UmmaGumma

Kirjoittaja Aihe: Critical Social Justice  (Luettu 11056 kertaa)

Kristian IV

  • Kannatusjäsen
  • Jäsen^^
  • ****
  • Viestejä: 83
  • Liked: 238
  • jumalten leikkikalu
Vs: Critical Social Justice
« Vastaus #30 : 11.01.2021, 13:52:44 »
Huh. Tulinpa surulliseksi ketjua lukiessa. Näköjään vastapuolen ongelmat menevät syvemmälle kuin ymmärsinkään. Kiitos avartavasta katsannosta yllä oleville teoreetikoille. Vastustaja on toki hyvä tuntea, nuo näköjään häikeilemättä hyökkäilevät jo aivan perustavanlaatuisimpien tieteellisten käsitteiden kimppuun. Luulin jo luonnontieteiden voittaneen pahimmat hihhuloinnit, mutta voi kuinka väärässä olinkaan.

Seuraavien vuosikymmenten aikana, kun Jorma Uotisesta on tullut kansankomissaarien neuvoston puheenjohtaja, jolloin kaikki ikävältä kuulostavat sanat on kielletty, ja ne joilla on vaikkapa Homma-taustaa, joutuvat joka yhteydessä tunnustamaan entisen väärässä olemisensa käsinauhoilla ja julkisella logolla Facebook tilissämme. Joudumme varmaankin todistamaan uskollisuutemme ideologialle suutelemalla tummaa trans-henkilöä.

Ne juutalaiset jotka tajusivat tilanteen jo 30-luvulla Saksassa, osasivat lähteä paskamyrskyn tieltä hyvissä ajoin. Itse olen alkanut opettelemaan japanin kieltä sillä ajatuksella, että jossain vaiheessa saattaa joutua lähtemään.
Totuus esiin, hinnalla millä hyvänsä.
Suvaitsevaisuus ei ole hyvyyttä. Suvaitsevaisuuden vastinpari on kuri ja ankaruus. Näiden välinen tasapaino on hyvyyttä.
"Ongelmat eivät ole enää ongelmia, vaan vain ongelmien esilletuojat ovat ongelmia."
Pahuuden alkusyy on itsekkyys.

jetsku

  • Jäsen^^
  • **
  • Viestejä: 92
  • Liked: 217
Vs: Critical Social Justice
« Vastaus #31 : 11.01.2021, 14:34:53 »
"I don’t feel safe being part of this family."

Tämä on nykymaailmassa äärimmäisen surullinen ilmiö. Samanlaisia avautumisia näkee jenkkiläisessä somessa jonkin verran.

Kyseinen perhe ei siis ikinä ole harjoittanut sen enempää henkistä kuin fyysistäkään väkivaltaa tätä nuorta kohtaan. He ovat varmaankin jyrkästi eri mieltä poliittisista asioista, mutta mitä ilmeisimmin perhe on ollut mitä rakastavin. On ihan kauheaa sanoa - etenkin julkisesti - ettei tunne oloaan turvalliseksi. Ymmärrän sen, jos pelissä on päihteitä, väkivaltaa, mielenterveysjuttuja ja muuta, mutta... No voisi itse tietysti miettiä, jos vanhemmat sanoisivat, etteivät tunne oloaan turvalliseksi lapsensa kanssa, koska lapsella on erilaisia poliittisia mielipiteitä.

zupi

  • Jäsen^^^
  • ***
  • Viestejä: 1 229
  • Liked: 6376
Vs: Critical Social Justice
« Vastaus #32 : 14.01.2021, 08:57:26 »
Taas uusi ketju Rufolta, pistän tähän nyt vain pari twiittiä.


"If all the votes are added up in PA, Trump is going to lose." - Pennsylvania AG Josh Shapiro, 31.10.2020

“I do not accept the rules imposed by others.... And in periods of regime change, the normal rules don’t apply.” - Soros

zupi

  • Jäsen^^^
  • ***
  • Viestejä: 1 229
  • Liked: 6376
Vs: Critical Social Justice
« Vastaus #33 : 15.01.2021, 00:23:31 »
Siinä vaiheessa, kun Sleepy kumoaa lopullisesti Trumpin määräämän CRT-kiellon, niin varmasti on hirveä lauma toimittelijoita kyselemässä Jameksen esiin nostamia kysymyksiä.

https://newdiscourses.com/2020/12/maintaining-expanding-ban-critical-race-theory/

Lainaus
(...)

Proponents Must Want Division

Again, as I have read the executive order several times, I’m perplexed as to why any American or reasonable and decent human being living in the twenty-first century would want it overturned. Since many do, since presumably a Biden administration will as well, and since I try not to assume people are as evil as they often sound in ignorance, I have to assume the executive order has not been widely or properly read. Nevertheless, as we can see from Section 10 above, the order only prohibits applying the “divisive concepts” listed in Section 2(a) and then only in particular ways. It’s therefore important for us to look at these concepts directly from the order and evaluate them.

Before listing them, with commentary, I want to stress why we need to be familiar with what the executive order says. It’s very simple. Anyone who wants to overturn this executive order or resist creating copycat orders at the state (or city) level must want to leave room to engage in at least one of the behaviors it prohibits. The questions are “which ones?” and “why?”

Here is the list of prohibited “divisive concepts” given in Section 2(a) of the executive order, with my own commentary added in italics in square brackets added to most of them: (Jameksen kommentit siis hakasuluissa, en lisännyt kursiivia)

(1) one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex [outright bigotry or supremacy—note that this also prohibits white supremacy, patriarchy, (homophobia, ableism, exasperated etc.)];

(2) the United States is fundamentally racist or sexist [i.e., “systemic” bigotry/oppression];

(3) an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously [even by “complicity,” like “white complicity” or “brown complicity”];

(4) an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex;

(5) members of one race or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race or sex [this is a repudiation of identity-blindness, e.g., colorblindness, and seeks to make identity, like race, relevant and central to all interactions and phenomena];

(6) an individual’s moral character is necessarily determined by his or her race or sex [direct rejection of Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” perspective];

(7) an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex [a kind of identity-based “sins of the father” and guilt by association];

(88) any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex [believe it or not, this kind of thing is advocated under Critical Theories of identity (Critical Social Justice) under models like “the pedagogy of discomfort”)]; or

(9) meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist, or were created by a particular race to oppress another race [this ideology rejects meritocracy].

The term “divisive concepts” also includes any other form of race or sex stereotyping or any other form of race or sex scapegoating.

Anyone who is calling for this order to be overturned or who is arguing against passing it into law, both on the federal level or, hopefully, on the state levels, must be held to account on this point: they must want to leave room to engage in at least one of the eleven things listed above. We have to ask them which ones and why.

If you find someone who is against this order or similar, ask them what it is they disagree with. Have then be specific—which “divisive tenets” do you want to engage in and why? Ask them:

Do you want to claim that certain identities are inherently superior to others? If so, why?

Do you want to claim that the United States is fundamentally bigoted? If so, why?

Do you want to claim that certain individuals—because of who they happen to be in terms of identity factors like race, sex, (gender, sexuality, disability, exasperated etc.)—are intrinsically bigoted or complicit in bigotry? If so, why?

Do you think that people should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of factors of identity? If so, why?

Do you think that people should have to treat people according to their identities instead of as equals? If so, why?

Do you believe that people’s moral character is in some way determined by who they happen to be? If so, why?

Do you believe that people should be held morally responsible for things that were done by other people who happen to have the same identity factors that they do? If so, why?

Do you think that people should be made to feel uncomfortable (or in anguish!) over factors of their identity? If so, why?

Do you want to say that merit was not a significant, if not the, determining factor in how people came to occupy the professional positions they occupy? If so, why?

Do you wish to engage in identity-based stereotyping of some other kind? If so, why?

Do you wish to engage in identity-based scapegoating of some other kind? If so, why?

These questions must be asked clearly and repeatedly of anyone who condemns this executive order (...) (...)

Sleepyn EO:n kumoamista ja sitä seuraavia median jatkuvia kysymyksiä kumoamisen syistä odotellessa... yksi twiitti.

