheeseen liittyvää tietoa.

Tästä homma on sitten kasvanut, kun postmodernismi itsessään hylättiin ja jotkut väittävät sen kuolleen ja kuopatun. Todellisuus on se, että Foucaultin ja Derridan ajatukset muuttuivat 90-luvulle tultaessa pitkälti näiden nykyisten teorioiden mukana. On totta, että jo 90-luvun alussa muun muassa radikaalifeminismi nosti päätänsä, mutta ilmeisesti läpimurto sekoittumisen suhteen tapahtui vasta postkolonialististen teorioiden myötä. Näille toki olikin alkuun hyvä ajatus, mutta pitkässä juoksussa ne menivät metsään juuri mainitsemallani tavalla, jossa kaikki lännestä lähteneet asiat nähtiin jonkinsortin kolonialismina ja siten vaativat dekolonisaatiota. Postfeminismistä sitten nousi pystyyn queer-teoriat ja pienen jalostuksen mukana kriittiset rotuteoriat ja intersektionalismi. Uusina tulokkaina ovat sitten nämä ableistiset kannat sekä uusimpana läskitutkimus (tms, tiedä mikä olisi suomeksi hyvä nimi.), jotka puolestaan ovat lähes puhtaasti aktivistien omia tuotoksia.

Kuitenkin kokoajan mukana on Foucaultmainen ajattelu power-knowledgestä, jossa nähdään esimerkiksi ongelmana, ”problemaattisena” – kuten alan termistöön kuuluu – melkein kaikki yleisesti hyväksytty tieto, johtuen siitä että ajatuksena tieto on aina jonkinlaista vallankäyttöä. Onhan se toki osin selvää, että ”Tieto on valtaa”, tavalla tai toisella, mutta tässä yleisestään yleisesti kaikkeen tietoon aina luonnontieteistä alkaen. Teorioiden mukaan mikään tieto ei ole universaalia vaan kaikessa pitää ottaa huomioon paikalliset kultturirelativistiset tiedot ja henkilökohtaiset kokemukset maailmasta, jotka määritelmällisesti ovat yhtä päteviä selityksiä maailmalle kuin esimerkiksi suhteellisuusteoria.

Kummallisinta tässä on se, että teorioissa on kova tarve lokeroida ihmisiä identeettien mukaan. Kyseessä on nopealla vilkaisulla selkeä ristiriita, mutta tätä ei oteta huomioon kun käytännössä yksilö on aivopesty tai koittaa saada jonkinnäköistä valtaa itselleen jos hänen kokemukset ovat kovasti ristiriitaiset kollektiivisen identiteettiryhmän määriteltyjä kokemuksia vastaan. Teoriat eivät millään muotoa ole individualistisia ja toisinaan on jopa väitetty, että individualismi itsessään on jo rasistista.

Olette varmaan huomanneet, että erityisesti sanavapauteen suhtaudutaan kovin illiberaalisti noissa piireissä? Syynä on se, että osana kaikkia teorioita on kovin pitkälti sellainen diskurssianalyysi, jota sovelletaan lähes kaikkeen ja kaikkialle. Ovathan joidenkin mukaan sanat väkivaltaa jne. Tästä seuraa sitten myös kaikki nämä Suomessakin muodikkaasti heitellyt mikroaggressiot ynnä muut asiat, mitä kovasti ollaan joka puolella näkemässä. Sanojen määritteleminen väkivallaksi on ongelmallista, koska siihen perustuu puolestaan joidenkin mielestä oikeutus vastata epämiellyttävään puheeseen väkivallalla – olihan häntä kohtaan tehty väkivaltaa julkeasti lausumalla nuo epämiellyttävät sanat.

Mielestäni tuota paskaa on alettu käyttää myös esim. pakolaisten/"turvapaikanhakijoiden"/maahanmuuton ja ilmastonmuutoksen vastaisten toimien kohdalla. Näilläkin molemmilla siis lienee ollut joskus aikoinaan ihan hyvä tarkoitus, mutta nyt ne on jalostettu noilla CSJ:n teeseillä ihan täysin muuksi. Suhtautuminen on sama, jos yrität selittää, ettei nykyisin länsimaissa suunnitelluilla toimilla näiden asioiden suhteen ole juuri mitään tekemistä järjen ja alkuperäisen tarkoituksen kanssa, verrattuna siihen, ettet ole valmis lankeamaan polvillesi tunnustamaan synnynnäistä rasistisuuttasi: Olet natsismusrassismus, joka ei välitä paskaakaan muista ihmisistä, oman kotimaan lapset mukaan lukien (jotka tulevat myös siis kärsimään hyvin pian hyvin kauhean kuoleman sinun kusipäisyytesi vuoksi).

Ja tästä päästäänkin sitten siihen, että kaikilla noilla liikkeillä tehdään nykyisin rahaa. Tai tarkemmin sanoen, rahaa siirretään tavallisten kansalaisten taskusta ihan muihin taskuihin. Maahanmuuton kohdalla rahantekorahansiirto taisi jo nousta vähän uudelle tasolle, mutta varsinainen kruununjalokivi on tietenkin ilmastonmuutoksen vastaiset toimet. Siksipä ne toimenpiteet pitääkin länsimaissa tehdä mahdollisimman typerillä ja kalliilla tavoilla. Ja eri mieltä olevat teilataan kunnon CSJ-tyyliin välittömästi.

Rahaahan tällä tehdään. Ei mikään ihme, että esimerkiksi Robin DiAngelon täysin päätön teos White Fragility on keikkunut (saattaa edelleen keikkua) pitkään Jenkkien bestsellerien joukossa. Kyseistä teosta suositeltiin muun muassa opinto-ohjelmiin. Samalla Trump itse asiassa kielsi valtiohallinnossa kriittisen rotuteorian opettamisen, mutta Biden on ymmärtääkseni luvannut palauttaa sen pakolliseksi virkamieskunnalle. Luennoitsijat tekevät saarnaamalla näkymättömästä rasismista, piirileikeillä ja työntekijöitä rasisteiksi haukkumalla paljon tuohta, kun instituutiot ja suuryritykset tilailevat SJW:iden paineessa noita höpöhöpökoulutuksia, joihin työntekijöiden on pakko osallistua. Epäilemättä tuossa teollisuudessa siis raha liikkuu.

*White fragilityä kohtaan Karlyn Borysenko on antanut hyvää kritiikkiä alkaen tästä videosta.

En vaan edelleenkään usko, että tuo paska olisi levinnyt näin laajalle, ja edelleen leviäisi, ellei sillä olisi tosi isojen mätäpoikien ja -tyttöjen tuki. Ja tuon tuen syynä ei todellakaan ole mikään oikeudenmukaisuus. Luulenpa myös, ettei ilmastonmuutos ole sekään viimeinen asia, jonka kohdalla tuota sontaa käytetään kaiken (järkevän) vastustuksen eliminointiin.


Noiden hullujen ja superrikkaiden / valtaeliitin perverssin liittoutuman ymmärtäminen on vain jotenkin helpompaa, jos tuo CSJ ei kirjoituksen mukaisesti perustu kuin pieneltä osin marxismiin.

Iso syy tämän levinneisyyteen on se, että jenkkien yliopistoissa avoimesti koulutetaan tätä uskontoa, josta sen on annettu levitä. Alkuun naiivi ajatus oli se, että kun radikaalit opiskelijat joutuvat oikean elämän kanssa tekemisiin höpötys lakkaa. Ongelmaksi tulikin se, että teorioihin oli kehittynyt joskus 2000-2010 luvulla huomattava aktivistinen aspekti, joka ei tyytynyt enää pelkkään akateemiseen pohdintaan vaan vaati toimintaa. Pikkuhiljaa he siis alkoivat muokkaamaan työpaikkoja ja yhteiskuntaa heidän teorioilleen sopivaksi. Lisäksi monenkieliset pseudointellektuellit kielikoukerot ynnä muuta saavat tavantallaajan sekaisin ja toisaalta lietsottua vähemmän älykkäitä, mutta trendivirtauksia seuraavia aktivisteja (näitä, yliopistossa koulutettavia, joilla ei ole mitään oikeaa substanssiosaamista tuottaa akateemista tutkimusta sekä kouluja käymättömät kuten AntiFa-fasistit ja muut, jotka vain haluavat kuulua joukkoon. Vähän samaan tapaan kuin hippiliikkeessä joku New Age touhu). Aiemmin kirjoitin dogmaattisuudesta, erityinen ongelmaa tuottaa se, että kyseessä on oikeastaan enemmänkin nonteistinen uskonto kuin mikään tiede. Uskontoa ei saa kritisoida tai jos kritisoit et vaan ymmärrä. Uskonto ei voi olla väärässä. Polvistu tai tule canceloiduksi tai vähintään joudut tekemään katumusharjoituksia.

Ongelma oli se, että uskonto on ovelasti puettu tieteen kaapuun, mikä johti taas siihen, että sitä ei liberaalin länsimaisen sananvapausperiaatteen mukaan voi kieltää ja toisaalta yksi suuri hyve on akatemian ja yliopiston vapaus. Ongelmiahan ei olisi, jos kaikki teoriat altistettaisiin normaalille tieteelliselle kritiikille. Näin ei kuitenkaan ole, koska omien määritelmiensä mukaan kaikki kritiikki on absoluuttisen väärässä ja he ovat absoluuttisen oikeassa. Kritiikki yritetään vaientaa kaikin keinoin rasistiksi, transfobiksi, homofobiksi... ties miksikä haukkumalla ja ääriesimerkeissä canceloimalla (Jordan B. Petersen) tai esim. mellakoimalla (Evergreenin mellakat, Bret Weinstein).

Lopullinen tavoite on kuitenkin aina valta. Siksi muun muassa pitkä marssi instituutioihin ja suuryrityksiin on ollut käynnissä jo jonkin aikaa ja siksi esimerkiksi jenkkien puuhasteluissa homma näkyy huolestuttavalla tavalla eri instituutioissa. Jotkut suuryritykset nykyään palkkaavat jopa C-tasolle (Chief Diversity Officer) näitä SJW uskonsotureita. Wikipedian mukaan noin 20%:ssa fortune 500-firmoista löytyy jo kyseinen nimike.

E: Lisätty toiseksi viimeiseen kappaleeseen pari virkettä loppuun. Alkaen ”Ongelma oli se...”, jotka erotin myöhemmin erilliseksi kappaleeksi.
E2: lisätty sana ”elämä”, joka oli jostain syystä kadonnut kirjoituksesta kolmanneksi viimeiseen kappaleeseen.
E3: Amazon-linkki White Fragilityyn kuntoon.

[sancai]

Itse näen tämän ns. social justice-aatteen marxismista kehittyneen kulttuurimarxismin eli kriittisen teorian ja postmodernin käsitevääntelyn fuusioitumana.

Perinteistä marxismia aatteessa edustaa tavoite jakaa ihmisiä alistaviin ja alistettuihin luokkiin, mutta perinteisen marxismin vallankumouksellisuus muuttui kulttuurimarxismin kulttuurivallankumouksellisuudeksi, eli tavoitteeksi muuttaa tai kumota järjestelmä sen sisältä purkalla "rakenteita", joista vanhan yhteiskunnan realiteettien ja epäkohtien arveltiin johtuvan sen jälkeen kun kommunistit totesivat, että länsimaissa työväestöä ei enää saada kiihotettua kapinaan. Postmodernia ajattelua taas edustavat oudot valtavirtaistuneet teoriat vallasta ja näkyvyydestä: ns. representaatiosta tai marginalisoinnista, taipumus nähdä sanojen määrittävän todellisuutta ja halu nähdä faktat joustavana, subjektiivisena moninaisuutena. Juuri tällä postmodernilla elementillä äärimmäisen viisaatkin ihmiset oikeuttavat itselleen tämän aatteen valtavat sisäiset ristiriitaisuudet. Postmodernismia on esimerkiksi Hommaforumin käyttäjille kulttuurirelativismi, tai ns. gender-ideologia, missä kyseenalaistetaan biologisen sukupuolen olemassaolo uudelleenmäärittelemällä ja keksimällä uusia käsitteitä, koska sukupuolisuuden "rakenteiden" purkamisen koetaan edistävän kulttuurimarxistista vallankumousta.

Tämä postmoderni, tärkeilevä, ylemmyydentuntoinen, keisarin uudet vaatteet -tyylinen elementti on se uusi kulttuurimarxismin kärki, mikä iskee koulutettuihin ja vaikutusvaltaisiin piireihin. Enää ei kiihoteta proletariaattimassoja, vaan vallankumoukseen pyritään houkuttelemalla älymystö suorittamaan intellektuelli itsemurha. Länsimaissa onkin tapahtunut historiallinen käänne, ensimmäistä kertaa ikinä esimerkiksi Britanniassa työväenpuolue Labour on konservatiivipuoluetta suositumpi rikkaimpien keskuudessa ja päin vastoin.   

Suurin virhe, mitä länsimaiden oikeistolaiset ja keskustavasemmistolaiset tekevät jatkuvasti on tämän hulluuden vähättely ja sille nauraminen. Ylitunteelliset, nenälävistetyt, sinitukkaiset läskiaktivistit ovat toki naurettavia ja heikkoja ilmestyksiä, mutta erittäin vaikutusvaltaisille ja älykkäille ihmisille sopii vallan mainiosti, että me suuntaamme huomiomme nauramalla some-pelleille samalla kun he valloittavat megakorporaatioita, valtioiden virastoja ja valtamediaa. Siinä ei ole mitään hauskaa, että tämä kulttimainen aktivismi valtaa alaa kaikkialla yhteiskunnassamme.

[Lalli IsoTalo]

... hulluuden vähättely ...

Mitä vähemmän yhteiskunnassa on hulluutta, sitä paremmin kaikki yhteiskunnan jäsenet pärjäävät. Suomi oli sodan "häviäjä", mutta täällä ei ollut sodan jälkeen voimassa kovinkaan voimallisesti "isännät/orjat" -mentaliteetti. Parissa sukupolvessa noustiin maailmaan huipulle.

Mitä enemmän yhteiskunnassa on hulluutta, sitä suurempi hajurako eliitillä on orjiin, ja sitä heikommin yhteiskunnan jäsenet kokonaisuuteena pärjäävät.

Mielestäni tämä näyttää siltä, että vasemmiston "kriittiset" teoriat on luotu kasvattamaan kuilua isäntien ja orjien välillä, eikä kasvattamaan yhteistä kakkua, josta kaikille riittäisi enemmän. Esimerkiksi väestönvaihto Euroopassa koulutetuista eurooppalaisista kouluttamattomiin afrikkalaisiin ei varmasti tule lisäämään eliitin hyvinvointia, mutta se lisää eliitin ja orjien välistä kuilua. On vaikeaa olla vetämättä sellaista johtopäätöstä, että tämä tässä juuri on tavoitteena.