"If all the votes are added up in PA, Trump is going to lose." - Pennsylvania AG Josh Shapiro, 31.10.2020

“I do not accept the rules imposed by others.... And in periods of regime change, the normal rules don’t apply.” - Soros

zupi

  • Jäsen^^^
  • ***
  • Viestejä: 1 229
  • Liked: 6376
Vs: Critical Social Justice
« Vastaus #34 : 17.01.2021, 18:06:30 »
Kannattaa katsoa koko pätkä, jos on englanti hallussa ja tunti luppoaikaa.


https://t.co/AOPT7VOXzJ?amp=1
"If all the votes are added up in PA, Trump is going to lose." - Pennsylvania AG Josh Shapiro, 31.10.2020

“I do not accept the rules imposed by others.... And in periods of regime change, the normal rules don’t apply.” - Soros

sancai

  • Jäsen^^^
  • ***
  • Viestejä: 714
  • Liked: 4078
Vs: Critical Social Justice
« Vastaus #35 : 17.01.2021, 18:31:14 »
"I don’t feel safe being part of this family."

Tämä on nykymaailmassa äärimmäisen surullinen ilmiö. Samanlaisia avautumisia näkee jenkkiläisessä somessa jonkin verran.

Kyseinen perhe ei siis ikinä ole harjoittanut sen enempää henkistä kuin fyysistäkään väkivaltaa tätä nuorta kohtaan. He ovat varmaankin jyrkästi eri mieltä poliittisista asioista, mutta mitä ilmeisimmin perhe on ollut mitä rakastavin. On ihan kauheaa sanoa - etenkin julkisesti - ettei tunne oloaan turvalliseksi. Ymmärrän sen, jos pelissä on päihteitä, väkivaltaa, mielenterveysjuttuja ja muuta, mutta... No voisi itse tietysti miettiä, jos vanhemmat sanoisivat, etteivät tunne oloaan turvalliseksi lapsensa kanssa, koska lapsella on erilaisia poliittisia mielipiteitä.
Ei sen ole edes tarkoitus viitata oikeaan turvattomuuteen. Vetoaminen siihen, että joku tekee henkilön olon turvattomaksi on muodostunut Yhdysvalloissa melko tavalliseksi väärien mielipiteiden ilmiantamisen ja toisinajattelijoiden kiusaamisen keinoksi. Esimerkiksi jonkun verran julkisuudessa ollut New York Timesin toimittaja Bari Weissin tapaus meni niin. Hän on siis amerikanjuutalainen toimittaja, joka palkattiin lehteen sen takia, että hän kirjoittaisi sentristisemmästä, tasapuolisemmasta näkökulmasta. Hänet kuitenkin savustettiin ja kiusattiin ulos toimituksesta, koska muut toimittajat tekivät hänestä jatkuvasti ilmiantoja, miten hänen olemassaolonsa muka tekee heidän olonsa turvattomaksi. Samanlaisia tarinoita kertovat monet toimittajat, jotka ovat tulleet julkisuuteen tämän cancel-kulttuurin takia, eivätkä edes mitkään öyhöttäjät, vaan toimittajat, jotka ovat pyrkineet journalismiin ja neutraaliuteen eivätkä ole taipuneet ääri-ideologiseen painostukseen.

Se, mikä minua suututtaa, surettaa ja pelottaa eniten tässä liikkeessä on normaalien ihmisten ja valtavirtaoikeiston reagointi, tai siis reagoimattomuus. He tuntuvat olevan totaalisen kyvyttömiä edes tunnistamaan tämän ilmiön olemassaoloa ja sen laajuutta. He ovat kuvitelleet jo 30 vuotta, että vallitseva hulluus menee ohi, jos oikeisto vaan ei tee mitään, hyvinpä on toiminut. Valtavirtaoikeiston reaktio meitä woke-ideologian kritisoijia kohtaan on jopa vihamielinen: miten kehtaatte kyseenalaistaa valtamedian ja valtainstituutiot! En todellakaan ymmärrä, ovatko he yksinkertaisesti niin tyhmiä ja tietämättömiä, että eivät oikeasti ymmärrä, mitä heidän ympärillään tapahtuu, vai onko kyse hillotolpista. Valtavirtaoikeiston selkärangan puute ja harhaisuus on vain jotain, mikä minulla on vaikea käsittää kun yleensä juuri he ovat se aikaansaava ihmisryhmä. Jotkut kokoomuslaiset ovat jopa väittäneet minulle, että yliopistojen uusmarxistisuus on salaliittoteoria. Kaikenlaisia hulluja on tietysti ollut aina, mutta miksi järkevät ihmiset eivät juuri nyt tee mitään vaan vaikenevat? On aivan uusi ilmiö, että ihmiset vaan vaikenevat ja alistuvat sellaisille vaatimuksille, joille ennen olisi vain naurettu.
« Viimeksi muokattu: 17.01.2021, 18:34:29 kirjoittanut sancai »

zupi

  • Jäsen^^^
  • ***
  • Viestejä: 1 229
  • Liked: 6376
Vs: Critical Social Justice
« Vastaus #36 : 19.01.2021, 00:49:44 »
Sattui vastaan ihan mielenkiintoinen twitter-tili, Intiasta lähtöisin oleva, nykyisin ilmeisesti Lontoossa asuva, anti-woke vasuri psykoterapeutti. Ajattelin pistää tähän pikku kokoelman mimmin viimeaikaisista twiiteistä. Ihan hyvää kamaa woke-saastasta, jonka ilmeisestikin tuntee varsin hyvin.


Twiitit vain lainauksina.

Lainaus
Such an interesting (and alarming) social phenomenon that people in the safest, most prosperous, liberal societies in all of human history- are also the most fragile, angry, ungrateful, and believe themselves to be ‘oppressed’.
3:13 AM · Dec 16, 2020·Twitter for iPhone
Lainaus
Only people who’ve never experienced actual violence, are ignorant & arrogant enough to call words ‘violence’.
4:28 AM · Dec 16, 2020·Twitter for iPhone
Lainaus
Cancel culture operates with a similar psychological mechanism to the way fundamentalist religions treat sinners or heretics.

Vilifying or demonising, public shamings, the cancellee is labelled as 'bad', and then ostracised from the community.
1:55 AM · Dec 17, 2020·Twitter for iPhone
Lainaus
Cancel culture in the west is alarmingly like the ‘religious police’ in the east.

They ‘promote virtue & prevent vice’. They not only arrest & whip/stone ‘sinners’, they encourage citizens to police each other. So everyone remains in a state of fear- including of each other.
4:41 AM · Dec 17, 2020·Twitter for iPhone
Lainaus
Human beings have evolved to overcome adversity, obstacles & challenges.

People who have had little to no adversity- or worse, too much comfort & coddling- seem to create ‘adversity’ & ‘oppressions’ to overcome.
5:56 AM · Dec 18, 2020·Twitter for iPhone
Lainaus
Socialists aren’t bad people, conservatives aren’t bad people- ‘bad’ people are the ones who make an extremist dogmatic ideology out of their beliefs- and then force it down everyone else’s throats.

PS: the woke are bad people
😆
7:00 AM · Dec 18, 2020·Twitter for iPhone
Lainaus
Coddling is not love. It’s incapacitation- the psychological form of foot binding.

It’s subliminally communicating: ‘you are incapable, fragile, weak but very special’.

This is not love, it is the devouring mother.
5:47 PM · Dec 18, 2020·Twitter for iPhone
Lainaus
If you know someone who’s being ‘cancelled’- but they’ve only ever treated you well, been kind, empathetic- and you turn away or against them.

Out of schadenfreude, or cowardice, because you think compliance will make the crocodile eat you last.

You’re spineless.
1:51 AM · Dec 19, 2020·Twitter for iPhone
Lainaus
The woke made me anti-woke.

Not ‘right wing’ propaganda. No other influence.

It was the them- witnessing their cruel behaviour, cancel culture, censorship, anti-science rhetoric, more than anything their cruelty & venom.
I couldn’t support that.

They radicalised me.
3:29 AM · Dec 19, 2020·Twitter for iPhone
Lainaus
To be clear:
- I said they ‘radicalised’ me, because that is their jargon, I don’t really think I’m radicalised.
- I’m not on the right, not that there’s anything wrong with being a conservative.
- I’m a heterodox liberal.
- I’m anti-woke.
4:12 AM · Dec 19, 2020·Twitter for iPhone
Lainaus
Over validating & coddling as a parenting strategy were supposedly to raise self-esteem, regardless of behaviour.

Instead it’s created incomprehensible levels of entitlement, ineptitude & emotional fragility- bc self-esteem not based on anything is narcissism.
6:06 AM · Dec 21, 2020·Twitter for iPhone
Lainaus
Deplatforming: The astronomically narcissistic & entitled demand that people you don’t agree with should be removed from a platform.

But if you block them or delete one of their comments, they will try to cancel you FOR SILENCING THEM.
😂
6:52 AM · Dec 21, 2020·Twitter for iPhone
Lainaus
1/ Wokeness is an ideology- and a poorly thought out one. It encourages division, hierarchies of ‘oppression’, public confessions of sin, and doesn’t base it’s assertions off data.

It’s instruments are antisocial behaviour based on moral elitism: attacks, doxxing, cancelling.

7:50 PM · Dec 22, 2020·Twitter for iPhone
Lainaus
2/ Moral elitism means the woke, who think they’re morally superior, have carte blanche to attack the morally ‘inferior’. This is how fundamentalist religions behave.

This has absolutely nothing to do with having a social conscience- and everything to do with power & compliance.
7:53 PM · Dec 22, 2020·Twitter for iPhone
Lainaus
What’s the polar opposite of The Enlightenment?

That’s what we’re living through.
6:12 PM · Dec 23, 2020·Twitter for iPhone
Lainaus
I’ve never experienced as much blatant racism as I have this year from (mostly) white progressives.

They use other white people as punching bags, pick on minorities and then congratulate themselves on their ‘advocacy’.

Brava, you are an imbecilic scourge on society.

7:39 AM · Dec 24, 2020·Twitter for iPhone
Lainaus
Woke authoritarianism has created a culture where verbal, psychological & emotional abuse have became permissible.

It’s now socially acceptable to abuse people, under the guise of ‘advocacy’. This is a safe haven for abusers.

7:45 AM · Dec 25, 2020·Twitter for iPhone
Lainaus
Many of us ‘minorities’ in the west, come from places that are actually oppressive & unsafe, and where we were traumatised.

We come to the west and find safety, freedom & opportunity.

It might not be perfect, but I’m profoundly grateful.
6:07 PM · Dec 25, 2020·Twitter for iPhone
Lainaus
The woke can’t understand this because their rhetoric has no nuance. It’s a binary, oppressor/oppressed.

It’s a monumental insult to be called a victim when you have survived so much. Especially by people so emotionally fragile that if you don’t do as they say, they attack you.
9:51 PM · Dec 25, 2020·Twitter for iPhone
Lainaus
People who decry ‘bootstrapping’, personal responsibility, and hard work as sinister byproducts of capitalism are lying to you.

You’re being set up to fail.
8:43 PM · Dec 26, 2020·Twitter for iPhone
Lainaus
It’s the weirdest thing & I cannot STAND it. The woke talk in a strange therapy/woke language & use it to torture each other & everyone else.

They misapply jargon, give it a faux sugary sweet coating, and then use it as a weapon.
5:42 AM · Dec 28, 2020·Twitter for iPhone
Lainaus
If you swap words like problematic, harmful’, ‘ist & ‘phobe (when no ism or phobia has taken place)-

and insert in their place ‘blasphemer’ or ‘heretic’, you will better understand what is going on.


You are being punished for being a non believer.
6:28 PM · Dec 29, 2020·Twitter for iPhone
Lainaus
I’m sorry to say it, I don’t like stereotyping like this, but the every time I get a comment that’s really nasty- and I mean *really* nasty. The kind of comment that leaves you winded for a second because it was so personal, low & shockingly cruel. It’s always the woke. Always.
3:07 PM · Dec 30, 2020·Twitter for iPhone
Lainaus
Why is it only woke ‘lived experience’ that is ‘valid’- and never the people who disagree or point out obvious flaws in their ideology?

It’s almost like it’s *gasp* not about ‘lived experience’ at all...
9:19 PM · Dec 30, 2020·Twitter for iPhone
Lainaus
It’s hard to describe how awful racism feels. Even harder to describe the unwelcome feeling of being fetishised as ‘woman of colour’ by the woke when it suits them- and then scapegoated when it doesn’t.

It might actually feel worse.
8:15 PM · Jan 8, 2021·Twitter for iPhone
Lainaus
The thing I still cannot get my head around is how therapists & psychologists who should have a solid grasp of human behaviour, motivations, disordered & distorted thinking, not only can’t see what is going on- they are active participants in making things worse.
10:59 PM · Jan 9, 2021·Twitter for iPhone
Lainaus
One of the things that struck me from being around the woke is how gullible & suggestible they are.

Someone just has to say, ‘we think this now’, and they all unquestioningly comply & bend their minds to make it fit. No questions, no data analysis, no fact checking.

6:41 AM · Jan 10, 2021·Twitter for iPhone
Lainaus
Painful truth:
It doesn’t matter how good your argument is or how carefully you deliver it, if the other person’s *goal* is to misunderstand & devalue you.

In instances like this, disengage, don’t waste your energy. It can be very painful, but don’t forget: YOU know who you are.
10:08 PM · Jan 11, 2021·Twitter for iPhone
Lainaus
‘Social justice’ movements crystallised because there was a need to address the inequality faced primarily by people of colour.

Cut to 2021: Woke white people take on oppressed identities & then use their social capital to harass people of colour for not being woke.
2:39 AM · Jan 13, 2021·Twitter for iPhone
Lainaus
Wokeness is an ideology that pretends to be about ‘social justice’, but really it’s a proxy for abusing power.

Actual justice would do something useful, not focus on changing around letters in words & cancelling anyone that doesn’t believe in it.
3:31 AM · Jan 13, 2021·Twitter for iPhone
Lainaus
BIPOC is a acronym the woke came up. It’s incredibly arrogant to come up with an acronym for such a diverse group, shove us all into it, and then start speaking for us.

They say we’re not a monolith, and then speak for ALL black indigenous people of colour.
3:41 PM · Jan 13, 2021·Twitter for iPhone
Lainaus
Critical theory teaches that one must enter situations seeking to find what is ‘problematic’. To filter out what’s good & seek out problems.

This is conditioning the mind into a negative confirmation bias, which is also a feature of mood disorders like clinical depression.

7:49 AM · Jan 14, 2021·Twitter for iPhone
Lainaus
We find ourselves in a very dark day collectively, culturally. Where the most ineffectual, resentful, fragile, and malevolent among us are attempting to exercise absolute power.

A cult is dictating culture.
4:02 AM · Jan 16, 2021·Twitter for iPhone
Lainaus
You can speak the truth, or you can be woke.

It’s not possible to be both, because the latter is a movement based on narrative untruths.
3:53 AM · Jan 17, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

Tuosta listasta saa myös vähän viitteitä siitä, miksi woke-väki ja perinteinen valtamätä ovat niin hienosti löytäneet toisensa.
"If all the votes are added up in PA, Trump is going to lose." - Pennsylvania AG Josh Shapiro, 31.10.2020

“I do not accept the rules imposed by others.... And in periods of regime change, the normal rules don’t apply.” - Soros

zupi

  • Jäsen^^^
  • ***
  • Viestejä: 1 229
  • Liked: 6376
Vs: Critical Social Justice
« Vastaus #37 : 21.01.2021, 23:51:04 »
Pistetään tähän linkki toiseen ketjuun / James Lindsayn kirjoitukseen siitä, miksi woke / CSJ-porukka ei suostu väittelyihin.

https://hommaforum.org/index.php/topic,131606.msg3267269.html#msg3267269

https://newdiscourses.com/2020/07/woke-wont-debate-you-heres-why/
"If all the votes are added up in PA, Trump is going to lose." - Pennsylvania AG Josh Shapiro, 31.10.2020

“I do not accept the rules imposed by others.... And in periods of regime change, the normal rules don’t apply.” - Soros

zupi

  • Jäsen^^^
  • ***
  • Viestejä: 1 229
  • Liked: 6376
Vs: Critical Social Justice
« Vastaus #38 : 24.01.2021, 22:57:48 »
83-vuotias kansalaisoikeustaistelun veteraani kiittelee vuolaasti antifantteja ja woke-väkeä kaikesta heidän avustaan… Eipä tuossa sinänsä hirveästi uutta ole, vasurithan kaappaa kaikki tämäntapaiset liikkeet itselleen armottomalla paskanjauhamisella, ja käyttää sitten niitä ajaakseen omia tavoitteitaan.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-the-left-hijacked-civil-rights-11610748711?redirect=amp#click=https://t.co/b9Fjir1lI9 (15.1.)