Teoriani: rahan rajahyöty on laskeva. Ensimmäisestä välimeveren huvilasta tulee eliitille hyötyä, sanokaamme vaikkapa 1000 yksikköä. Seuravastakin huvilasta tulee hyötyä, mutta vähemmän, esimerkiksi 800 yksikköä. Ja siitä sitten alaspäin. Kun on tarpeeksi huviloita, niistä on lopulta enemmän haittaa kuin hyötyä. Kuka esimerkiksi tarvitsee enemmän kuin 7 huvilaa ympäri maailmaa?

Jos hyödykkeen laskeva rajahyöty ei huvilatasolla oikein iske, niin mieti kuinka pullonavaajaa tarvitset mökillä. 1 = tosi tarpeen, 2 = hyvä olla varalla, 3 = ihan ok. 1000 pullon avaajaa = haitta. Mutta jos olet ainoa, jolla on pullonavaaja, kun muilla ei ole, olet kuningas. Se on valtaa. Teoriani mukaan vallan rahahyöty on nouseva.

Vastaavasti eliitti voi ostaa rahalla vain tietyn määrän rahahyödykkeitä. Näin ollen, vaikka orjat tuottaisivat isännilleen enemmän lisäarvoa tuottoisina yhteiskunnan jäseninä, nämä jäsenet eivät tuottaisi minkäänlaista lisäarvoa rahan kautta. Päinvastoin, ne uhkaisivat isäntiä. Ne uhkaisivat kuten Vanhan Testamentin rakentajat uhkasivat taivaassa olevaa jumalaa rakentamalla tornin, joka ulottuisi taivaaseen. Näen tämän VT:n kertomuksen käyttöohjeena eliitille: älä päästä orjaluokkaa yhdistymään, ja uhkaamaan eliitin asemaa.

Joten: sillä ei ole eliitille väliä, että hulluuden sponsorointi vähentää tuloja, koska se lisää valtaa, eliitin ja orjien välimatkaa. Tämä on teoriani: rahan rajahyöty on laskeva tietyn pisteen jälkeen, ja vallan rajahyöty on nouseva. Tämä saattaa olla oma ajatukseni.

[zupi]

(...)

Useimmille suosittelen New Discourses -sivustoa, jolla on myös YouTube-kanava. Siellä käydään näitä juttuja läpi suodattaen pois tuo tahallinen vaikeaselkoisuus, yksinkertaistamatta niitä kuitenkaan liikaa.  (...)

Otetaanpa tuolta nyt sitten vähän lainauksia parista viimeaikaisesta artikkelista. Mitenköhän ihmeessä minulle tuli Kiiluvasilmä mieleen lukiessani noita... Suomalaiset tuomioistuimet käväisi myös mielessä useampaan kertaan.

https://newdiscourses.com/2020/11/wokeness-threatens-rule-of-law/

Wokeness Threatens the Rule of Law

Here are two important ideas that currently exist in fundamental opposition to one another: “Reasonableness” and “Wokeness.”

In advanced legal systems, we depend upon the concept of “reasonableness” and specifically a standard known as the “reasonable-person standard.” This simply asks: what would be reasonable in, or what would a reasonable person make of, a given situation?

On the other hand, the “applied postmodern” ideologies that we refer to as “Wokeness” or “Critical Social Justice Theory” posit a concept of radical subjectivism and socialization into power-laden biases. In this worldview, there is no such thing as a “reasonable person,”  (...)

These ideas are wholly incompatible with one another. (...) they therefore present a significant threat to the very rule of law that makes liberal societies like ours possible — to say nothing of securing equal rights for all citizens.

It should be enough, then, to point out merely that the Woke ideology is both gaining significant amounts of power on nearly all levels — social, cultural, institutional, and legal — and is wholly inimical to the legal foundations of a free, liberal society filled with citizens who are equal under and before the law. In fact, just pointing this out should constitute an emergency for all classically and traditionally liberal-minded people, left, right, and center. The fact of the problem, however, raises an even darker specter that needs to be reckoned with as well: what would the Woke replace reasonableness and the reasonable-person standard with, if they gained enough means to do so?

The answer, as it always is with the Woke, is power that suits them and disenfranchises those who disagree with them. In place of reason, we would be given Critical Theories, mostly of identity, and our legal structure would have to be reorganized around these new principles.  (...) Our entire legal landscape would be reinterpreted under the assumptions that these unjust applications of systemic power are permanent so long as the system lasts, and therefore need constant redress.

(...)

These critical principles would also include the idea that the only people who make any sense are those who have a credible claim upon having experienced systemic oppression (...)

Under these assumptions, our legal system will corrupt itself into an identity politics-based replica of the worst failures of history, those in which some ruling capital-P Party becomes the basis for the law and its standards. That is, these assumptions aren’t just wholly incompatible with the idea of a free and liberal society, they are the guarantor of its replacement by a totalitarian ideology and Party designed to be favored by it.  (...)

https://newdiscourses.com/2020/11/how-wokeness-undermines-constitution/

How Wokeness Undermines The Constitution

“We live on stolen land.” So we’re told – repeatedly – and so we’re increasingly forced to repeat to ourselves in public-facing “land acknowledgments.” Solidifying this spurious message is one of the primary objectives of the Critical Theory of Postcolonialism. It is echoed in Critical Race Theory, which reminds us ad nauseum of an even more inaccurate claim that the American economy was built on stolen labor through the institution of slavery. To the casual observer, these narratives might spur reflective thought or even a critical consciousness, or they might only induce an eye roll, but they have a far more sinister application that can be seen quite clearly when one understands the subversive method of political activism employed by Critical Theory (“Woke”) activists.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects individuals in our society from illegal search and seizure of property without probable cause and a duly issued warrant consistent with it. It does not apply to stolen property. Suddenly, then, in the instant the popular Woke narrative above is juxtaposed with this idea, the property rights ensured by the Fourth Amendment come crashing down around us even while their guarantor remains fully intact and in precisely the same black and parchment print it has always been.  (...)

Put another way, as the Woke narratives about society and its “true” machinations gain sway, the fundamental protections of the Bill of Rights will increasingly be subverted. They will not be done away with but will be reinterpreted in total according to the usual double standards the Woke so successfully employ for themselves everywhere they gain the power to do so. This will happen without the need to change a single word.  (...)

Unlike traditional civil rights discourse, which stresses incrementalism and step-by-step progress, critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law. (p. 3, third edition, emphasis added)

It isn’t just the Fourth Amendment that can be subverted and repurposed to a Critical double standard within the purview of the Woke ideology, then. Equality, legal reasoning, rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law are all on the chopping block. Thus, any policy or contract can be manipulated in similar fashion, either by changing the meaning of the terms used in writing it or by changing the context in which they are to be understood. It is the latter of these that we see able to be employed against Fourth Amendment protections in the United States.

Consider the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects against self incrimination and ensures due process of law.  (...)

Given the context, this could turn the Thirteenth Amendment into a Woke weapon of ferocious power—as wouldn’t a fitting punishment for complicity in a system that enabled and profited from slavery be some involuntary servitude, once one is duly convicted by a Woke court? The Eighth Amendment would offer no protection against this as a “cruel and unusual punishment,” as that idea risks being interpreted under a Woke rubric where one’s privilege mitigates or even eliminates the authenticity of one’s suffering.

There’s no harbor in the Sixth Amendment either (...)

This line of thinking could extend to almost anything, applying to any number of laws, policies, contracts, and even the text of the Constitution and its Amendments—even without changing a word of them (as they are seeking to do in California currently). The Nineteenth Amendment, guaranteeing no abridgment of suffrage based upon sex, is frequently attacked in Woke circles for being racist (...)

That is, even the Constitution offers us uncomfortably little protection against Woke totalitarianism as the Woke gain cultural hegemony and, as a result, control over ever more levers of power. Theirs is a war waged at the levels of interpretation, meaning, and context, and until we stand up firmly against their empowerment, we risk finding out in very disquieting ways just how crucial those can be.

Mielipuolista sinänsä, mutta jälleen pitää palata maahanmuuttoon ja ilmastonmuutokseen, ja tähän kohtaan:

Thus, any policy or contract can be manipulated in similar fashion

Mutta eihän nyt toki maailmassa ole ihmisiä, jotka olisivat valmiita tukemaan ja käyttämään hyväksi näitä mielipuolisia teorioita ja niitä kannattavia hulluja, saavuttaakseen itselleen lisää valtaa ja mammonaa, eihän... Niin kuin kukaan ei ole käyttänyt hyväkseen korona-virusta saavuttaakseen itselleen lisää valtaa ja mammonaa, eihän... Tai joidenkin elämässään epäonnistuneiden huumeveikkojen kuolemaa. Joiden kuolema on omasta mielestäni suurelta osin seurausta näiden samojen moraaliposeeraavien paskapäiden tekosista, jotka tätä woke-sontaa kannattavat.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2020/06/29/climate-change-racism/

Climate change is also a racial justice problem

Normally, I use this column to respond to questions from readers about climate change. But — amid our ongoing national reckoning with racism prompted by the unequal impacts of the covid-19 pandemic, the recent killings of African Americans at the hands of police, and 400 years of history — this was the question on my mind.

(...)

Racism is “inexorably” linked to climate change, said Penn State meteorologist Gregory Jenkins, because it dictates who benefits from activities that produce planet-warming gases and who suffers most from the consequences.

(...)

In a course he teaches called “Climate Change, Climate Justice and Front Line Communities,” Jenkins traces this connection from slavery, which created the economic foundation for the industrial revolution, to modern-day policies that influence where people live and environmental risks to which they are exposed.  (...)

Racial inequality also means that the people most at risk from climate change have the fewest resources to cope. (...)

“Unless inequity is addressed now,” Jenkins said, “future impacts from climate change will disable many communities of color.”

(...)

“These same exploits that are causing climate change on a massive scale … are causing very immediate health problems in areas inhabited by black and brown people,” Newsome said. “You can’t afford to not care about it when you’re part of these marginalized communities.”

(...)

Meanwhile, kids of color are spearheading America’s youth climate movement. A Washington Post-Kaiser Family Foundation poll in 2019 found that at least twice as many black and Hispanic teens participated in school walkouts on climate change than their white counterparts; they were also more likely to say people need to take action in the next year or two.

“Climate change is the most immediate threat for the marginalized people of this country and of the world,” Newsome said. “But that also means we are the most quick to act.”

The world of climate activism has historically been dominated by white men, (...)

“Seeing the incredible disproportionate impacts, the flooding, the heat,” she continued, “young people are saying, ‘That is wrong. We have to do something about it.’”

Voi vattu tuota kusipäistä aivopesua. No, seuraavaan...

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jun/18/environmental-justice-means-racial-justice-say-activists

Environmental justice means racial justice, say activists

Coronavirus has emphasised health, social, economic and environmental inequalities facing BAME people

Tackling systemic racism is fundamental to achieving environmental and climate justice, according to leading activists, as Covid-19 disparities and the global uprising against police brutality lay bare the ramifications of racial inequalities in every sphere of life.

A wave of protests demanding an end to racist policing have taken place in towns and cities across the world amid mounting evidence that brown, black and native communities have also been disproportionately impacted by the coronavirus pandemic.

Increasingly, experts and protesters have identified racial injustice as the common denominator in police violence, as well as environmental and health inequalities linked to poor Covid-19 outcomes. And on the streets, what started as Black Lives Matter protests have morphed into a movement for racial justice amid growing recognition that systemic racism denies people of colour equal access to economic, social, environmental and climate justice, as well as health equity, political power, civil rights and human rights.

(...)

As the crowds have grown, so have demands for radical reforms.

“Racism is built into America’s DNA, and since 1619, black Americans have had to endure this violent and oppressive system … Covid 19 exposed our nation’s racial divide,” said Robert Bullard, distinguished professor of urban planning and environmental policy at Texas Southern University and co-chair of the National Black Environmental Justice Network (NBEJN).

(...)

“Environmental racism kills, air pollution and rollbacks to environmental protections and regulations make it hard for black people to breathe. At NBEJN we are connecting the dots,” said Bullard.

Globally, the environmental and climate movement has long faced criticisms of failing to understand the crucial role of racial justice in terms of both impact and solutions.

(...)

The UK has lagged behind. But widespread protests in solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement have also evolved into a reckoning with Britain’s racist past and present - including within the environmental movement.

(...)

Income inequality and job insecurity also play a part. Kissi-Debrah says black people in the UK are less affluent than other ethnic groups, and less likely to be able to spare time for meetings, protests or lobbying actions.

(...)

“If you look globally at what happened to climate, a disproportionate amount of blame does need to go to the global north, especially the former colonial powers. Environmental reparations are owed,” said Krishnan. “And more thought needs to be given to solutions. The idea of carbon offsets simply reinscribes colonial frameworks.”

(...)

“In recent weeks, the protest movement is really helping. People are more open to listen. It made people realise the US is not the only country with a systematic problem of racism,” she said. “We need a moment to really think how we relate to one another... The toxic system is something that we all have to live with.”

(...)

“To the white people who care about maintaining a habitable planet, I need you to be actively anti-racist. I need you to understand that our inequality crisis is intertwined with the climate crisis. If we don’t work on both, we will succeed at neither.”

Ei mahda mitään, tämän hulluuden, tyhmyyden ja kusipäisyyden kanssa vaan loppuu sanat kesken, kerta toisensa jälkeen.

[zupi]

Itse näen tämän ns. social justice-aatteen marxismista kehittyneen kulttuurimarxismin eli kriittisen teorian ja postmodernin käsitevääntelyn fuusioitumana.

(...)

Lindsay olikin kirjoittanut tästä kehityskulusta helmikuussa hyvän artikkelin. Teitkin muuten juuri pahan virheen kun käytit "social justice" nimitystä... 

Naming the Enemy: Critical Social Justice

Over the last few years, it has become apparent that, for whatever nobility and moral worth lies in the project called “social justice,” something has gone badly wrong with the ideological movement on the far left that repeatedly calls for—or, more accurately, demands—it.  (...)

The strength of the social justice brand is, in fact, entirely reasonable. It fights for social justice, which not only sounds good but is something most of us generally support. (...) The overwhelming majority view and broad liberal consensus is that we should have societies that are as fair and kind as it is possible to be, even if we don’t all agree on what fairness and kindness look like or what the limits of possibility are.