Lainaus
How the Left Hijacked Civil Rights

For centuries black Americans debated how to overcome racism—but they always emphasized human agency and individual responsibility.

(…)(…)

One of the original arguments to justify slavery was that blacks were morally inferior and thus incapable of self-government. John C. Calhoun famously asserted: “There is no instance of any civilized colored race of any shade being found equal to the establishment and maintenance of free government.” Black efforts at self-liberation in the 19th and 20th centuries were based on the opposite assumption.

Today many black leaders defer to angry white progressives who make the same arguments about blacks’ lack of moral agency, reject the country’s founding principles, and seek to undermine its institutions. For months, the radical left has been exploiting the country’s genuine concern for fairness to keep blacks in a constant state of agitation, anger and grievance, urging them toward behavior that lives down to the slanderous stereotypes of white supremacists. The leaders of these movements insist that every inequity suffered by blacks is caused by institutional and structural racism, that they have no power to liberate themselves, and that they will remain oppressed until white people change. Even to raise the issue of what role self-determination plays for blacks earns you the label of “racist.”

Civil-rights organizations and their leadership, as well as the Congressional Black Caucus, need to wake up before it’s too late. A faction of black leaders has been silent about, or complicit in, the takeover of the civil-rights movement by the radical left. The effect of this is not to glorify black achievement but to crucify low-income blacks, who are represented in national media outlets by their worst-behaved members, and bear the brunt of the attacks by the woke radical left on the cities where they live.

“Justice” for black America cannot be achieved by framing it solely through the distorted lens of the deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and others in fatal police encounters. For every unarmed black American killed by the police, hundreds are killed in neighborhood homicides.

Those who call for the defunding of police departments, such as leaders of the official Black Lives Matter organization, are silent about this inconvenient truth. They have a narrative and cannot let the facts get in the way. Their story is that the whole of American history is stained and the whole of America must be overthrown.  (…)

Like all Americans, blacks have triumphed over their circumstances only when they have adopted bourgeois virtues such as hard work, respect for learning, self-discipline, faith and personal responsibility. In the 19th century, Frederick Douglass found reading to be the key to his own personal liberation amid slavery, and he understood that whites deliberately withheld literacy from blacks precisely because it was so valuable. Bourgeois values drove blacks to build the powerful religious, fraternal, and other voluntary associations that helped them thrive in the worst days of Jim Crow and cultivated the essential virtues in the next generation.

There would have been no civil-rights movement without this. But radical progressives now insist that such virtues are the legacy of white supremacy, colonialist values that reflect the continuing bondage of blacks to oppressive Western culture. The only “authentic” expression of blackness in America, they claim, is the opposite of bourgeois self-restraint and discipline—indulging in the passions of the moment, whether anarchic rioting, insulting teachers or other unsalutary forms of expression. The radical left—disdaining exhortations toward work, family and faith as “respectability politics”—argues that blacks should feel free to indulge their “true” nature, echoing the age-old white-supremacist notion that said nature is violent, lascivious and incapable of self-restraint.

The slave masters’ trick of old was to dissuade blacks from adopting bourgeois values precisely so they could be kept in servitude. (…)

We must turn away from the present course, which preaches despair rather than hope. Black achievement must be glorified. The crucifixion of black America by the radical left must halt. There is a grander, more fruitful future for us all.

Mutta konservatiivithan niitä rassisteja ovat...
"If all the votes are added up in PA, Trump is going to lose." - Pennsylvania AG Josh Shapiro, 31.10.2020

“I do not accept the rules imposed by others.... And in periods of regime change, the normal rules don’t apply.” - Soros

zupi

  • Jäsen^^^
  • ***
  • Viestejä: 1 229
  • Liked: 6376
Vs: Critical Social Justice
« Vastaus #39 : 30.01.2021, 13:22:35 »
James Lindsayn kirjoitus CSJ-poppoon "juutalaisuus-ongelmasta". Todella "hauskaa", kun Suomessakin wokeväki koko ajan syyttää PS:n kannattajia antisemitismistä, vaikka itse ovat tuossa(kin) suhteessa verrannollisia pahimpiin, todellisiin uusnatseihin. Kirjoitus on Lindsayn tyyliin taas pitkä kuin nälkävuosi, tässä nyt vain kohtuullisen lyhyitä pätkiä.

https://newdiscourses.com/2020/10/critical-race-theorys-jewish-problem/ (22.10.2020)

Lainaus
Critical Race Theory’s Jewish Problem

Critical Race Theory has a Jewish problem, and, finally, people are beginning to notice. “Stop being shocked,” implores Bari Weiss, formerly of the New York Times, writing for the Jewish commentary magazine Tablet. Stop starting off sentences with “can you believe…?” It’s a staggering article that cannot be recommended highly enough.

To understand the enormity of the change we are now living through, take a moment to understand America as the overwhelming majority of its Jews believed it was—and perhaps as we always assumed it would be. It was liberal. Not liberal in the narrow, partisan sense, but liberal in the most capacious and distinctly American sense of that word: the belief that everyone is equal because everyone is created in the image of God. … No longer. American liberalism is under siege. There is a new ideology vying to replace it.


Weiss is correct in her diagnosis and in her identification of the underpinnings of the new ideology replacing liberalism. She describes it as “a mixture of postmodernism, postcolonialism, identity politics, neo-Marxism, critical race theory, intersectionality, and the therapeutic mentality,” to which we should add at least a few drops of the Rousseauian assignment of primacy to instinct, emotion, intuition, feelings, and passion over reason and evidence. The only place her description leaves anything to be desired is in her claim that “No one has yet decided on the name for the force that has come to unseat liberalism.” That may well be the case in that we haven’t decided on the name we’ll use for this ideology, but it does have a name. This ideology is called by at least some of its proponents by the name “Critical Social Justice.” In short, Critical Social Justice—colloquially “Wokeness”—is a toxic fusion of cherry-picked aspects of the many lines of thought just identified, each chosen for its practical utility in advancing its particular line of fundamentally anti-liberal activism.

Lainaus
This wretched analysis positions Jews very badly in a paradigm that is only equipped to think about race in terms of zero-sum conflicts for societal standing and resources. Jewish “whiteness” is believed to be established beyond a shadow of a doubt not just by the (allegedly false) embrace by “white” society but also by having thrown blacks under the bus. This status is made more concrete by reframing Jewish success in many industries as having usurped the hyper-privileged mantle of being the top producers and influencers of “white culture.” And all the while, the Jews can point to millennia of oppression and a Holocaust that some, now very few, can still remember surviving.

Here, then we discover a straightforward contradiction that Critical Race Theory is poorly equipped to resolve: in the final analysis, are (white) Jews oppressed or oppressors? This question is generative of the fundamental and unavoidable contradiction that deserves to be called Critical Race Theory’s Jewish problem. (...)

That is to say, Critical Race Theory interprets very badly, bordering on horrifically, the fundamental contradiction it, itself, produces by adopting an anti-liberal stance and assigning Jews to privilege within it. It views Jews, or Ashkenazim at least, as not only as being white but also as occupying the highest echelons of privilege within a white society that has embraced them in a way that multiplied other axes of racial oppression deemed ideologically fatal to the entire project of liberalism. Simultaneously, it sees them as the bearers of a kind of shield that prevents them from their necessary obligation of “checking their privilege” so long as they identify first as Jews and only later as “white” and believe the history that makes them who they are has any truth and significance to it. That is, Critical Race Theory interprets Jewish status as being rather illegitimately placed among the most privileged in society even while they enjoy an even further privilege in not having to accept themselves as such. If anti-Semitism is a hatred of Jews born of believing them to be illegitimately privileged, this kind of analysis is quite literally the stuff of horrors.

Lainaus
The physical safety of Jews—and of Israel—depends upon liberalism and thus cannot be guaranteed by anything that accepts Critical Race Theory and Postcolonial Theory. Those two, together, like so many hideous ideologies before them, generate a Jewish question they cannot answer which results in a Jewish problem they cannot solve.

Critical Social Justice has a Jewish problem. Jews are Theorized at the height of white privilege—illegitimately and to the detriment of other minorities—and as the minority usurpers of the coveted status of being “the interpreters of white society.” Yet they also carry an ironclad reason not to “interrogate” that privilege as the Critical Theories of Social Justice demand of them, which Theory must therefore dismiss as illegitimate. Furthermore, Jews are not just complicit in whiteness but also in one of the most intolerable acts of Western colonialism that Theory takes umbrage with: the establishment of the state of Israel on land it deems wholly Palestinian. This crime they can also plausibly deny on the grounds that they were, in fact, driven from that, their indigenous, land in acts of unequivocal acts of oppression and genocidal violence.

In Theory, Jews aren’t just at the height of privilege in their whiteness and in an unjustly granted colony in Israel. They’re also deemed privileged even further by having a cultural history that liberal people rightly believe is characterized by millennia of systemic oppression. They’re a dominant group that nobody outside of Theory—least of all themselves—regards as dominant.

These are evil ideas that are new only in their outermost manifestation: “whiteness,” “colonizer,” “settler.” They, are anti-Semitism that, like their predecessors, are the results of forcing bad solutions to fundamental contradictions that necessarily arise from within the bowels of impoverished and illiberal social theories. In liberalism, as Weiss observes, we have at the heart “the idea that we should judge each person not by their station or their family lineage but by their deeds” and “that human beings have agency,” which she also notes “are revolutionary ideas that are, at root, Hebrew ones.” In Theory, one’s station—called “positionality”—is the main dimension of judgment and human beings who lack a critical consciousness—who aren’t “Woke” and in agreement with Theory—necessarily have a false consciousness, like “internalized dominance,” and no true agency.

At the moment, we are losing liberalism to Critical Social Justice, which isn’t just inimical to liberal beliefs but also believes they must be torn out by the roots—which, if Weiss is right, will include Hebrew roots. This simple truth, hard-learned so many times before about shallow social theory, is a danger to us all. It poses a particular, though not wholly unique, danger to Jews.

For the present, there is still some daylight between Woke anti-Semitism and older, more recognizable forms of Jew-hatred, but there’s no guarantee that will stay the case. Indeed, the edifice already seems to be crumbling. It’s worth stating, then, that the only difference between historical applications of ideologically driven anti-Semitism and Woke anti-Semitism, then, is that the current approach comes at the issue in an apparently novel way by shoehorning Jew-hatred into a drastically oversimplified framework of American racial history—one with a great deal of current cultural cache—which is to say that the differences are mostly a matter of window dressing and time. That is to except one other difference: those have no positive branding and no Jewish support, whereas Woke anti-Semitism currently enjoys a reasonable degree of both.

Critical Social Justice is, in its vulgar simplicity and pretentious racism, neither sophisticated nor liberal enough to handle the straightforward facts of Jewish life and history, which make an inconvenient misfit to its profoundly inadequate notions of social power and conflict. It must therefore be said that this paucity of sophistication and liberalism within Theory render the contradictions at hand both unavoidable and irreconcilable for Theory. This, in turn, defines a fundamental and intolerable Jewish problem in Critical Social Justice that, if history writes any guide, will find its “resolution” in the decrees of the Theorists, if they become sufficiently empowered. We must not allow this to happen.

"Hauskintahan" tässä tosiaan on se, että (kuten esim. akez on Hommalla kuvaillut) suuri osa valtamedioista, jotka ajavat tuota CSJ-sontaa, ovat juutalaisten omistuksessa. Kertonee lähinnä ehkä vain siitä, että nuo superrikkaat ovat täysin lahoja ihmisiä, joille ainoastaan raha ja valta merkitsee yhtään mitään. Ja tuo CSJ-sontahan on juuri sellainen työkalu, jolla saadaan rahvas tappelemaan keskenään (ja jättämään superrikkaat ja megakorporaatiot rauhaan). Ja tietenkin myös sellainen, millä voidaan tarvittaessa perustella ihan mitä julmuuksia tahansa.
"If all the votes are added up in PA, Trump is going to lose." - Pennsylvania AG Josh Shapiro, 31.10.2020

“I do not accept the rules imposed by others.... And in periods of regime change, the normal rules don’t apply.” - Soros

Lalli IsoTalo

  • "Hallituksenkaataja"
  • Jäsen^^^
  • ***
  • Viestejä: 36 690
  • Liked: 50223
  • Kyllä tästä vielä selvitään, kaikesta huolimatta!
Vs: Critical Social Justice
« Vastaus #40 : 30.01.2021, 21:32:43 »
"Hauskintahan" tässä tosiaan on se, että (kuten esim. akez on Hommalla kuvaillut) suuri osa valtamedioista, jotka ajavat tuota CSJ-sontaa, ovat juutalaisten omistuksessa. Kertonee lähinnä ehkä vain siitä, että nuo superrikkaat ovat täysin lahoja ihmisiä, joille ainoastaan raha ja valta merkitsee yhtään mitään.

Yksi vähän erikoisempi selitys olisi se, että joku haluaa juutalaiset kotiin Israeliin, jolloin Israel olisi vasta sen jälkeen "asianmukaisesti" perustettu*. Mitä enemmän juutalaisia vainotaan muualla, sitä halukkaammin he muuttavat Israeliin. Minne he eivät muuten haluaisi muuttaa, suurkaupungeista keskelle aavikkoa arabien sekaan.

* Googlaa "yksi sukupolvi israelin perustamisesta" jos maailmanloput ennustukset kiinnostavat.
“Tavoitteemme on pakolaisten suojelu. Kansalliset rajat ovat sille este.”
— Soros

“Rajat auki ja Suomi kiinni tai rajat kiinni ja Suomi auki.  Kas siinä pulma.”
— Jäsen Valtakunnanpärkhele

“Järjestelmän tavoitteena on epänormaaliuden normalisointi ja normaaliuden epänormalisointi.”
— Jäsen Marcus Porcius Cato

zupi

  • Jäsen^^^
  • ***
  • Viestejä: 1 229
  • Liked: 6376
Vs: Critical Social Justice
« Vastaus #41 : 01.02.2021, 22:07:53 »
Bari Weissin vinkkejä taisteluun woke-hulluutta vastaan.


Lainaus
10 ways to fight back against woke culture

(...)

America is imperfect. (Does it even need to be said?) There is bigotry toward blacks and gays and Jews and immigrants; there is intense polarization; (...)

But there is no gulag in America. There are no laws permitting honor killings. There is no formal social credit system of the kind that exists right now in China. By any measure, we have achieved incredible progress and enjoy extraordinary freedoms. And yet people aren’t acting that way. They are acting, increasingly, like subjects in a totalitarian country.

(...)

How much does it cost me to log on to Twitter and accuse you, right now, of an -ism? America is fast developing its own informal social credit system, as the writer Rod Dreher has noted, in which people with the wrong politics or online persona are banned from social media sites and online financial networks.

When everything is recorded for eternity, when making mistakes and taking risks are transformed into capital offenses, when things that were common sense until two seconds ago become unsayable, people make the understandable decision to simply shut up.

Do not nod along when you hear the following: That Abraham Lincoln’s name on a public school or his likeness on a statue is white supremacy. (It is not; he is a hero.) That separating people into racial affinity groups is progressive. (It is a form of segregation.) That looting has no victims (untrue) and that small-business owners can cope anyway because they have insurance (nonsense). That any disparity of outcome is evidence of systemic oppression (false). That America is evil. (It is the last hope on Earth.)