Still, the ideological movement that’s visibly more likely to carry pitchforks than water for the cause of social justice has become a menace and threatens to become a tyrant, and this is a shame. We risk losing a lot of progress at the hands of this abominable fumble. Something claiming to speak for social justice is rotten, and I am declaring that something the enemy of free, civil, and liberal societies. This may be seen as controversial, but the dispute is borne in ignorance. It, itself, openly and admittedly begins and ends with a ruthless criticism of liberalism and free societies, which it deems as inherently and systemically oppressive.

Attempts to name this ideological enemy—for enemy it is—are therefore necessary so that we might frame our arguments against it with the requisite precision and clarity needed to challenge it, but they are also fraught. One might be tempted to call it the Social Justice Movement or Social Justice ideology or just Social Justice made into a proper noun, as many have, including myself and my colleagues. This clearly has its problems. It feeds into exactly the nearly perfect branding that the movement wants, it risks the genuinely positive valence of that which genuinely deserves the name “social justice,” and it places people who understand, thus resist, this parasitic ideology on a back foot of having to explain why on Earth they’d be against social justice in the first place.

It’s quite the pickle. (...)

From similar quarters, then, we might hear the movement called “Cultural Marxism,” probably more than half rightly, but for all the truth this carries, it’s a difficult—and icky—position to defend. (...)

Complicating the problem of naming the enemy in the “woke” ideology of Social Justice further is that what’s going on with this movement today is undeniably postmodernist (and poststructuralist)—despite protestations from overly narrow philosophers who contend that postmodernism proper died out thirty years ago. This makes it even more difficult to get anything Marxist, Marxian, or even Marxish to stick to the effort to create social justice, no matter how accurately the terms at hand might apply.

The unavoidable issue is that the postmodernists were, themselves, not Marxists or even Neo-Marxists like in the Frankfurt School (...)

This means that the postmodernists, socialistic or even communist in orientation as they might have been (and they were), were far too pessimistic, cynical, and nihilistic to be real Marxists, structuralists, or anything–stable-ist of any kind. That would have required precisely the kind of commitment they studiously avoided by writing thousands of pages to declare it naive, foolish, idealistic, out-of-touch, and in immediate need of deconstruction. (...)

(...) Indeed, much of the existing literature around this problem studiously avoided naming it, lending strength to the postmodernism at its heart, which made it very frustrating and difficult from a communications point of view.

(...)

Still, it’s nearly always best to name your enemy something that they would or do call themselves, when you can, because then they can’t deny that the name fits. (...)

Fortunately, two critical educators, Ozlem Sensoy and Robin DiAngelo, the latter of which is quite well-known and can thus be treated as representatively authoritative, provided me with a solution to this naming problem in their 2012 education manual Is Everyone Really Equal? They, themselves, call what they’re presenting critical social justice. This fits. I’ve just added capitals to make sure we understand the proper noun for what it is—the enemy, which we can now name: Critical Social Justice. This is how they introduced this concept to the world:

(...)

Even though it’s not 250 words long, there’s so much in that introductory passage about Critical Social Justice that we could spend pages and pages discussing it, but let me draw your attention to a few key points that characterize Critical Social Justice and identify it—not social justice—as the right target, thus the right name for this enemy of free societies.

First, note that the authors take pains to explain not only that Critical Social Justice isn’t what most people mean by “social justice,” it’s also something so distinct from social justice that “some scholars and activists prefer to use the term social justice in order to reclaim its true commitments.” That is, Critical Social Justice does not have the same “true commitments” to social justice as most people. They tell us explicitly that people with ”mainstream standpoints” about social justice mean something entirely different than what they will describe. This leads us to a staggering conclusion: Critical Social Justice doesn’t represent social justice. It represents a particular approach to that idea that must be distinguished from social justice lest people confuse the two.

Second, observe that the authors indicate explicitly that what sets Critical Social Justice apart is that it relies upon a critical theoretical approach. This is, in fact, the belly of the beast. It also makes clear why there’s so much weight to the wide-ranging attempts to brand this enemy with terms like Neo-Marxism, New Left (liberationism), and Cultural Marxism. Put simply, they’re not wrong. Critical Social Justice is critical theory. Moreover, this status is precisely what sets it apart from “mainstream standpoints” on social justice—the ones that represent its “true commitments.”

Third, pause to appreciate the fourth bullet point given above telling us what Critical Social Justice stands for: “Social injustice is real, exists today, and results in unequal access to resources between groups of people.” Volumes could be written on this point alone—and perhaps they should be. “Social injustice is real.” That is, Critical Social Justice begins with a reification of social injustice. This seems like a small point, perhaps even an obvious one, but it’s a very big one that takes a little explaining.

Of course, before proceeding, it is quite clear to virtually everyone that social injustices do occur and have occurred in far greater levels in the past; I will not and would not deny that. It’s also quite clear to the majority of us that these social injustices legitimately represent a problem that deserves our attention; this I fully agree with. This, however, is where the postmodern context of Critical Social Justice has to be brought into scrutiny. (The above discussion of this point on my part aside, Sensoy and DiAngelo mention these roots, along with those in the Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School, a few pages after the above passage.)

Because Critical Social Justice is postmodernist in orientation as well, for it nothing is objectively real. Everything, and very much not least knowledge, is under postmodernist thought merely a contrivance of social constructions, which are in turn reflections of social power and its concentrations (“positionality” “must be engaged”). Race is a social construct; okay, fine, probably so. Gender is a social construct; erm, maybe, but we’ll let you (mostly) have it. Biological sex is a social construct; wait, what? Various theorists take their social constructivism more or less neat as compared with others, but the general attitude of antirealism at the heart of postmodern thought and the Critical Social Justice movement is hardly a matter of legitimate controversy. The postmodern view is that, short of our own unnarrated subjective experience, everything in human life is a socially contingent construct. Reality may be out there, but we can’t know it.

Under Critical Social Justice, however, social injustice is real, like really real. (It is, after all, a matter of unnarrated subjective experience.) That is, Critical Social Justice roots itself in a worldview that denies that anything is real (as opposed to being socially constructed), that objective truth isn’t possible (in the general sense, not the philosophically technical one), but that the subjective experience of injustice or oppression isn’t just valid or important but objectively real in how our societies are structured. Note well: “Critical social justice recognizes inequality as deeply embedded in the fabric of society (i.e., as structural), and actively seeks to change this.” This, by the way, reminds us that the postmodern (i.e., poststructuralist) roots of Critical Social Justice are utterly central to its worldview.

Though it goes too far afield for this essay, the subject of how postmodernism mutated, not died, to admit the Critical Theory of the Neo-Marxists in limited, class-disinterested fashion is developed at length in my forthcoming book with Helen Pluckrose, Cynical Theories. Interested readers are strongly encouraged to have a look.

Fourth, notice the focus upon social activism. The passage just quoted indicates that Critical Social Justice “actively seeks to change” the “fabric of society,” which it deems as being “structurally” unjust. That means that signing up for Critical Social Justice carries with it signing on to a badly designed bid for social revolution that seeks to dismantle the current fabric of society. Dismantle it, though, and replace it with… what? Replace it with Critical Social Justice, of course, which is to say critical theory that operates in service to Cultural Marxism (the conflict theory, not the conspiracy theory) using postmodern social theory as its primary apparatus.  (...)

Unsurprisingly, then, this commitment is to be serious, as indicated in the next-to-last bullet point in their list: “Those who claim to be for social justice must be engaged in self-reflection about their own socialization into these groups (their ‘positionality’) and must strategically act from that awareness in ways that challenge social injustice.” Must. Must. Twice this sentence explains that it isn’t sufficient to be for social justice, to care about fairness, or to work for equality. You have to sign up for the revolution, and the revolution starts with you.

It’s right there in black and white: to claim to be for Critical Social Justice, one must interrogate themselves and society, and one must “act strategically” from that awareness—a critical consciousness—“in ways that challenge social injustice.” This is consistent with the demand, reaching all the way back to Max Horkheimer’s description in 1937 that a Critical Theory must be applicable by social activism, and it is a core demand of Critical Social Justice today. It also extends that demand to a program Spanish Catholics in the fifteenth century would have been proud of.

Hence, fifth, and last (so as not to belabor the point), the last bullet point on their list admonishes that to sign up for Critical Social Justice requires a commitment; a lifelong commitment to an ongoing process that results from a personal awakening to a critical consciousness. That is, it’s a faith. It’s a faith that requires not only penitence but evangelism, since it can’t yet apply torquemada (except metaphorically and applied in a social fashion) (torquemada viittaa inkvisitioon).

Critical Social Justice is a kind of religious worldview that seeks to enforce Critical Social Justice and produce more activists for Critical Social Justice. These will be critical theorists and activists who claim to be about social justice when they are, in fact, about critical theories. Rather than a God to worship and serve, the upside-down postmodern faith of Critical Social Justice offers an Enemy—systemic injustice—to destroy, and whatever remains or gets erected in place of what it deconstructs will then be subject to the same fate.

This probably isn’t what you think you’re defending when you, as a good and decent person who cares about people and the problems of society, defend social justice. Most of the people who support it have no idea because they, like most normal people, have never read the primary literature. The fact is, Critical Social Justice is not about social justice at all; it has stolen social justice from the people who care about it and need it most.

I therefore propose that the enemy we face is not social justice, though it will tend to wear this name as a suit of armor. We should clearly and consistently name this thing Critical Social Justice, and it will be up to us to learn to tell the difference. Again, enemy it is—of all free societies and the overwhelming majority of those who would live within them. I therefore further propose that we should use this name, learn to differentiate the two, and hold the Critical Social Justice ideology to its commitments: an anti-liberal fusion of postmodern theory and Neo-Marxist Critical Theory. Then we can be clear that Critical Social Justice has co-opted the very idea of social justice from those who wish to promote its true commitments, as they, themselves, openly recognize, and we can do something about it.

https://newdiscourses.com/2020/02/naming-enemy-critical-social-justice/

Kyllä aika helvetinmoisen paskakakun ovat vasurit rakentaneet. Ja sitten vielä yksi tuon paskakakun innokkaimmista kiillottajista on edennyt jo Suomen sisäministeriksi... Ja valtamedia jatkuvasti esittää tuon kannattajat jonkinlaisina todellisina "sosiaalisen oikeuden" tavoittelijoina ja suurina esikuvina. On tämä hienoa.

Ongelma voi juurikin olla tuo, että tämäntapaiset teoriapläjäykset eivät oikein leviä suuren yleisön keskuuteen. Christopher Rufohan on lähtenyt liikkeelle vähän eri taktiikalla, eli hän pyrkii tuomaan esiin sitä, mitä tuo sonta tarkoittaa käytännössä. Viimeisin esimerkki alla, kannattaa lukea koko ketju (kohteena yllättäen opettajat):

SCOOP: Seattle Public Schools tells teachers that the education system is guilty of “spirit murder” against black children and that white teachers must “bankrupt [their] privilege in acknowledgement of [their] thieved inheritance.”

Let's review the whistleblower documents.👇

— Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) December 18, 2020

Tuosta oli juttu myös NY Postissa:

https://nypost.com/2020/12/17/indoctrinating-an-entire-school-system-in-pc-racism/

En nyt tuosta ala enää lainailemaan, samat asiat käydään kootusti läpi tuossa twiitti-ketjussa.

Laitetaan nyt tämäkin tähän, ei ehkä kuitenkin niin irrallisena asiana...

Media assured me that suggesting that the far left is genocidal was a conspiracy theory. pic.twitter.com/1L0c38IJAL

— Cernovich (@Cernovich) December 19, 2020

[zupi]

Kannattaa nykyhallituksen aikana olla Suomessakin aika tarkkana, mitä sitä siellä koulussa oikein puuhaillaan. 

Pitkä ketju.

1/ 🚨BREAKING: Lawsuit filed today against educational agencies, teachers, principal, & CEO responsible for hosting workshops requiring children to make public professions about their racial, sexual, gender & religious identities, some of which were singled out for interrogation. pic.twitter.com/bwyd7lV8An

— Colin Wright (@SwipeWright) December 23, 2020

3/ The educators "repeatedly threatened William Clark with material harm including a failing grade and non-graduation if he failed to comply with their requirements." pic.twitter.com/GFPct6PAuz

— Colin Wright (@SwipeWright) December 23, 2020

17/ COUNT VII: (Breach of Contract)

Parents were essentially fooled into approving of the new curriculum because the ideological alterations were not made apparent. The same old syllabi were used, so parents were "caught off guard." pic.twitter.com/0J8kCSv8uA

— Colin Wright (@SwipeWright) December 23, 2020

19/ What follows is a selection of class materials that the children were exposed to and expected to believe without question.

▫️Internalized oppression
▫️Internalized privilege
▫️Institutional sexism/racism/transphobia pic.twitter.com/fMtwtkkN41

— Colin Wright (@SwipeWright) December 23, 2020

26/

▫️Calls for students to "unlearn" certain beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors (aka brainwashing)

▫️How families and religion, as well as other institutions, are oppressive

▫️Internalized oppression pic.twitter.com/g51GkUIgUb

— Colin Wright (@SwipeWright) December 23, 2020

[zupi]

Kouluista kun tuli puhe... Tuossa twiittiketjussa tulee hyvin kuvattua vihavasurien normitaktiikka, ja normilopputulos.

1/ The Dalton School in Manhattan is having a race meltdown. It's absolutely insane. Teachers are holding the school for ransom with demands, but they're so extreme the school will crumble if they give in. But they'll crumble if they don't, too!

Here are some of the demands: pic.twitter.com/bbf33PoCFR

— Colin Wright (@SwipeWright) December 19, 2020

3/ Other schools & universities should take note. Giving in to this ideology is not a winning strategy. Hiring diversity officers will not improve your situation. Diversity officers are good at one thing: finding reasons to justify hiring more diversity officers.

— Colin Wright (@SwipeWright) December 19, 2020

5/ The list of demands is only the short version. There are actually 24 much more expansive demands that span 8 full pages! Here they are below.

Source: https://t.co/X7z1P9ZOZT pic.twitter.com/H947jjTfuL

— Colin Wright (@SwipeWright) December 19, 2020

Pistetään nyt tämäkin...

IMPORTANT THREAD 🧵👇

Many people scoff at my progressive ideas and predictions.

But eventually, they *always* come true.

So I thought I’d start compiling a list of every time I was ahead of the curve...

— Titania McGrath (@TitaniaMcGrath) December 18, 2020

[zupi]

Nimimerkillä joutuu tämäkin kirjoittelemaan… Kirjoitusta lukiessa ymmärtää jälleen, miten näppärästi perinteinen, läpimätä valtaeliitti nykyään käyttää hyväkseen / tekee yhteistyötä noiden mielipuolien kanssa. Mitäänhän tuo ensiksi mainittu porukka ei halua enempää kuin totalitarismia ja sensuuria.