This list could go on for a thousand pages. These may have become conventional wisdom in certain circles, but they are lies.

Yet too many good people are sacrificing the common good, and therefore their long-term security, for the sake of short-term comfort.
Abraham Lincoln High School in San Francisco is at risk of being renamed by woke city leaders.

It’s time to stand up and fight back. That means you. Social conservatives. Never-Trump Republicans, and anti-anti-Trump Republicans, too. Lukewarm liberals and libertarians. Progressives who have a little curiosity still left. Exhausted parents who want nothing to do with politics. Joe Rogan stans. Reddit revolutionaries and the hedgies getting crushed. Facebookers and email chainers and Etsy-shop owners and Boomers who still use AOL accounts. Start with the following 10 principles:
(...)

https://nypost.com/2021/01/31/10-ways-to-fight-back-against-woke-culture/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

Lainaussääntöjen puitteissa vinkit pitää käydä lukemassa alkuperäisestä artikkelista. Omasta mielestäni tuo yllä oleva oli oleellisempaa. Siis se, että ihmiset edes tajuaisivat tämän nykyisen tilanteen.

Niin, ja tuon "Amerikan" tilalle voi mielestäni aika huoletta, tai jopa vielä suuremmalla syyllä, heittää Suomen.

Edit. Linkki.

Edit:


Edit:

« Viimeksi muokattu: 02.02.2021, 16:07:51 kirjoittanut zupi »
"If all the votes are added up in PA, Trump is going to lose." - Pennsylvania AG Josh Shapiro, 31.10.2020

“I do not accept the rules imposed by others.... And in periods of regime change, the normal rules don’t apply.” - Soros

zupi

  • Jäsen^^^
  • ***
  • Viestejä: 1 229
  • Liked: 6376
Vs: Critical Social Justice
« Vastaus #42 : 03.02.2021, 14:11:35 »
Multikulttuurisuudesta yms:

https://newdiscourses.com/2020/11/why-world-cultural-relativism-descendents/

Kirjoitus on kiinnostava erityisesti tämän vuoksi:

Lainaus
This article was originally published in September, 2000, at Le Québécois Libre, it is reproduced with permission from the author.

http://www.quebecoislibre.org/younkins26.html

Lainaus
Why the World is the Way It Is: Cultural Relativism and Its Descendents

(…)

Cultural relativism wrongly claims that each culture has its own distinct but equally valid mode of perception, thought, and choice. Cultural relativism, the opposite of the idea that moral truth is universal and objective, contends there is no such thing as absolute right and wrong. There is only right and wrong as specified by the moral code of each society. Within a particular society, a standard of right and wrong can be inviolate. Cultural relativism maintains that man’s opinion within a given culture defines what is right and wrong.

Cultural relativism is the mistaken idea that there are no objective standards by which our society can be judged because each culture is entitled to its own beliefs and accepted practices. No one can object to any society’s intolerance that reflects its indigenous worldview. Because there is no objective moral truth that pertains to all people and for all times, one moral code is no better or no worse than any other (i.e., the moral equivalence doctrine). Thus, we should not impose our values on other societies. (…)

Multiculturalism, racism, postmodernism, deconstructionism, political correctness, and social engineering are among cultural relativism’s “intellectual” descendents.  (…)

(…)

Multiculturalism

The main idea of multiculturalism is the equal value of all cultures (i.e., cultural relativism). However, multiculturalism does not mean cultures as normally understood but rather as biologically defined (i.e., ethnically, racially, or sexually defined) groups. Multiculturalism, a politicized form of cultural relativism, rejects the idea that there are general truths, norms, or rules with respect to both knowledge and morals. Gone are the Enlightenment beliefs in objectivity, reason and evidence, and principles of freedom and justice that apply equally to all individuals. Unlike cultural relativism, multiculturalism excludes one worldview from the realm of equally valid worldviews—the Eurocentric Western perspective based on the contributions of dead white males. Multiculturalists dismiss the significance of Western civilization by claiming that Western traditions of elitism, racism, and sexism are the cause of most of our current problems. They accept a Romantic view of human nature as beneficent and benign until it was corrupted by flawed Western ideology and culture.

Multiculturalism implies that race, ethnicity, and sex (or sexual preference) have an inescapable effect on the way people think and/or the values they hold or are capable of holding.  (…) Multiculturalism thus destroys an individual’s confidence in his own mind—this occurs when a person allows his group to tell him what to believe.

At one time, truth was viewed as transcendent, fixed, and unchanging. (…) For the multiculturalist, truth only exists by consensus within each biologically defined group.

Multiculturalism is anti-individualistic in the sense that it expects each person to agree with the perceptions, thoughts, and judgments of his group in order for his own perceptions, thoughts, and judgments to be legitimate. The multiculturalist believes that a person’s thoughts are either the collectively constructed thoughts of his racial, ethnic, or sexual group or are the thoughts foisted upon him by the dominant white male worldview. A ruling premise of multiculturalism is that ethnic origin carries with it irrevocable attributes—if a person has a certain name and physical features, then he must have a particular perspective on life and the world. Multiculturalists assign each rational and autonomous individual into a group based on the group’s specific, absolute, and nondebatable dissemblances from other groups.

(…)

The victim mentality is both a cause and effect of multiculturalism. Multiculturalism promotes a culture of victims who have a perpetual claim on society and the government. The result is the division of society into political interest groups with conflicting demands that cannot all be met.

Educational proposals from multiculturalists attempt to inculcate in students the idea that Western classical liberal order is, in fact, the most oppressive order of all times. (…)

There would be no harm in multiculturalism if the term simply meant that we should acknowledge and teach truths about many cultures. It is admirable to teach students both the noblest aspects of various cultures and of their failings. Unfortunately, multiculturalism’s pluralism and relativism has engendered a reluctance to acknowledge anything positive about Western culture while concurrently maintaining a nonreflective and approving position toward non-Western and minority ideas. Students are taught that no “properly educated” person would be willing to pass judgment on another culture. If a student should deny the equality of all cultures he would be told he was guilty of “ethnocentrism.”

(…) Some cultures are better than others: reason is better than force; a free society is superior to slavery; and productivity is better than stagnation.

Multiculturalists argue that education can build the self-esteem of minority students by presenting non-Western cultures in a favorable light in order to compensate for historical and curricular injustices, thereby restoring cultural parity between ethnic groups. Replacing education with therapy, the multiculturalist attempts to enhance self-esteem by teaching the students of oppressed cultures to be proud of their particular ancestry or race. This will only work if there are laudable truths that can be taught about a student’s ethnic heritage. When education is turned into therapy, the likely result is to teach history not to ascertain truth but to empower (i.e., enhance the self-esteem) of various factions. The result is the introduction of distortions, half-truths, fabrications, and myths into the curriculum in order to make students from certain groups feel good. In addition, multiculturalists denounce the emphasis in American schools on American history and culture and western civilization. Some even portray western civilization and Americans as evil and ideas such as reason and objective truth as Eurocentric (and patriarchal for the feminist) biases with the purpose of exploiting oppressed cultures.

(…)

Students are instructed that there are no objective merits or failings of theories, arguments, policies, works of art, and literature, etc. Instead, they are only valorizations of power that require deconstruction in order to reveal their true nature as devices of repression. It is Marxism that has provided multiculturalism with its rationale and concepts (e.g., oppression, imperialism, inequality, revolutionary change) that are used to devalue and destroy American culture.

The goal of the multiculturalist is to change the United States from a culturally assimilated society to an unassimilated multicultural society with a wide range of cultures and subcultures accorded equal status. Multiculturalism promotes quotas rather than competition, allocating resources rather than earning them, and a cabinet that looks like America instead of one that has an adequate background to do the required job. Multiculturalists fail to see that the diversity methods they use to find and create diversity will, in fact, divide the country. The result will be a widespread, societal tendency toward hatred, revenge, or belief in the innate superiority of one’s group and a feeling of solidarity and self-righteousness.

Racism

Racism, a type of multiculturalism, is the erroneous idea that a person’s race determines his identity. It is the belief that one’s values, beliefs, and character are determined by one’s ancestry rather than by the judgments of one’s mind. In the name of diversity and multiculturalism many Americans are taught to base their sense of self in their racial or ethnic identity. In fact, “critical race theory” contends that there is no reality independent of a person’s ethnicity, no universal rules of logic, and no objective facts. Accordingly, each person is destined to interpret events according to the sentiments of his racial group. Such an attack on reason creates a herd mentality by which people thoughtlessly follow those who proclaim themselves to be the leaders.

Racial preference is the common ingredient of the diversity movement (i.e., diversity awareness, training, hiring, admissions, accommodations, etc.). Proponents do not realize that racism cannot be cured with more racism. When people are taught to think in racial terms instead of according to individual merit and character, and groups are identified as having special status (e.g., affirmative action programs), the logical result is likely to be warranted resentment and indignation.

Obviously, the rational and proper approach is to evaluate candidates based on individual merit. This simply means appraising candidates based on their possession of relevant knowledge and skills, their willingness to exert the requisite effort, and their possession of a good moral character.

(…)

Individualism is the only acceptable alternative to racism. It is essential to recognize that each person is a sovereign entity with the power of independent judgment and choice.

Political Correctness

(…)

Political correctness (and multiculturalism) threatens free speech in both the academic sphere and the nonacademic workplace and ultimately the very foundation of American society. The government has, in essence, eliminated most free speech protection in the workplace. Free speech, which is an economic good to academics through which they make their living, has fared somewhat better in the educational world.

Broadly conceived, political correctness includes a number of initiatives such as: altering vocabularies in order not to offend particular groups, affirmative action in admissions and hiring, multicultural education, and broadening the scope of classical texts to include those written by minority authors and women. Then there are the workshops in which people are taught by “experts” how to be attuned to others’ feelings and how to avoid being found guilty of “sexual harassment,” “racial insensitivity,” and so on.

(…)

The Philosophy of Social Engineering: A Recent Descendent of Cultural Relativism

The philosophy of social engineering, as reflected in contemporary civil rights policies and agendas, is primarily based on five concepts: collectivism, determinism, economic egalitarianism, elitism, and historical victimization. Multiculturalism, a merger of collectivism and determinism, asserts that no person can avoid the forces imposed by race, ethnicity, gender, etc. Fortunately, according to the proponents of social engineering, there exists an elite able to remedy historical victimization. (…)

The elite includes individuals and groups who far exceed the general population in intellect, morality, and dedication to the “common good.” Their general superiority enables them to use their articulated rationality to function as surrogate decision makers in governmental economic and social planning. Their special wisdom, knowledge, virtue, compassion, commitment, and intentions qualify them to guide the actions of the many either through articulation or force. Because the elite tend to assume that human nature is infinitely malleable, they attempt to mold the nature of the people according to their superior judgments and advanced views.

(…)

In his Tyranny of Reason, Yuval Levin explains that the social scientific outlook holds that society and man can be understood through scientific study and that truth in the social world is essentially no different than truth found by science in nature.  (…)

Approaching the human world from the perspective of scientific certainty constrains man’s freedom, robs people of a sense of control, and encourages people to hand over their fates to social engineers who believe in the inevitable progress of mankind and in their own superior ability to discover, comprehend, and predict the proper arrangement of society and the underlying truths of the human world. Of course, the knowledge needed by these social architects and constructivists is unattainable––the best we can achieve is partial knowledge of the human world.

(…)

Western Culture Is Objectively Superior

Today, many intellectuals claim that Western culture is not any better (some say it is worse) than other cultures. In addition, they argue that there are no objective standards that can be used to evaluate the moral merit or demerit of various cultures.

In reality, the superiority of Western culture can be objectively demonstrated when cultures are appraised based on the only befitting standard for judging a society or culture—the extent to which its core values are life affirming or antilife. Prolife culture recognizes and honors man’s nature as a rational being who needs to discern and produce the circumstances that his survival and flourishing require. Such a culture would promote reason, man’s natural rights, productivity, science, and technology. Western culture, the prime example of this type of culture, exhibits levels of freedom, opportunity, health, wealth, productivity, innovation, satisfaction, comfort, and life expectancy unprecedented in history.

Western civilization represents man at his best. It embodies the values that make life as a man possible—freedom, reason, individualism, and man’s natural rights; capitalism, self-reliance, and self-responsibility based on free will and achievement; the need for limited, republican representative government and the rule of law; language, art, and literature depicting man as efficacious in the world; and science and technology, the rules of logic, and the idea of causality in a universe governed by natural laws intelligible to man. These values, the values of Western civilization, are values for all men cutting across ethnicity, geography, and gender.

Kirjoituksen multikultti-osuudesta näytti olevan maininta Hommalla jo aiemmin:

https://hommaforum.org/index.php/topic,25081.msg335149.html#msg335149
"If all the votes are added up in PA, Trump is going to lose." - Pennsylvania AG Josh Shapiro, 31.10.2020

“I do not accept the rules imposed by others.... And in periods of regime change, the normal rules don’t apply.” - Soros

zupi

  • Jäsen^^^
  • ***
  • Viestejä: 1 229
  • Liked: 6376
Vs: Critical Social Justice
« Vastaus #43 : 03.02.2021, 15:15:13 »
V...n hienosti toi Lancetkin vetää...  >:(  Ettei vaan olisi tällä Lancetin viime aikoina kehittyneellä rotutietoisuudella jotain yhteyttä The Great Resettiin Karmeaan Kusetukseen...


https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(20)30536-2/fulltext#%20 (1.2.2021)

Lainaus
Time to take critical race theory seriously: moving beyond a colour-blind gender lens in global health

In 2020, as worldwide protests demanded racial justice, the COVID-19 pandemic shed a stark light on racial inequities in global health: one need look no further than the disproportionate burden shouldered by Black and other racial minority groups in the Americas and Europe.1

Yet, despite the purported racial reckoning of the moment, the global health community has been slow to consciously centre race in our work. This seeming racial inertia persists despite fervent advocacy and conceptual rigour around addressing gender inequity, even in the face of ample awareness of the intertwined disadvantages faced worldwide by women who are racial minorities.2,  3

As women of colour scholars, practitioners, and educators whose work addresses race, gender, and class inequity, we recognise that it is vitally important to take a gender lens to addressing health inequities. But this gendered perspective must not be unidimensional. We now call upon our colleagues, particularly influencers in high-income countries, to meaningfully engage with critical race theory, a transdisciplinary intellectual movement to understand and disrupt systemic racism. Of particular relevance to these efforts is the concept of intersectionality, a central tenet of critical race theory coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw to describe how multiple social categorisations—such as race and gender—interact and confer interlocking oppressions and privileges.4

This intentional centring of race in global health will help to achieve the mutually reinforcing goals of eradicating both racial and gender inequity. As a point of departure, we articulate the multiple racial contexts of the global health sector, with the aim of moving beyond a colour-blind gender lens.

We are pleased that scholars and advocates of global health and gender now acknowledge the importance of explicating the interlocking oppressions of gender inequity and racism, among other “-isms”.2,  5

For decades, the concept of intersectionality has been foundational to scholarship addressing systemic racism, most prominently in the USA with respect to simultaneous oppressions due to race and gender.4,  6

Nowadays, concepts such as intersectionality are also applied to other social categories, such as religion, nationality, and socioeconomic status.3

(...)

As delineated in Ford and Airhihenbuwa's Public Health Critical Race Praxis,6 we must first develop a consciousness about the intersecting racial contexts of global health work. The notion of racial consciousness should ring familiar to those who use a gender lens to understand how health is influenced by gendered biases and norms. Like gender's problematic binary of male versus female, race is a complex social construct with biological implications, the classifications of which vary across history and geography.8

(...)

At national, subnational, and community levels, systemic racism is often embedded in policies and hegemonic Euro-American sociocultural frameworks. (...) Within each context, acknowledgement and redress of racialised, gendered power imbalances are long overdue.