Ei ole muuten ensimmäinen kirjoitus, jonka perusteella saa vähän sellaisen käsityksen, että nuo CSJ-sotilaat ovat vähän kuin narkkareita, ja huumeena on kuviteltu moraalisen ja sosiaalisen ylemmyyden tunto. Yleisempi kuvaus taitaa kuitenkin olla myös tässäkin kirjoituksessa esiin nostettu kiihkouskovaisuus.

https://newdiscourses.com/2020/12/university-woke-mission-field-dissident-womens-studies-phd-speaks-out/

The University as the Woke Mission Field: A Dissident Women’s Studies Ph.D. Speaks Out

I have a Ph.D. in Women’s Studies, but I’m not woke anymore. I write under a pseudonym because, if my colleagues were to find out about my criticisms of this field, I would be unable to find any employment in academia. That someone who critiques the axioms of a field of study feels compelled to write under an assumed name tells you everything you need to know about the authoritarianism underpinning this ideology. I no longer believe that the fundamental ideas of Women’s Studies, and of Critical Social Justice more generally, describe reality; they are at best partial explanations—hyperbolic ideology, not fact-based analysis. I have seen this ideology up close and seen how it consumes and even destroys people, while dehumanizing anyone who dissents.

I’m sad to say it, but I believe that Critical Social Justice ideology—if not beaten in the war of ideas—will destroy the liberal foundation of American society. (…) Far from being counter-cultural, Critical Social Justice ideology is now the cultural mainstream. A diverse spectrum of liberals, libertarians, conservatives, and all others who, to put it bluntly, want the American constitution to continue to serve as the basis for our society have to team up to prevent this ideology from destroying our country.

I became “woke” around 2003, so I have nearly two decades of experience with Critical Social Justice ideology. (…)

(…) I naively assumed that professors are among the smartest people in the country, and I had no idea that the professoriate is heavily slanted to the ideological left. I now understand that Critical Social Justice professors are evangelists for their faith and the university is their mission field. Their goal is to take young students—inexperienced, eager to succeed—unmoor them from any faith tradition they might have, even if it’s just American civics, and replace that with Critical Social Justice ideology. And, for the most part, these professors succeed. They are, on the whole, likable people—energetic, personable, and caring.

My first encounters with Critical Social Justice came during the feminism unit of this course, which included works by Simone de Beauvoir, Betty Friedan, Angela Davis, (…) Critical Social Justice ideas felt intoxicating, like stumbling onto a portal into a new world. I felt like a detective, with my newly developing critical consciousness understanding society for the first time—all the oppression, the sexism, racism, the evils of capitalism, and so on. It felt righteous, like I was part of a counter-cultural movement, a vanguard helping to bend the arc of the moral universe toward justice.

(…)

My foray into radical politics ended around the time I started a master’s program in creative writing. (…)

When I began my Ph.D. program in 2013 at a highly ranked university, I began to see that something about my new colleagues was different from what I remembered about my colleagues just a few years earlier. (…)

I realized that Critical Social Justice was no longer a fringe intellectual field of study, but a real force that was reshaping the university. (…) Around this time, I became extremely disturbed when, while serving on a committee that gave writing awards, I was attacked by other committee members for judging on merit, for not taking into account skin color or gender.

Yet I don’t think I fully understand the authoritarian aspects of woke ideology until after Trump won the 2016 election. In late 2016 and early 2017, I witnessed shocking behavior from my colleagues, who began attacking Republicans, white people, conservatives, and Christians as oppressors. They attacked free speech, saying that some people did not deserve a platform because they were engaging in “hate speech.” I argued that there isn’t a clear definition of what constitutes hate speech; and that the constitution protects all speech, save for incitement to imminent lawless action. For saying this, I was attacked as stupid, a bad person, a “right-winger.” Early in Trump’s administration, one of my colleagues said that political violence was justified as a response to his “evil” policies. While I’m no fan of Trump, I oppose violence—a basic principle I thought that all Americans shared. It was in this context that I became disillusioned with the ideology in which I had been immersed for years.

I decided to seek out and try to understand other points of view, so I read books by authors to whom I had never been exposed, such as F.A. Hayek, Ronald Bork, Jonathan Haidt, Thomas Sowell, and others. I began to read and listen to conservative, classically liberal, and libertarian thinkers—people whose ideas I had never encountered in all my years of so-called “higher” education. I listened with an open mind, and I didn’t see any hatred from these thinkers. On the contrary, I discovered carefully reasoned, evidence-based arguments that had much greater explanatory abilities than anything I’d read in the Critical Social Justice literature.

I realized that Critical Social Justice ideology is not only intellectually vacuous; it is downright dangerous, and that the reason it has captivated so many minds is not because of the strength of its ideas, but because it has succeeded in silencing more reasonable and time-tested principles. (…) Sadly, American universities are, for the most part, not marketplaces of ideas, but mere echo chambers.

It is an obvious fact that all civilizations must pass on their values to the young; if they do not, or if the young are taught different values, then the civilization cannot sustain itself. (…) Suffice it to say that our universities are so infected with Critical Social Justice ideology that they are probably not salvageable at this point.

(…)

However, people committed to liberal values have many significant disadvantages in this fight. (…) Liberals are committed to Enlightenment values of reasoned debate, pursuit of truth, the scientific method, fact-based analysis, and treating people as individuals, not as groups. In contrast, the woke view these Enlightenment values as a white supremacist project; wokeness advances primarily through underhanded tactics: histrionic open letters that accuse ideological opponents as traumatizing and even threatening the very existence of people of color, cancel culture, flash mobs, protests that sometimes devolve into riots, and so forth. Worse, the entrenchment of Critical Social Justice ideology in academia, mass and social media companies, philanthropic foundations, corporate human resources departments, federal and state administrative bureaucracies, and Silicon Valley—combined with surveillance technology—points toward the emergence of a social credit system similar to what exists now in China. Liberals, in short, are bringing the proverbial knife to a gun fight. But we must fight. There is no other choice.

In closing, I want to offer some thoughts on how to defeat Critical Social Justice ideology. If we want to understand why this ideology is winning over the young, we have to understand its appeal. American culture is becoming increasingly secular, which means that more young people don’t have a faith tradition, and social justice ideology is, as many have discussed, filling a religious void. The woke have a messianic complex, a (if you’ll excuse the pun, millenarian) goal to remake society, and view anyone who is opposed to their project not as simply having a different worldview, but as evil. (…)

There is so little viewpoint diversity in academia that students don’t even realize that what they are being taught is an ideology, not factual analysis. As Niall Ferguson accurately put it, “North American academia is in the grip of a hideous mania, a cross between the early-modern witch craze and Mao’s Cultural Revolution, in which implacable zealots conduct grotesque show trials, innocent individuals have their reputations, careers and sanity destroyed, and everyone else cowers, terrified that they will be next to be ‘canceled.’” (Source: a blurb from Quillette’s new book, Panics and Persecutions). The American public university system—especially humanities and social sciences—is a cancer on society, as it is teaching students to hate their country and its core values. This is not to say that there shouldn’t be academic critiques of the country. On the contrary, critiques help to improve society. But we have reached a point where there are hardly any academics left to transmit the basic principles of the country.

(…)

One of the most urgent needs is the development of a grassroots movement for intellectual diversity on campus, spearheaded by students, alumni, parents, and concerned citizens. I hope that existing conservative, centrist, or libertarian organizations can help to facilitate this movement by providing organizational and logistical support at campuses throughout the country. Everyone should take a close look at their state’s public universities’ Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity initiatives to see if intellectual diversity is included. If it is not, then the obvious first step is to advocate for the inclusion of intellectual diversity. (…)

If America has any chance of continuing the classical liberal values upon which it was founded, then students who have a commitment to these values have to enter the teaching profession—as doctoral students in education, as administrators, and as public school teachers. (…) Critical race theory also needs to be resisted because it, as its own proponents assert, “questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law.” (Delgado and Stefancic, Critical Race Theory: An Introduction). (…)

Another important project should be the revival of Western civilization and Great Books courses, at all levels of education, but most critically in the universities. (…) An excellent example of a Western civ curriculum can be found in the James Madison program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University, which is dedicated to “exploring enduring questions of American constitutional law and Western political thought.” Another avenue is to look into funding institutes for education in Western civilization as a new department at extant colleges and universities.

I would love to see crowd-sourced funds used to construct a beautiful classical building adjacent to one of the ugliest college campuses in the country, preferably one composed entirely of postwar Brutalist buildings. (…)

In the long term, it is going to be necessary to create more universities devoted to classical education, not indoctrination into Critical Social Justice ideology, as well as more K-12 private and charter schools in the classical tradition because university schools of education have been training “social justice” educators for decades now, so Critical Social Justice ideology is now in the K-12 public schools. (…)

(…) Far from being a bastion of white supremacy, America’s liberal values are what have attracted people from all countries to undergo great hardship to come here, precisely because this is one of the few places in which ordinary people can exercise their talents to achieve a standard of living that is impossible in most of the world. It is my fervent hope that more American college students—especially the “woke” who rail against their own country as evil—would be required to spend a semester abroad in a developing country in order to gain some much-needed perspective on the struggles people face who were not fortunate enough to be born into such an “oppressive” place as America.

Lastly, I have focused mostly on academia and education because this is the sector I know best, but I strongly urge everyone, from all walks of life, to embrace your sense of humor (a quality that is conspicuously absent in woke culture). Wokeness should continue to relentlessly mocked and parodied through meme culture (Andrew Doyle’s Titania McGrath is a great example). Just as important: Be courageous. Stand up for the beliefs that have made America a great country. (…) I think a lot of liberals, like me, generally, if not naively, assumed that the liberal values underpinning America would simply continue throughout our lives, but these values are under attack and they need to be vigorously and unapologetically defended. Our civilization is at stake and the hour is late.

[Muhmutti]

Olis ihan jees, jos näihin englanninkielisiin artikkeleihin saisi sen suomennoksen. Ollaan kuitenkin Suomessa eikä jenkeissä.

[P]

Olis ihan jees, jos näihin englanninkielisiin artikkeleihin saisi sen suomennoksen. Ollaan kuitenkin Suomessa eikä jenkeissä.

Googlella voi tarvittaessa kääntää. Toimii Suomessakin.  Muunkielinen artikkeli on mukava lukea sillä muulla kielellä. Ei katoa mitään käännöksessä.

[Muhmutti]

Täysin eri mieltä. Tykkään lukea artikkelit suomeksi. Minusta on kohteliasta ja hyviin tapoihin kuuluvaa, että artikkelin lainaaja kääntää artikkelin. Tai edes referoi tärkeimmät kohdat suomeksi. En usko, että kovin moni olisi mielissään esim. portugalin tai vaikka kreikankielisistä artikkeleista.

[P]

Täysin eri mieltä. Tykkään lukea artikkelit suomeksi. Minusta on kohteliasta ja hyviin tapoihin kuuluvaa, että artikkelin lainaaja kääntää artikkelin. Tai edes referoi tärkeimmät kohdat suomeksi. En usko, että kovin moni olisi mielissään esim. portugalin tai vaikka kreikankielisistä artikkeleista.

Kuule. Näivettyy homma lopullisesti. Ei kenelläkään ole aikaa nyhvätä jotain englanninkielistä artikkelia suomeksi, kun suurin osa ihmisistä lukee englantia. Ei täällä olla kääntämistä harrastamassa. Sille puuhalle on omat sivustonsa.

[Lalli IsoTalo]

Täysin eri mieltä. Tykkään lukea artikkelit suomeksi. Minusta on kohteliasta ja hyviin tapoihin kuuluvaa, että artikkelin lainaaja kääntää artikkelin. Tai edes referoi tärkeimmät kohdat suomeksi. En usko, että kovin moni olisi mielissään esim. portugalin tai vaikka kreikankielisistä artikkeleista.

Kuule. Näivettyy homma lopullisesti. Ei kenelläkään ole aikaa nyhvätä jotain englanninkielistä artikkelia suomeksi, kun suurin osa ihmisistä lukee englantia. Ei täällä olla kääntämistä harrastamassa. Sille puuhalle on omat sivustonsa.

Tällä voi kääntää artikkelit jonkinlaiselle tönkkösuomelle, joiden tuominen tänne vain sotkisi ketjuja:

https://translate.google.fi/?hl=fi&tab=wT&sl=en&tl=fi&op=translate

[zupi]

En tiedä, oliko täällä jo viime jouluna, mutta joka tapauksessa...

Santa is a symbol of white patriarchy. He enters the home (womb) via the chimney (vaginal canal) to deposit his gifts (sperm).

Santa is a rapist.

Christmas is violence.#HappyKwanzaa pic.twitter.com/YSOMWB9iEe

— Titania McGrath (@TitaniaMcGrath) December 24, 2019

[Nuivettunut Han-nenetsi]

En tiedä, oliko täällä jo viime jouluna, mutta joka tapauksessa...

Santa is a symbol of white patriarchy. He enters the home (womb) via the chimney (vaginal canal) to deposit his gifts (sperm).

Santa is a rapist.

Christmas is violence.#HappyKwanzaa pic.twitter.com/YSOMWB9iEe

— Titania McGrath (@TitaniaMcGrath) December 24, 2019

Titania McGrath on Keijo Kaarisade-tyyppinen parodiatili jota ei pidä ottaa vakavasti vaan huumorilla. Lähinnä mielenkiintoista seurata ottaako joku todellinen intersektionalisti-wokeisti hänen twiittinsä tosissaan.

Titania McGrath (@TitaniaMcGrath) is a parody Twitter account created and run by comedian and Spiked columnist Andrew Doyle.

[zupi]

(...) Lähinnä mielenkiintoista seurata ottaako joku todellinen intersektionalisti-wokeisti hänen twiittinsä tosissaan.

(...)

Titanian "ennustuksilla" on ikävä kyllä tapana käydä toteen. Eiköhän sitä ensi jouluun mennessä rovion lieskat jo iske joulupukin parran korkeudella. Onhan tuo joulupukki nyt kaikessa valkoisuudessaan ja miehisyydessään vain vähän liian herkullinen kohde woke-porukalle. Tänä vuonna vielä pukki säästyi, kun ei päässyt koronan vuoksi liikkeelle...

Titanian ennustuksiin liittyen alla yksi artikkeli, mihin jo viitattiinkin tuossa aiemmassa Titanian toteutuneiden ennustusten twitter-ketjussa. Maailman ehkä arvostetuin lääketieteellinen julkaisu on siis julkaissut artikkelin, jonka mukaan sukupuoli pitää poistaa syntymätodistuksista "haitallisena"...  "Tiedettä" kun tehdään nykyisin some-tykkäysten, ja some-kritiikin, pohjalta. Ja kaikki varmasti tietää, ketkä sitä somea hallitsee.

https://quillette.com/2020/12/23/on-sex-and-gender-the-new-england-journal-of-medicine-has-abandoned-its-scientific-mission/

On Sex and Gender, The New England Journal of Medicine Has Abandoned Its Scientific Mission

Two years ago, “Titania McGrath,” whose satirical Twitter account regularly skewers the ideological excesses of social-justice culture, suggested that “we should remove biological sex from birth certificates altogether to prevent any more mistakes.” The joke (obvious to those who follow the culture wars closely, but perhaps obscure to those who don’t) was directed at gender activists who insist that male and female designations “assigned at birth” are misleading (and even dangerous), since they may misrepresent a person’s true “gender identity”—that internally felt soul-like quality that supposedly transcends such superficial physical indicia as gonads and genitalia.

But the line between satire and sincerity has become blurry on this issue. Last Thursday, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), widely considered to be the world’s most prestigious medical journal, published an article entitled Failed Assignments—Rethinking Sex Designations on Birth Certificates, arguing that (in the words of the abstract) “sex designations on birth certificates offer no clinical utility, and they can be harmful for intersex and transgender people.” The resemblance to Titania McGrath’s 2018-era Twitter feed is uncanny. Two of the authors are doctors. The third, Jessica A. Clarke, is a law school professor who seeks to remake our legal system so as to “recognize nonbinary gender identities or eliminate unnecessary legal sex classifications.”

The very idea of “a dichotomous sex-classification system” is dubious, the authors believe. And even if such a system were preserved, they write, it should be based “on self-identification at an older age, rather than on a medical evaluation at birth.” Sex designations on birth certificates, it is argued, “offer no clinical utility; they serve only legal—not medical—goals.”

(…)

While such arguments seem inconsistent with common sense (not to mention the daily diagnostic and treatment protocols employed by millions of doctors around the world), the fact that editors at such a prestigious journal as NEJM have chosen to assign credence to these arguments leaves us no choice but to unpack them.

(…)

Not only is biological sex a clinically significant factor in medicine, in many cases it is among the most important factors that a patient presents—even putting aside such obvious examples as prostate and uterine cancer, which afflict only males or females respectively.

(…) They state plainly that “efforts to bring sex and gender into the mainstream of modern medical research, practice, and education are urgently needed, as the lack of appreciation for sex and gender differences harms both women and men.”

So given this baseline of widely accepted medical knowledge about the important differences between the biologically male and female populations, why did NEJM publish Failed Assignments—Rethinking Sex Designations on Birth Certificates?

To help answer that question, consider the case of another misleading article: Lise Eliot’s appreciative Nature review of The Gendered Brain, a 2019 book by Gina Rippon that inaccurately claimed observed sex differences in the brains of males and females are largely a “myth” that reflects “neurosexist” bigotry. In a published response to Eliot’s credulous take on Rippon’s book, several experts reminded Nature‘s readers that “a variety of neurological and psychiatric conditions demonstrate robust differences between the sexes in their incidence, symptoms, progression and response to treatment… When properly documented and studied, sex and gender differences are the gateway to precision medicine.”

Now consider the different social-media imprints of these two Nature articles, as quantified by the website Altmetric, which tracks the degree to which scientific literature is reported by news outlets, blogs, and social-media users. As the accompanying image shows, the attention paid to Eliot’s positive review of Rippon’s dubious book on “Neurosexism” dwarfed the sober and factual debunking of it by a ratio exceeding 50:1.

Indeed, Nature‘s original “Neurosexism” piece immediately went viral on social media. It showed up in eight news outlets, five blogs, 6,543 tweets, 70 Facebook pages, and received mention on Wikipedia, Reddit, and three video sites. And why wouldn’t it? The idea that there are no sex differences in human neuroanatomy—that we are all blank slates, so to speak, and so any observable variation must be the result of cultural conditioning or sexist bigotry—always plays well in the lay media, as it accords well with the expansive progressive understanding of sexism. Meanwhile, the actual facts, boring as they may be to most social media users—that “a variety of neurological and psychiatric conditions demonstrate robust differences between the sexes in their incidence, symptoms, progression and response to treatment”—barely received any notice whatsoever.

And here we get to what has changed in recent years. Historically, scientific journalists and publishers worked within a professional milieu in which, with few exceptions, the judgments that mattered most were those rendered by other experts. But that’s now changed, thanks to social media. While the editors at such publications as Nature and NEJM may be excellent scientists, they also have the same appetite for praise and acceptance as everyone else. And if social media is telling them that a certain kind of article will mark them as enlightened, surely that will affect their choice of what to publish.

Not to mention, their choice of what to unpublish. On November 17th, Nature Communications published an article titled The Association Between Early Career Informal Mentorship in Academic Collaborations and Junior Author Performance, whose peer-reviewed results challenged the fashionable idea that same-sex mentoring arrangements help younger women. Needless to say, Twitter erupted in fury, leading to a slew of revisions that editors hoped would mollify critics. But that didn’t keep critics at bay. And so this week the article was retracted entirely, with the editors abjectly pledging to now “reflect on our editorial processes and strength[en] our determination in supporting diversity, equity and inclusion in research.” It’s hard not to read this as an admission that the publication will no longer even pretend to ignore ideological fashion in rendering its editorial judgments.

(…) The November 17th Nature paper was retracted despite being approved, in its multiple forms, by not one but two peer-review teams—while the NEJM and similarly prestigious publications now publish articles about sex and gender that plainly defy basic biological principles of sexual dimorphism understood even by small children.

(…)

As a biologist, I understand the terms that are being used here. But as a journalist, I get the sense that the authors’ primary goal is to overwhelm readers with specialized language that suggests an individual’s sex is the output of some complex equation (or, as the authors put it, “a function of multiple biologic processes”). Such language disguises the plain fact that sex is defined functionally based on the type of gamete (sex cell) that forms the basis for an individual’s reproductive anatomy. Males comprise the sex that produces small, motile sex cells (sperm); while females comprise the sex that produces large, sessile sex cells (ova). It doesn’t matter whether any individual can actually, or eventually does, produce gametes. An individual human being’s sex is determined by their primary sex organs, and an individual’s sex is accurately recorded over 99.98 percent of the time using genitals as a proxy for underlying gonad type.

(…)

While I have no reason to dispute the statistics cited here, it is stunning that this kind of logic would be featured in a scientific journal. “Identity”—including “gender identity”—is a socially constructed phenomenon that says nothing about one’s biological sex. And while it has always been known that some individuals are affected by gender dysphoria, the idea that biology shall be superseded by self-conceived gender identity—not only in the social and legal spheres, but also in some quasi-scientific sense—is a novel claim that would have seemed bizarre to everyone (including trans activists themselves) just a few years ago. Twitter and Tumblr are full of people who insist on the truth of this claim, of course. But they generally do so as activists and moralists—not as scientists.

(…)

Even “Titania McGrath” could scarcely have known how quickly such ideological fads would metastasize into medical literature. And it should be a source of shame for the editors of the NEJM that today’s published content now reads as a plagiarized rehash of yesterday’s farce.

[Muhmutti]

(...) Lähinnä mielenkiintoista seurata ottaako joku todellinen intersektionalisti-wokeisti hänen twiittinsä tosissaan.

(...)

Titanian "ennustuksilla" on ikävä kyllä tapana käydä toteen. Eiköhän sitä ensi jouluun mennessä rovion lieskat jo iske joulupukin parran korkeudella. Onhan tuo joulupukki nyt kaikessa valkoisuudessaan ja miehisyydessään vain vähän liian herkullinen kohde woke-porukalle. Tänä vuonna vielä pukki säästyi, kun ei päässyt koronan vuoksi liikkeelle...

Titanian ennustuksiin liittyen alla yksi artikkeli, mihin jo viitattiinkin tuossa aiemmassa Titanian toteutuneiden ennustusten twitter-ketjussa. Maailman ehkä arvostetuin lääketieteellinen julkaisu on siis julkaissut artikkelin, jonka mukaan sukupuoli pitää poistaa syntymätodistuksista "haitallisena"...  "Tiedettä" kun tehdään nykyisin some-tykkäysten, ja some-kritiikin, pohjalta. Ja kaikki varmasti tietää, ketkä sitä somea hallitsee.

https://quillette.com/2020/12/23/on-sex-and-gender-the-new-england-journal-of-medicine-has-abandoned-its-scientific-mission/

On Sex and Gender, The New England Journal of Medicine Has Abandoned Its Scientific Mission

Two years ago, “Titania McGrath,” whose satirical Twitter account regularly skewers the ideological excesses of social-justice culture, suggested that “we should remove biological sex from birth certificates altogether to prevent any more mistakes.” The joke (obvious to those who follow the culture wars closely, but perhaps obscure to those who don’t) was directed at gender activists who insist that male and female designations “assigned at birth” are misleading (and even dangerous), since they may misrepresent a person’s true “gender identity”—that internally felt soul-like quality that supposedly transcends such superficial physical indicia as gonads and genitalia.

But the line between satire and sincerity has become blurry on this issue. Last Thursday, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), widely considered to be the world’s most prestigious medical journal, published an article entitled Failed Assignments—Rethinking Sex Designations on Birth Certificates, arguing that (in the words of the abstract) “sex designations on birth certificates offer no clinical utility, and they can be harmful for intersex and transgender people.” The resemblance to Titania McGrath’s 2018-era Twitter feed is uncanny. Two of the authors are doctors. The third, Jessica A. Clarke, is a law school professor who seeks to remake our legal system so as to “recognize nonbinary gender identities or eliminate unnecessary legal sex classifications.”

The very idea of “a dichotomous sex-classification system” is dubious, the authors believe. And even if such a system were preserved, they write, it should be based “on self-identification at an older age, rather than on a medical evaluation at birth.” Sex designations on birth certificates, it is argued, “offer no clinical utility; they serve only legal—not medical—goals.”

(…)

While such arguments seem inconsistent with common sense (not to mention the daily diagnostic and treatment protocols employed by millions of doctors around the world), the fact that editors at such a prestigious journal as NEJM have chosen to assign credence to these arguments leaves us no choice but to unpack them.

(…)

Not only is biological sex a clinically significant factor in medicine, in many cases it is among the most important factors that a patient presents—even putting aside such obvious examples as prostate and uterine cancer, which afflict only males or females respectively.

(…) They state plainly that “efforts to bring sex and gender into the mainstream of modern medical research, practice, and education are urgently needed, as the lack of appreciation for sex and gender differences harms both women and men.”

So given this baseline of widely accepted medical knowledge about the important differences between the biologically male and female populations, why did NEJM publish Failed Assignments—Rethinking Sex Designations on Birth Certificates?

To help answer that question, consider the case of another misleading article: Lise Eliot’s appreciative Nature review of The Gendered Brain, a 2019 book by Gina Rippon that inaccurately claimed observed sex differences in the brains of males and females are largely a “myth” that reflects “neurosexist” bigotry. In a published response to Eliot’s credulous take on Rippon’s book, several experts reminded Nature‘s readers that “a variety of neurological and psychiatric conditions demonstrate robust differences between the sexes in their incidence, symptoms, progression and response to treatment… When properly documented and studied, sex and gender differences are the gateway to precision medicine.”

Now consider the different social-media imprints of these two Nature articles, as quantified by the website Altmetric, which tracks the degree to which scientific literature is reported by news outlets, blogs, and social-media users. As the accompanying image shows, the attention paid to Eliot’s positive review of Rippon’s dubious book on “Neurosexism” dwarfed the sober and factual debunking of it by a ratio exceeding 50:1.

Indeed, Nature‘s original “Neurosexism” piece immediately went viral on social media. It showed up in eight news outlets, five blogs, 6,543 tweets, 70 Facebook pages, and received mention on Wikipedia, Reddit, and three video sites. And why wouldn’t it? The idea that there are no sex differences in human neuroanatomy—that we are all blank slates, so to speak, and so any observable variation must be the result of cultural conditioning or sexist bigotry—always plays well in the lay media, as it accords well with the expansive progressive understanding of sexism. Meanwhile, the actual facts, boring as they may be to most social media users—that “a variety of neurological and psychiatric conditions demonstrate robust differences between the sexes in their incidence, symptoms, progression and response to treatment”—barely received any notice whatsoever.

And here we get to what has changed in recent years. Historically, scientific journalists and publishers worked within a professional milieu in which, with few exceptions, the judgments that mattered most were those rendered by other experts. But that’s now changed, thanks to social media. While the editors at such publications as Nature and NEJM may be excellent scientists, they also have the same appetite for praise and acceptance as everyone else. And if social media is telling them that a certain kind of article will mark them as enlightened, surely that will affect their choice of what to publish.

Not to mention, their choice of what to unpublish. On November 17th, Nature Communications published an article titled The Association Between Early Career Informal Mentorship in Academic Collaborations and Junior Author Performance, whose peer-reviewed results challenged the fashionable idea that same-sex mentoring arrangements help younger women. Needless to say, Twitter erupted in fury, leading to a slew of revisions that editors hoped would mollify critics. But that didn’t keep critics at bay. And so this week the article was retracted entirely, with the editors abjectly pledging to now “reflect on our editorial processes and strength[en] our determination in supporting diversity, equity and inclusion in research.” It’s hard not to read this as an admission that the publication will no longer even pretend to ignore ideological fashion in rendering its editorial judgments.

(…) The November 17th Nature paper was retracted despite being approved, in its multiple forms, by not one but two peer-review teams—while the NEJM and similarly prestigious publications now publish articles about sex and gender that plainly defy basic biological principles of sexual dimorphism understood even by small children.

(…)

As a biologist, I understand the terms that are being used here. But as a journalist, I get the sense that the authors’ primary goal is to overwhelm readers with specialized language that suggests an individual’s sex is the output of some complex equation (or, as the authors put it, “a function of multiple biologic processes”). Such language disguises the plain fact that sex is defined functionally based on the type of gamete (sex cell) that forms the basis for an individual’s reproductive anatomy. Males comprise the sex that produces small, motile sex cells (sperm); while females comprise the sex that produces large, sessile sex cells (ova). It doesn’t matter whether any individual can actually, or eventually does, produce gametes. An individual human being’s sex is determined by their primary sex organs, and an individual’s sex is accurately recorded over 99.98 percent of the time using genitals as a proxy for underlying gonad type.

(…)

While I have no reason to dispute the statistics cited here, it is stunning that this kind of logic would be featured in a scientific journal. “Identity”—including “gender identity”—is a socially constructed phenomenon that says nothing about one’s biological sex. And while it has always been known that some individuals are affected by gender dysphoria, the idea that biology shall be superseded by self-conceived gender identity—not only in the social and legal spheres, but also in some quasi-scientific sense—is a novel claim that would have seemed bizarre to everyone (including trans activists themselves) just a few years ago. Twitter and Tumblr are full of people who insist on the truth of this claim, of course. But they generally do so as activists and moralists—not as scientists.

(…)

Even “Titania McGrath” could scarcely have known how quickly such ideological fads would metastasize into medical literature. And it should be a source of shame for the editors of the NEJM that today’s published content now reads as a plagiarized rehash of yesterday’s farce.

Sukupuolesta ja sukupuolesta New England Journal of Medicine on hylännyt tieteellisen tehtävänsä

Kaksi vuotta sitten "Titania McGrath", jonka satiirinen Twitter-tili vääristää säännöllisesti sosiaalisen oikeudenmukaisuuden kulttuurin ideologisia ylilyöntejä, ehdotti, että "meidän pitäisi poistaa biologinen sukupuoli kokonaan syntymätodistuksista uusien virheiden estämiseksi". Vitsi (ilmeinen niille, jotka seuraavat kulttuurisotia tarkasti, mutta ehkä hämärtyvät niille, jotka eivät seuraa) kohdistui sukupuoliaktivisteihin, jotka väittävät, että "syntymän yhteydessä määritetyt" mies- ja naisnimitykset ovat harhaanjohtavia (ja jopa vaarallisia), koska ne voi vääristää henkilön todellisen "sukupuoli-identiteetin" - sisäisesti tuntemansa sielun kaltaisen laadun, joka oletettavasti ylittää sellaiset pinnalliset fyysiset merkit kuin sukurauhaset ja sukuelimet.

Raja satiirin ja vilpittömyyden välillä on kuitenkin hämärtynyt tässä asiassa. Viime torstaina New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), jota pidetään yleisesti maailman arvostetuimpana lääketieteellisenä aikakauslehtenä, julkaisi artikkelin nimeltä Failed Assignments - Rethinking Sex Designations on Birth Certificates, väittäen (abstraktin sanan mukaan) "sex syntymätodistusten nimitykset eivät tarjoa mitään kliinistä hyötyä, ja ne voivat olla haitallisia intersukupuolisille ja transsukupuolisille ihmisille. " Samankaltaisuus Titania McGrathin 2018-aikakauden Twitter-syötteeseen on surkea. Kaksi tekijää on lääkäreitä. Kolmas, Jessica A. Clarke, on lakikoulun professori, joka pyrkii uudistamaan oikeusjärjestelmäämme "tunnistamaan ei-binääriset sukupuoli-identiteetit tai poistamaan tarpeettomat lailliset sukupuoliluokitukset".

Ajatus "kaksisuuntaisesta sukupuoliluokittelujärjestelmästä" on kyseenalainen, kirjoittajat uskovat. Ja vaikka tällainen järjestelmä säilyisi, he kirjoittavat, sen pitäisi perustua "vanhempana olevaan itsetunnistukseen kuin syntymän lääketieteelliseen arviointiin". Sukupuolenimitykset syntymätodistuksissa väitetään ”tarjoavan mitään kliinistä hyötyä; ne palvelevat vain laillisia - ei lääketieteellisiä - tavoitteita. "

(…)

Vaikka tällaiset väitteet näyttävät olevan ristiriidassa terveen järjen kanssa (puhumattakaan päivittäisistä diagnoosi- ja hoitoprotokollista, joita miljoonat lääkärit ympäri maailmaa käyttävät), tosiasia, että niin arvostetun lehden kuin NEJM: n toimittajat ovat päättäneet osoittaa uskottavuuden näille argumenteille, ei jätä meille mitään vaihtoehto, mutta purkaa ne.

(…)

Biologinen sukupuoli ei ole vain kliinisesti merkittävä tekijä lääketieteessä, vaan monissa tapauksissa se on yksi tärkeimmistä tekijöistä, joita potilas esittää - jopa jättämällä sivuun sellaiset ilmeiset esimerkit kuin eturauhasen ja kohdun syöpä, jotka kärsivät vain miehistä tai naisista.

(…) He toteavat selvästi, että "ponnisteluja sukupuolen ja sukupuolen tuomiseksi nykyajan lääketieteellisen tutkimuksen, käytännön ja koulutuksen valtavirtaan tarvitaan kiireellisesti, koska sukupuoleen ja sukupuolieroihin liittyvän arvostuksen puute vahingoittaa sekä naisia ​​että miehiä".

Joten kun otetaan huomioon tämä yleisesti hyväksytyn lääketieteellisen tietämyksen tärkeät erot biologisesti mies- ja naispopulaatioiden välillä, miksi NEJM julkaisi epäonnistuneita tehtäviä - sukupuolenimitysten uudelleen miettiminen syntymätodistuksissa?

Auta vastaamaan tähän kysymykseen tarkastelemalla toisen harhaanjohtavan artikkelin tapausta: Lise Eliotin kiitollinen Nature Review of The Gendered Brain, Gina Ripponin vuoden 2019 kirja, jossa virheellisesti väitettiin havaitut sukupuolierot miesten ja naisten aivoissa, ovat suurelta osin "myytti", joka heijastaa "neuroseksististä" kiihkoilua. Julkaistussa vastauksessa Eliotin Ripponin kirjan uskottavaan otteeseen useat asiantuntijat muistuttivat Luonnon lukijoita siitä, että "erilaiset neurologiset ja psykiatriset tilat osoittavat sukupuolten välillä voimakkaita eroja esiintyvyydessä, oireissa, etenemisessä ja hoitovasteessa ... Kun ne on asianmukaisesti dokumentoitu ja tutkittu, sukupuoli ja sukupuolierot ovat portti tarkkuuslääketieteeseen. "

Harkitse nyt näiden kahden Luonto-artikkelin eri sosiaalisen median jälkiä, jotka on määritetty Altmetric-verkkosivustolla, joka seuraa, missä määrin tieteellistä kirjallisuutta raportoivat uutiset, blogit ja sosiaalisen median käyttäjät. Kuten oheisesta kuvasta käy ilmi, huomio, joka kiinnitettiin Eliotin positiiviseen arvosteluun Ripponin epäilyttävästä "neuroseksismia käsittelevästä" kirjasta, kääpiö sen raittiista ja tosiasiallisesta purkamisesta suhteella, joka ylitti 50: 1.

Luonnon alkuperäinen "neuroseksismi" -teos todellakin levisi heti sosiaaliseen mediaan. Se ilmestyi kahdeksassa uutiskanavassa, viidessä blogissa, 6543 twiittiä, 70 Facebook-sivulla ja sai maininnan Wikipediassa, Redditissä ja kolmessa videosivustossa. Ja miksi ei? Ajatus siitä, että ihmisen neuroanatomiassa ei ole sukupuolieroja - että me kaikki olemme niin sanottuja tyhjiä pöytiä ja minkä vuoksi kaikkien havaittavien vaihteluiden on oltava kulttuurisen ehdollistamisen tai seksistisen kiihkoilun tulos -, toimii aina maallikkovälineissä, kuten se sopii hyvin laajasti etenevän ymmärryksen seksismistä. Samaan aikaan tosiasiat, jotka ovat ikävystyttäviä useimmille sosiaalisen median käyttäjille - että "erilaiset neurologiset ja psykiatriset tilat osoittavat sukupuolten välillä voimakkaita eroja esiintyvyydessä, oireissa, etenemisessä ja vasteessa hoitoon", tuskin saivat minkäänlaista ilmoitusta .

[Muhmutti]

(...) Lähinnä mielenkiintoista seurata ottaako joku todellinen intersektionalisti-wokeisti hänen twiittinsä tosissaan.

(...)

Titanian "ennustuksilla" on ikävä kyllä tapana käydä toteen. Eiköhän sitä ensi jouluun mennessä rovion lieskat jo iske joulupukin parran korkeudella. Onhan tuo joulupukki nyt kaikessa valkoisuudessaan ja miehisyydessään vain vähän liian herkullinen kohde woke-porukalle. Tänä vuonna vielä pukki säästyi, kun ei päässyt koronan vuoksi liikkeelle...

Titanian ennustuksiin liittyen alla yksi artikkeli, mihin jo viitattiinkin tuossa aiemmassa Titanian toteutuneiden ennustusten twitter-ketjussa. Maailman ehkä arvostetuin lääketieteellinen julkaisu on siis julkaissut artikkelin, jonka mukaan sukupuoli pitää poistaa syntymätodistuksista "haitallisena"...  "Tiedettä" kun tehdään nykyisin some-tykkäysten, ja some-kritiikin, pohjalta. Ja kaikki varmasti tietää, ketkä sitä somea hallitsee.

https://quillette.com/2020/12/23/on-sex-and-gender-the-new-england-journal-of-medicine-has-abandoned-its-scientific-mission/

On Sex and Gender, The New England Journal of Medicine Has Abandoned Its Scientific Mission

Two years ago, “Titania McGrath,” whose satirical Twitter account regularly skewers the ideological excesses of social-justice culture, suggested that “we should remove biological sex from birth certificates altogether to prevent any more mistakes.” The joke (obvious to those who follow the culture wars closely, but perhaps obscure to those who don’t) was directed at gender activists who insist that male and female designations “assigned at birth” are misleading (and even dangerous), since they may misrepresent a person’s true “gender identity”—that internally felt soul-like quality that supposedly transcends such superficial physical indicia as gonads and genitalia.

But the line between satire and sincerity has become blurry on this issue. Last Thursday, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), widely considered to be the world’s most prestigious medical journal, published an article entitled Failed Assignments—Rethinking Sex Designations on Birth Certificates, arguing that (in the words of the abstract) “sex designations on birth certificates offer no clinical utility, and they can be harmful for intersex and transgender people.” The resemblance to Titania McGrath’s 2018-era Twitter feed is uncanny. Two of the authors are doctors. The third, Jessica A. Clarke, is a law school professor who seeks to remake our legal system so as to “recognize nonbinary gender identities or eliminate unnecessary legal sex classifications.”

The very idea of “a dichotomous sex-classification system” is dubious, the authors believe. And even if such a system were preserved, they write, it should be based “on self-identification at an older age, rather than on a medical evaluation at birth.” Sex designations on birth certificates, it is argued, “offer no clinical utility; they serve only legal—not medical—goals.”

(…)

While such arguments seem inconsistent with common sense (not to mention the daily diagnostic and treatment protocols employed by millions of doctors around the world), the fact that editors at such a prestigious journal as NEJM have chosen to assign credence to these arguments leaves us no choice but to unpack them.

(…)

Not only is biological sex a clinically significant factor in medicine, in many cases it is among the most important factors that a patient presents—even putting aside such obvious examples as prostate and uterine cancer, which afflict only males or females respectively.

(…) They state plainly that “efforts to bring sex and gender into the mainstream of modern medical research, practice, and education are urgently needed, as the lack of appreciation for sex and gender differences harms both women and men.”

So given this baseline of widely accepted medical knowledge about the important differences between the biologically male and female populations, why did NEJM publish Failed Assignments—Rethinking Sex Designations on Birth Certificates?

To help answer that question, consider the case of another misleading article: Lise Eliot’s appreciative Nature review of The Gendered Brain, a 2019 book by Gina Rippon that inaccurately claimed observed sex differences in the brains of males and females are largely a “myth” that reflects “neurosexist” bigotry. In a published response to Eliot’s credulous take on Rippon’s book, several experts reminded Nature‘s readers that “a variety of neurological and psychiatric conditions demonstrate robust differences between the sexes in their incidence, symptoms, progression and response to treatment… When properly documented and studied, sex and gender differences are the gateway to precision medicine.”

Now consider the different social-media imprints of these two Nature articles, as quantified by the website Altmetric, which tracks the degree to which scientific literature is reported by news outlets, blogs, and social-media users. As the accompanying image shows, the attention paid to Eliot’s positive review of Rippon’s dubious book on “Neurosexism” dwarfed the sober and factual debunking of it by a ratio exceeding 50:1.

Indeed, Nature‘s original “Neurosexism” piece immediately went viral on social media. It showed up in eight news outlets, five blogs, 6,543 tweets, 70 Facebook pages, and received mention on Wikipedia, Reddit, and three video sites. And why wouldn’t it? The idea that there are no sex differences in human neuroanatomy—that we are all blank slates, so to speak, and so any observable variation must be the result of cultural conditioning or sexist bigotry—always plays well in the lay media, as it accords well with the expansive progressive understanding of sexism. Meanwhile, the actual facts, boring as they may be to most social media users—that “a variety of neurological and psychiatric conditions demonstrate robust differences between the sexes in their incidence, symptoms, progression and response to treatment”—barely received any notice whatsoever.

And here we get to what has changed in recent years. Historically, scientific journalists and publishers worked within a professional milieu in which, with few exceptions, the judgments that mattered most were those rendered by other experts. But that’s now changed, thanks to social media. While the editors at such publications as Nature and NEJM may be excellent scientists, they also have the same appetite for praise and acceptance as everyone else. And if social media is telling them that a certain kind of article will mark them as enlightened, surely that will affect their choice of what to publish.

Not to mention, their choice of what to unpublish. On November 17th, Nature Communications published an article titled The Association Between Early Career Informal Mentorship in Academic Collaborations and Junior Author Performance, whose peer-reviewed results challenged the fashionable idea that same-sex mentoring arrangements help younger women. Needless to say, Twitter erupted in fury, leading to a slew of revisions that editors hoped would mollify critics. But that didn’t keep critics at bay. And so this week the article was retracted entirely, with the editors abjectly pledging to now “reflect on our editorial processes and strength[en] our determination in supporting diversity, equity and inclusion in research.” It’s hard not to read this as an admission that the publication will no longer even pretend to ignore ideological fashion in rendering its editorial judgments.

(…) The November 17th Nature paper was retracted despite being approved, in its multiple forms, by not one but two peer-review teams—while the NEJM and similarly prestigious publications now publish articles about sex and gender that plainly defy basic biological principles of sexual dimorphism understood even by small children.

(…)

As a biologist, I understand the terms that are being used here. But as a journalist, I get the sense that the authors’ primary goal is to overwhelm readers with specialized language that suggests an individual’s sex is the output of some complex equation (or, as the authors put it, “a function of multiple biologic processes”). Such language disguises the plain fact that sex is defined functionally based on the type of gamete (sex cell) that forms the basis for an individual’s reproductive anatomy. Males comprise the sex that produces small, motile sex cells (sperm); while females comprise the sex that produces large, sessile sex cells (ova). It doesn’t matter whether any individual can actually, or eventually does, produce gametes. An individual human being’s sex is determined by their primary sex organs, and an individual’s sex is accurately recorded over 99.98 percent of the time using genitals as a proxy for underlying gonad type.

(…)

While I have no reason to dispute the statistics cited here, it is stunning that this kind of logic would be featured in a scientific journal. “Identity”—including “gender identity”—is a socially constructed phenomenon that says nothing about one’s biological sex. And while it has always been known that some individuals are affected by gender dysphoria, the idea that biology shall be superseded by self-conceived gender identity—not only in the social and legal spheres, but also in some quasi-scientific sense—is a novel claim that would have seemed bizarre to everyone (including trans activists themselves) just a few years ago. Twitter and Tumblr are full of people who insist on the truth of this claim, of course. But they generally do so as activists and moralists—not as scientists.

(…)

Even “Titania McGrath” could scarcely have known how quickly such ideological fads would metastasize into medical literature. And it should be a source of shame for the editors of the NEJM that today’s published content now reads as a plagiarized rehash of yesterday’s farce.

Ja tässä pääsemme siihen, mikä on muuttunut viime vuosina. Historiallisesti tieteelliset toimittajat ja kustantajat työskentelivät ammattimaisessa ympäristössä, jossa muutamia poikkeuksia lukuun ottamatta tärkeimmät tuomiot olivat muiden asiantuntijoiden antamia tuomioita. Mutta se on nyt muuttunut sosiaalisen median ansiosta. Vaikka Nature- ja NEJM-julkaisujen toimittajat saattavat olla erinomaisia ​​tutkijoita, heillä on myös sama halu ylistää ja hyväksyä kuin kaikilla muillakin. Ja jos sosiaalinen media kertoo heille, että tietyntyyppinen artikkeli merkitsee heidät valaistuneiksi, se varmasti vaikuttaa heidän julkaisuvalintaansa.

Puhumattakaan siitä, että heidän valintansa mitä julkaista. Nature Communications julkaisi 17. marraskuuta artikkelin nimeltä Varhaisen uran epävirallinen mentoriyhdistys akateemisissa yhteistyössä ja nuorempien kirjoittajien suorituskyky, jonka vertaisarvioidut tulokset kyseenalaistivat muodikkaan ajatuksen, että samaa sukupuolta edustavat mentorointijärjestelyt auttavat nuorempia naisia. Tarpeetonta sanoa, että Twitter räjähti raivoissaan, mikä johti lukuisiin muutoksiin, joiden toimittajat toivovat lievittävän kriitikoita. Mutta se ei pitänyt kriitikoita kaukana. Joten tällä viikolla artikkeli vetäytyi kokonaan, ja toimittajat sitoutuivat epäilemättä "pohtimaan toimituksellisia prosessejamme ja vahvuuttamme päättäväisyyttämme tukea monimuotoisuutta, oikeudenmukaisuutta ja osallistumista tutkimukseen". On vaikeaa olla lukematta tätä myöntämiseltä, että julkaisu ei enää edes väitä sivuuttavansa ideologista muotoa toimituksellisissa tuomioissaan.

(…) 17. marraskuuta luontopaperi peruttiin huolimatta siitä, että kukaan muu kuin kaksi vertaisarviointiryhmää oli hyväksynyt sen useissa muodoissaan - kun taas NEJM: ssä ja vastaavan arvostetuissa julkaisuissa julkaistaan ​​nyt sukupuolta ja sukupuolta koskevia artikkeleita, jotka selvästi vastustavat biologisia perusperiaatteita seksuaalinen dimorfismi, jonka pienetkin lapset ymmärtävät.

(…)

Biologina ymmärrän tässä käytetyt termit. Mutta toimittajana minusta tuntuu, että kirjoittajien ensisijainen tavoite on ylittää lukijat erikoistuneella kielellä, joka viittaa siihen, että yksilön sukupuoli on jonkin monimutkaisen yhtälön tulos (tai, kuten kirjoittajat sanovat, "useiden biologisten prosessien funktio) ”). Tällainen kieli peittää yksinkertaisen tosiasian, että sukupuoli määritellään toiminnallisesti sen sukusolutyypin (sukupuolisolun) perusteella, joka muodostaa perustan yksilön lisääntymisanatomialle. Miehet käsittävät sukupuolen, joka tuottaa pieniä, liikkuvia sukupuolisoluja (siittiöitä); kun taas naaraat käsittävät sukupuolen, joka tuottaa suuria istumattomia sukupuolisoluja (munasoluja). Sillä ei ole merkitystä, kykeneekö joku tosiasiallisesti tuottamaan sukusoluja vai lopulta. Yksittäisen ihmisen sukupuoli määräytyy heidän ensisijaisten sukupuolielimiensä mukaan, ja yksilön sukupuoli kirjataan tarkasti yli 99,98 prosentissa ajasta käyttäen sukupuolielimiä taustalla olevan sukurauhastyypin sijaisena.

(…)

Vaikka minulla ei ole syytä kiistää tässä mainittuja tilastoja, on hämmästyttävää, että tällainen logiikka esitettäisiin tieteellisessä lehdessä. "Identiteetti" - mukaan lukien "sukupuoli-identiteetti" - on sosiaalisesti rakennettu ilmiö, joka ei kerro mitään biologisesta sukupuolesta. Ja vaikka on aina ollut tiedossa, että joihinkin yksilöihin kohdistuu sukupuolidysforiaa, on ajatus, että biologia korvaa itsekäs sukupuolinen identiteetti - ei vain sosiaalisilla ja oikeudellisilla aloilla, vaan myös joissakin lähes tieteellisessä mielessä - on uusi väite, joka olisi vaikuttanut oudolta kaikille (myös transaktivisteille) vain muutama vuosi sitten. Twitter ja Tumblr ovat tietysti täynnä ihmisiä, jotka vaativat väitteen totuutta. Mutta he tekevät niin yleensä aktivisteina ja moralistina - eivät tiedemiehinä.

(…)

Jopa ”Titania McGrath” tuskin olisi tiennyt, kuinka nopeasti tällaiset ideologiset villit metastasoituvat lääketieteelliseen kirjallisuuteen. Ja sen pitäisi olla häpeälähde NEJM: n toimittajille, että tänään julkaistu sisältö luetaan nyt eilisen farsin plagioiduksi uudelleenmuodostukseksi.

[zupi]

James Lindsay oli pistänyt joulupäivän kunniaksi aika tukevan artikkelin.

https://newdiscourses.com/2020/12/psychopathy-origins-totalitarianism/

Jos suhtautuu pessimistisesti siihen, mihin tämä nykymeno tulee johtamaan, niin tämä artikkeli ei ainakaan paranna fiiliksiä. Kun tietty porukka on rakentanut oman ”pseudo-todellisuutensa”, niin ennemmin tai myöhemmin paska osuu tuulettimeen. Ja mitä myöhemmin, sitä kovempaa. Samanlaisen päätelmän on moni Hommalainen tainnut tosin tehdä jo aiemmin…

Psychopathy and the Origins of Totalitarianism

Many of the greatest horrors of the history of humanity owe their occurrence solely to the establishment and social enforcement of a false reality. With gratitude to the Catholic philosopher Josef Pieper and his important 1970 essay “Abuse of Language, Abuse of Power” for the term and idea, we can refer to these alternative realities as ideological pseudo-realities.

Pseudo-realities, being false and unreal, will always generate tragedy and evil on a scale that is at least proportional to the reach of their grip on power (…) up to and including war, genocide, and even civilizational collapse, all of which can take many millions of lives and can ruin many millions more in the vain pursuit of a fiction whose believers are, or are made, sufficiently intolerant.

The Nature of Pseudo-realities

Pseudo-realities are, simply put, false constructions of reality. It is hopefully obvious that among the features of pseudo-realities is that they must present a plausible but deliberately wrong understanding of reality. They are cult “realities” (...)

Pseudo-realities are always social fictions, which, in light of the above, means political fictions. That is, they are maintained not because they are true, in the sense that they correspond to reality, either material or human, but because a sufficient quantity of people in the society they attack either believe them or refuse to challenge them. This implies that pseudo-realities are linguistic phenomena above all else, and where power-granting linguistic distortions are present, it is likely that they are there to create and prop up some pseudo-reality. This also means that they require power, coercion, manipulation, and eventually force to keep them in place. Thus, they are the natural playground of psychopaths, and they are enabled by cowards and rationalizers. Most importantly, pseudo-realities do not attempt to describe reality as it is but rather as it “should be,” as determined by the relatively small fraction of the population who cannot bear living in reality unless it is bent to enable their own psychopathologies, which will be projected upon their enemies, which means all normal people.

(…) In pseudo-reality, common sense is denigrated as bias or some kind of false consciousness, and science is replaced by a scientism that is a tool of power itself. (…)

It must be observed that people who accept pseudo-realities as though they are “real” are no longer normal people. They perceive pseudo-reality in place of reality, and the more thoroughly they take on this delusional position, the more functional psychopathy they necessarily exhibit and thus the less normal they become. Importantly, normal people consistently and consequentially fail to realize this about their reprogrammed neighbors. Perceiving them as normal people when they are not, normal people will reliably misunderstand the motivations of ideological pseudo-realists—power and the universal installation of their own ideology so that everyone lives in a pseudo-reality that enables their pathologies—usually until it is far too late.

As a result of this failure of perspective, many particularly epistemically and morally open normal people will reinterpret the claims of pseudo-reality into something that is plausible in reality under the usual logic and morals that guide our thinking, and this reinterpretation will work to the benefit of the pseudo-realists who have ensnared them. This sort of person, who stands between the real world and the pseudo-real are useful idiots to the ideology (…)

Pseudo-realities may have any degree of plausibility in their distorted descriptions of reality, and thus may recruit different numbers of adherents. They are often said to be accessible only by applying a “theoretical lens,” awakening a specialized “consciousness,” or by means of some pathological form of faith. Whether by “lens,” “consciousness,” or “faith,” these intellectual constructs exist to make the pseudo-reality seem more plausible, to drag people into participating in it against their will, and to distinguish those who “can see,” “are awake,” or “believe” from those who cannot or, as it always eventually goes, will not. That is, they are the pretext to tell people who inhabit reality instead of pseudo-reality that they’re not looking at “reality” correctly, which means as pseudo-reality. This will typically be characterized as a kind of willful ignorance of the pseudo-reality, which will subsequently be described paradoxically as unconsciously maintained. Notice that this puts the burden of epistemic and moral responsibility on the person inhabiting reality, not the person positing its replacement with an absurd pseudo-reality. This is a key functional manipulation of pseudo-realists that must be understood. The ability to recognize this phenomenon when it occurs and to resist it is, at scale, the life and death of civilizations.

(…) The nicer, more tolerant, and more charitable a community is, supposing it lacks the capacity to spot these counterfeits early on, the more susceptible its members will tend to be to these manipulations.

Tuo lienee vastaus siihen, miksi tämä hulluus leviää käytännössä vain länsimaissa.

Pseudo-realities and Power

The ultimate purpose of creating a pseudo-reality is power, which the constructed pseudo-reality grants in many ways. Though these means are many, we should name a few. First, the pseudo-reality is always constructed such that it structurally advantages those who accept it over those who do not, frequently by overt double standards and through moral-linguistic traps. Double standards in this regard will always favor those who accept pseudo-reality as reality and will always disfavor those who seek the truth. An ideological pseudo-reality must displace reality in a sufficient population to grant itself power to succeed in its goals. Linguistic traps will often employ strategic double meanings of words (…)

Second, the very assertion of pseudo-reality demoralizes all who are pressed into engaging with it by the mere fact of being something false that must be treated as true. We should never underestimate how psychologically weakening and damaging it is to be forced to treat as true something that is not true, with the effect strengthening the more obviously false it is. (…)

Thus, third, by trading off normal people’s assumptions that seemingly serious people care about what is true, they successfully force normal people to verify aspects of the pseudo-reality even in the act of denying it by getting the normal person to meet the ideologue part way. This is the relevance of pseudo-reality being pseudo-real, with greater plausibility strengthening the effect. That is, many normal people will fail to realize the pseudo-reality is false because they cannot see outside of the frame of normality that they charitably extend to all people, whether normal or not.

This dynamic bears a brief elaboration. Normal people do not tend to recognize that a broken logic and twisted morality is being used to prop up an ideological vision—a pseudo-reality—and that the mental states of the people within it (or held hostage by it) are not normal. Some among them, particularly the very but not exceptionally smart, thus skillfully reinterpret the absurd and dangerous claims of the pseudo-realist ideologues into something reasonable and sensible when, in fact, they are not reasonable or sensible. This, in turn, renders the pseudo-reality more palatable than it actually is and further disguises the distortions and underlying will to power presented by the ideological pseudo-realists. All of these features, and others, advantage the ideologue who, like some modern-day Zarathustra, speaks a pseudo-reality into existence, and all of these confer power upon that ideologue while stealing it from every participant in their social fiction, willing or not.

A Note on Ideology

As we are now speaking in terms of ideologues, we need to be clear before continuing that by “ideology” is meant here something closer to “cult ideology” than a more general meaning of the term. It is crucial to distinguish between these so that we do not confuse those sweeping approaches to contextualizing and understanding reality that are generative of comprehension of the real with those that exist in relationship with the pseudo-real.

Liberalism may, for example, be construed as an ideology, but it would not qualify as a cult ideology because, for any shortcomings it may have, it makes itself subordinate to the truth. (…) Accordingly, it exhibits none of the psychopathic tendencies that arise quite regularly in the context of ideologies that depend upon the production and maintenance of some useful but bogus pseudo-reality.

(…)

Pseudo-realities as Language Games

(…) Pseudo-real world-builders tend to manipulate people upon their vulnerabilities, which is a well-known fact of cult recruitment. Thus, they are most effective on people who have an underlying baseline of psychological, emotional, or spiritual illness, particularly of the kinds that relate poorly to the real world and the rough-and-tumble social realities within it. As noted, these are also often manufactured to purpose and target the psychologically, emotionally, and spiritually susceptible, along with the naive, the angry, and the aggrieved. It is in such minds where pseudo-realist manipulations are most effective and can generate a sizable sympathizer base among otherwise normal people, some of whom will be induced into the psychopathologies that underlie the whole project. (…)

Lapset ja nuoret ovat luonnollisesti siis ykköskohde, tietyt vähemmistöt ovat myös pop. Selittänee osittain (uhri-narratiivin ohella) myös sen, miksi vihavasurit haalii maahan tiettyä porukkaa kaikin mahdollisin keinoin, ja miksi viha ”tottelemattomia” maahanmuuttajia kohtaan on niin suuri.

Academic Pseudo-realities

Given the fact that they are the tool of manipulative people who exhibit high thirst for power and linguistic savvy, pseudo-realists tend to target the (bourgeois) upper-middle class whose livelihoods depend most upon their credentialing and acceptance by a group of peers, particularly the highly educated, though not most brilliant, among them. An abnormally high proportion of such individuals are employed in education, media, politics, and especially academia. (The most potent and dangerous ideological pseudo-realities are the kinds of absurdities only academics could truly believe.) Among its features, pseudo-reality, being a linguistic and social construction, enables a path to careerism and credentialing in these sorts of professions far more than in most others, which generates an incentive structure that favors the pseudo-realists’ ambitions.

(…)

This feature of pseudo-realist cultism strengthens as the mark accepts more of the premises of the pseudo-reality and thus divorces himself further and further from reality and normal people who live within it. This slowly traps adherents, who have almost no escape mechanism, even when ideological off-ramps are made plainly available. (…) With a distorted logic that can no longer perceive reality except as a counterfeit, they lack the necessary epistemic resources to challenge the ideology, even within themselves. With a subverted morality that perceives evil as good and good as evil in accordance with the slave morality of the pseudo-reality, their entire social environment is conditioned to keep them in a Hell whose gates are locked from the inside. Thus, to understand ideological pseudo-realities and to try to discover something we can do about them, it is necessary to examine their internal logic and moral systems in more detail.

Ideological Paralogic

(…)

The role paralogic plays in being parallel to logic but for a false reality is crucial to understand. It reliably leads (very) smart, thoughtful people who utterly reject the pseudo-reality—and yet who remain mostly ignorant of its paralogical structure—to carry water for the ideologues inhabiting it by normalizing it while portraying accurate critics as kooks and bad actors. In fact, these (very smart) people are generating the smokescreen to the broader normal public that makes the pseudo-reality look far more reasonable and tethered to reality than it actually is. This intellectual manipulation of (very smart) people is a crucial factor in the establishment of any successful large-scale pseudo-reality, which will only be able to maintain a relatively small proportion of true believers. Of note, nobody is better at this than an educated or credentialed liberal who stands to lose a lot by being branded a kook or bad actor by other useful idiots.

Tulee tässä kohtaa esim. muutama Hyysärin kolumnisti mieleen.

Ideological Paramorality

Alongside the paralogical structure used to trick useful idiots into defending the ideological pseudo-reality project is a powerful tool of social enforcement using an ostensibly moral dimension. (…) The goal of the paramorality is to socially enforce the belief that good people accept the paramorality and attendant pseudo-reality while everyone else is morally deficient and evil. That is, it is an inversion of morality, the slave morality as described by Nietzsche in his Genealogy of Morals.

Because the paramorality is, in fact, immoral, participants in the pseudo-reality will experience vigorous, usually totalitarian, enforcement of the ideological paramorality. It is in this way that the requisite social pressure is created to maintain the lie and its immoral system. In turn, following the cycle of abuse, they will then use the same tenets and tactics to (para)-moralize normal people outside of it, eventually far more vigorously. (…) Again, this is the true alchemy of the pseudo-realist program; it transforms normal, moral people into immoral agents who must perpetrate evil to feel good and perceive as evil those who do good.

(…) Vicious moralizing that will eventually justify violence, including on wide scales, is an eventual guarantee of such demands, if they are enabled sufficiently to shift that power to the ideologues.

This guarantees the paramorality of an ideological pseudo-reality will always be repressive and totalitarian. Dissent and doubt cannot be tolerated, and disagreement must be cordoned off into a moral pit that adherents dare not approach. (…) These bogus constructions are meant to unilaterally shift power to the ideologues so that their pseudo-reality can remain propped up.

(…) This implies that an ideological pseudo-reality’s most successful means of gaining strength is through appealing to the perceived victimhood of those people and whipping up the grievances of those who have suffered similar injustices with more dignity. When widely empowered, this should be treated as another symptom of impending civilizational calamity and a need to identify and reject the pseudo-reality manipulating these feelings.

(…)

Psychopathy and Pseudo-reality

(…) If we take a step back to consider our delusional cultist upon which the entire analysis began, we can glean another important point about the nature of ideological pseudo-realities that has been repeatedly intimated so far. That is this: it is easy to perceive that this hypothetical person not only might be but probably is psychopathic to a certain degree if he is creating a cult ideology and attendant pseudo-reality. Pseudo-reality is not the domain of the sane, by definition, and wishing to enforce one’s pathologies upon others for one’s own benefit, especially through manipulation of their vulnerabilities, is as near to a simple, general definition of psychopathy as one could hope to read.

Hassu yhteensattuma, että esim. BLM-porukat oli pullollaan rikollisia, lasten hyväksikäyttäjät olivat erityisen vahvasti edustettuina.

Most concerningly, psychopathic ideologies reliably generate (temporary but) functional psychopathy in otherwise normal people who, by means of these manipulations, become sufficiently convicted fellow travelers with and sympathizers to the ideology. Quite literally, aside from the direct effects of demoralization and the destabilization caused by the growing drift of their beliefs away from reality and toward unreality (pseudo-reality), a psychopathic ideology makes its sympathizers believe and act in psychopathic ways themselves, at least in a functional sense. These are the demands and costs of upholding the paralogic (so as not to be a “fool” in pseudo-reality) and paramorality (so as not to be the wrong kind of person in pseudo-reality), and slowly these victims of the ideology become the monsters they were too weak to fight. As noted previously, virtues like tolerance and empathy are intentionally perverted until they begin to bifurcate so that they carry a political valence (paramorality good, morality bad) that increasingly favors the pseudo-real ideology and becomes legitimately psychopathic as the effect strengthens.

Näin siis suvakeista rakennetaan psykopaatteja. Luulisin, että aika moni Hommalainen on somesta ja jopa valtamediasta lukenut juttuja, jotka tuntuvat omasta mielestä olevan paremminkin tuon jälkimmäisen kuin ensimmäisen ryhmän edustajan kirjoittamia.

Importantly, this circumstance implies that the average “fellow traveler” in a cult ideology not only does not realize they’re a cultist who is using tools and tactics of manipulation (paralogic and paramorality) on people in their lives, both normal and ideologically “awakened” fellow cultists; they cannot realize this without first abandoning the paralogic and paramorality that has captured them and rejecting the ideological pseudo-reality in a fundamental way. They find themselves in the broken position not only of being functionally psychopathic but also of being reality-inverted such that they believe all normal people who are not (yet) cultists are the cultists while they, themselves, are not. This represents a complete reversal of sanity, and the conversion of normal to ideologically psychopathic is, by that point, complete. These people, as many have learned the hard way throughout history, are the otherwise good people who are capable of perpetrating genocides.

Cutting the Threads

What, then, could possibly be the answer to this perilous and perennial tangle? Fortunately, the first step, at the least, is very simple. It’s mere awareness. It is learning to recognize the constructed pseudo-reality for what it is—a fabricated simulation of reality that is unfit for human societies—and beginning to reject unapologetically any demand to participate in it. (…)

This can only be done by learning enough to see the games, telling the truth, and refusing to be coerced or forced to participate in the increasingly hegemonic pseudo-reality before it claims totalitarian power.  Speaking practically, there are two straightforward ways this can be done. One is to refute the pseudo-reality, and the other is to reject it.

For most people, the latter of these is easier than the former, and it requires less of someone. Strength of will and character will suffice. (…)

Refuting pseudo-reality is harder, as it requires much more specific knowledge along with skill, strength of character, and courage. It also must be done, at least by someone, if an ideological pseudo-reality has already taken root. Such a pseudo-reality has to be shown to be a false reality, which is to say a pernicious fiction, to as many people as possible. (…)

Commonly, also, this process will not be comfortable and requires tremendous courage of precisely the kind that ideological demoralization is very effective at eroding and containing. The paralogic will interpret direct dissent as stupid or crazy, and the paramorality will characterize it as evil (or motivated by evil intentions, even if unconscious ones outside of the dissenter’s awareness). The courage to bear these outrageous insults and slander, and to bear its unjust social consequences, is therefore a necessary precondition to putting a halt to totalitarianism. It is understandable why most will not choose this path, but be warned: the longer one waits, the worse this gets.

(…)

(…) Some more backbone can be dredged up by realizing that once the pseudo-real begins displacing the real for even a few percent of the population, the question is no longer whether things will go bad but how bad they will go before the bubble bursts. Reality will always win, and calamity comes in proportion to the size of the lie between us and it, so it is better to act sooner than later. Still more heart resides in grasping that it gets worse right up until a real resistance mounts, and then, after a rocky transition, it starts getting better. The time to act is therefore now.
(…)

Sitä voikin sitten miettiä, miten pahaksi tilanne meneekään, kun maassa on luultavasti jo kaksinumeroinen prosenttiluku tuossa pseudo-todellisuudessa eläviä ihmisiä, ja sekä maan hallitus että valtamedia ovat pitkälti tällaisten ihmisten komennossa.

[zupi]

Before adopting the language of "equity," the critical race theorists made their goal clear: "abolish the white race."

They vowed to "keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as 'the white race' is destroyed." pic.twitter.com/obGevgKs6n

— Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) December 29, 2020

This is the language of dehumanization, hatred, and genocide.

They will play intellectual games—"we don't want to abolish white people, just internalized whiteness"—but historically, this kind of rhetoric always leads to violence.

Critical race theory is poison.

— Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) December 29, 2020

Tuhoamisen kohteena oleva "internalized whiteness" tarkoittanee nykyään vain niitä valkoisia, jotka eivät suostu alistumaan tälle vihavasurien uudelle rauhanuskonnolle.

[zupi]

Rufon uusin pala, kannattaa lukaista koko ketju. Tätä saadaan USAssa pian paljon lisää. Kohta täällä?

SCOOP: San Diego Unified School District tells white teachers they are guilty of “spirit murdering” black children and should undergo “antiracist therapy for White educators.”

I've obtained explosive whistleblower documents from the training session. Let's dig in. 🧵

— Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) January 6, 2021

[zupi]

Täytyy sanoa, että on meikäläiselläkin pieniä ongelmia... Mutta tämä on pseudorealityn ja paranormalityn lopputulos: Back to DDR ja v...t perheestä. Itse en saanut todellakaan sellaista mielikuvaa, että tuo aivopesty tyttönen olisi surullinen teostaan, hänhän on perkele ylpeä siitä. Ja valtamedia komppaa, saatanan paskapäät... Ja riippumatta siitä, minkälainen mielikuva artikkelista tulee, ne tyttösen sukulaiset eivät ole tehneet mitään lainvastaista (todistetusti). On tuo vaan ihan v...n surullista.

I can't get over this tweet.

"... who named her mom, aunt & uncle," wrote the journalist, amplifying the girl denouncing her family. https://t.co/zh3ye7OjNt

— Omri Ceren (@omriceren) January 9, 2021

An 18-Year-Old Saw Her Mom, Aunt, And Uncle In DC In A Video — So She Named Them

(...)

Her mom, Therese Duke, had told her vaguely that she was taking Helena’s aunt for a procedure. But Helena suspected that her Trump-supporting mom may have secretly traveled to Washington, DC, for the delusional last-ditch "Stop the Steal" rally.

(...)

Watching the clip, Helena identified her mom, her aunt Annie Lorenz, and her uncle Richard Lorenz as part of a group of white people confronting a Black woman who had hit Therese in the face after she had tried to grab her. ("grab her, ei ...)

"My initial reaction was more like, Oh my gosh, I was right. I was actually right about them being there," Helena told BuzzFeed News. "It was very surreal because it was an insane video, first of all, and then it was the revelation that, Oh, that’s my mother. That’s her."

The Black woman in the video had tweeted that a group of five people were harassing her for a long time and had tried to take her belongings from her hands and her pockets. (She declined to comment on the incident to BuzzFeed News without legal representation ( :roll:). Helena's family members did not respond to emails and calls requesting comment.)

(...)

"I think it kind of makes me feel better knowing other people have gone through the same thing," she said. "I obviously feel very sad that they have to go through it, too, but that I'm not alone, and that they’re not alone."

(...)

It's unclear if Helena's family members were at the Capitol on Wednesday, when thousands of Trump supporters incited by him descended on the building to try to overturn the election that he lost.

(...)

The next day, after Therese texted saying she was home, Helena simply responded, "how's your nose."

"Please call me or talk to me if you really wanna know," her mom wrote.

Her mom and aunt — whom she said she was close to until their relationship broke down in recent years — have sent her pleas and threats to remove her tweets.

(...)

"I honestly don't think I did anything wrong in this situation," Helena said.

(...)

"She told me she thought Black Lives Matter was a violent organization and they would be inciting violence," she recalled.

"I always felt almost heartbroken over how they viewed the world and how skewed it was and how they wouldn't allow me to express my views. But showing that they can act in such a horrible way is just really appalling to me," she said. "I am honestly very disappointed to have to be part of this family that is so...just, very not welcoming or supportive. I don’t feel safe being part of this family."

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/clarissajanlim/teen-names-mom-trump-supporter-dc

[Mangustin]

^ Samaa bolsevismia nykyvuoden paketissa

Minä olen pieni pioneeri
ja vähäinen on vielä minun voimani
vaan pienikin voi taistella
rauhan puolesta kuin Lenin
tai setä Ho Chi Minh

https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavlik_Morozov

Vuonna 1932 julkistettu tarina kertoo, että 13-vuotias Pavlik Morozov oli ilmiantanut oman isänsä viljan piilottamisesta kulakkien kanssa, minkä takia tämä joutui vankilaan ja hänet ammuttiin myöhemmin. Vihastuneiden sukulaisten väitettiin surmanneen Pavlikin. Pavlikista tehtiin määrätietoisella kampanjoinnilla esimerkillinen nuorukainen, joka oli asettanut neuvostomaan edun oman etunsa edelle. Hänen tarinastaan tehtiin elämäkertoja, näytelmiä, patsaita, sinfoninen runo, ooppera sekä vaille ensi-iltaa jäänyt ja sittemmin kadonnut elokuva (Sergei Eisensteinin Bežinin niityt). Pavlikin tarinalla vaikutettiin neuvostoliittolaisiin lapsiin ja innostettiin heitä ilmiantamaan vanhempansa.