Current impassioned conversations about systemic racism present an opportunity to embrace race as an omnipresent factor influencing global health practice, research, and outcomes. This racial consciousness needs to be part and parcel of our efforts to address gender inequity worldwide. Now, more than ever, we must centre our work on people at the racial margins, in each of the intersecting racial contexts of the global health sector. Only then will we develop an essential sense of humility and self-awareness to be antiracist in our work.
"If all the votes are added up in PA, Trump is going to lose." - Pennsylvania AG Josh Shapiro, 31.10.2020

“I do not accept the rules imposed by others.... And in periods of regime change, the normal rules don’t apply.” - Soros

zupi

  • Jäsen^^^
  • ***
  • Viestejä: 1 229
  • Liked: 6376
Vs: Critical Social Justice
« Vastaus #44 : 07.02.2021, 01:07:05 »
Aika kuvaava kertomus woke-kultin voittamattomasta kusipäisyydestä heidän levittäessä omia näkemyksiään. Pyritään tekemään etenkin haavoittuvassa asemassa olevat ihmiset tietyssä mielessä riippuvaisiksi woke-porukan avusta, ja sitten aletaan pakkosyöttämään sitä agendaa. Ja kun lähes kaikki yhteiskunnan virallisetkin instituutiot ovat nykyisin tuon woke-porukan hallussa, niin mikäs siinä edistellessä. Jos et alistu niin huonosti käy, tavalla tai toisella.

Lainaus
Denounce Black Peter – or else!

How a London loneliness charity excluded an old man for not conforming to its anti-racist agenda

John looked forward to his regular Zoom meetings with South London Cares, a charity that’s part of a group of five similar non-profits set up by an ex-Labour spin doctor called Alex Smith. Established in 2014, its raison d’être is to introduce older people living on their own to community-minded young professionals in the hope of making them feel less lonely. (…)

But all that changed on 2 December 2020. John was in a Zoom meeting called “South London Stories”, along with two dozen others, when one of the young thrusters raised the subject of Zwarte Piet (Black Peter). (…) Needless to say, Zwarte Piet has been the subject of considerable controversy in these countries, with critics claiming the character is a legacy of their colonial past. Nonetheless, he remains a popular figure in Holland, with most Dutch citizens supporting the tradition and saying they don’t regard Zwarte Piet as racist.

(…) He wasn’t inclined to vigorously defend the tradition, which he didn’t know much about, but he didn’t think it was right to condemn the folklore of another culture. John is well-travelled and he’s learnt not to be too judgmental when it comes to other people’s traditions. So when it was his turn to speak he said he didn’t find the character particularly offensive.

Afterwards, he got a call from a South London Cares employee who told him he’d given the wrong answer. Zwarte Piet was a racist tradition (…) But it was a hurtful thing to say nonetheless and his comment had been recorded as an “overt act of racism”. He was told that he was being given a formal warning and if he wanted to avoid a “red notice”, which would result in him being banned from any further meetings, he had to apologise to the group and commit to understanding where he went wrong so he could do better.

John was slightly taken aback. He had thought the charity wanted to make people like him feel wanted and loved and hadn’t expected to be chided for being politically incorrect. (…) To John, it felt as if he was being asked to engage in some ritual of self-abasement – to apologise on behalf of the white race for the sins of colonialism and slavery.

Many people in his position would have crumbled under this pressure, but not John. He politely explained that he had nothing to apologise for – he couldn’t help it if he didn’t find Zwarte Piet offensive – and a few weeks later he received an official letter telling him he’d been banned.

(…)

To my weathered eye, there was another explanation: South London Cares, like so many other charities, may have been captured by the woke cult. (…) Instead of mobilising young professionals to provide support and companionship to older people, its mission is to re-educate these unenlightened dinosaurs — creating a valuable social network and then threatening them with excommunication if they don’t produce the right Pavlovian responses to “racist stereotypes”.

In the letter John received telling him he was no longer welcome, the charity included a long list of thoughtcrimes, including “microassaults”, “microinvalidation” and “microinsults” (“Suggesting a black volunteer and black neighbour may get along based on skin colour”). (…)

Needless to say, South London Cares receives plenty of money from the state (…)

https://thecritic.co.uk/denounce-black-peter-or-else/
"If all the votes are added up in PA, Trump is going to lose." - Pennsylvania AG Josh Shapiro, 31.10.2020

“I do not accept the rules imposed by others.... And in periods of regime change, the normal rules don’t apply.” - Soros

zupi

  • Jäsen^^^
  • ***
  • Viestejä: 1 229
  • Liked: 6376
Vs: Critical Social Justice
« Vastaus #45 : 07.02.2021, 15:27:51 »

Jos englanti on hallussa, niin vahva suositus katsoa jälleen koko Lindsayn haastattelu. Ei itse jaksa useinkaan noita jauhamisia kuunnella, mutta tuota kaveria on kyllä ilo kuunnella.

Lainaus
For this exclusive YouTube special, Sebastian talks to author James Lindsay about the true motivations behind Critical Race Theory and other radical ideas that are behind the Biden agenda.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gYygcUw-VJE&feature=youtu.be

Enpä muuten itse tiennyt, että wikipedia poisti 1.5 kuukautta sitten kulttuurimarxismi-sivun, ja korvasi sen kulttuurimarxismi salaliittoteoria-sivulla (noin kohta 22:00). Kertoo aika paljon siitä, missä mennään...

Lainaus
Cultural Marxism is a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory which claims Western Marxism as the basis of continuing academic and intellectual efforts to subvert Western culture.[1][2][3] The conspiracists claim that an elite of Marxist theorists and Frankfurt School intellectuals are subverting Western society with a culture war that undermines the Christian values of traditionalist conservatism and promotes the cultural liberal values of the 1960s counterculture and multiculturalism, progressive politics and political correctness, misrepresented as identity politics created by critical theory.[2][3][4]

While the theory originated in the United States during the 1990s,[5](Abstract) it entered mainstream discourse in the 2010s and is promoted globally.[5] Today, the conspiracy theory of Marxist culture war is promoted by right-wing politicians, fundamentalist religious leaders, political commentators in mainstream print and television media and white supremacist terrorists.[6] Scholarly analysis of the conspiracy theory has concluded that it has no basis in fact and is not based on any actual intellectual tendency.[5][7]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory

Erikseen on sitten annettu tällainen linkki:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist_cultural_analysis

Siellä asiat selvitetään luotettavalla ja vastuullisella tavalla... Ja muistetaan tietenkin myös mainita:

Lainaus
The tradition of Marxist cultural analysis since the 1930s has occasionally also been referred to as "cultural Marxism".[5][6] Since the 1990s, the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory emerged, a highly influential discourse on the far right without any clear relationship to Marxist cultural analysis.[7][8]

Että silleen...
"If all the votes are added up in PA, Trump is going to lose." - Pennsylvania AG Josh Shapiro, 31.10.2020

“I do not accept the rules imposed by others.... And in periods of regime change, the normal rules don’t apply.” - Soros

zupi

  • Jäsen^^^
  • ***
  • Viestejä: 1 229
  • Liked: 6376
Vs: Critical Social Justice
« Vastaus #46 : 10.02.2021, 00:47:38 »
Lindsayn uusin pläjäys, enpä ole itsekään vielä tuota kokonaan lukenut (näytti olevan wordissa noin 60 sivua). Itse kun en oikeastaan tarvi mitään vakuutteluja siitä, että CSJ / wokehulluus on uskonto... Ja vieläpä oikein sellainen rauhanuskonto.

Tässä nyt siis vain johdanto, kirjoituksen kahden pääosan loppupätkät, sekä yhteenveto. Loput linkistä, jos kiinnostaa.

https://newdiscourses.com/2020/09/first-amendment-case-freedom-from-woke-religion/

Lainaus
A First-Amendment Case for Freedom from the Woke Religion

Introduction

The question of whether or not the worldview and practice—for practice it intentionally is—going variously by the names “Social Justice,” “Critical Social Justice,” or, more colloquially, “Woke” constitutes a religion is one of some general interest that seems to be growing. Until quite recently, we maintained the luxury of not having to treat the matter more deeply than as something of a curio of sociocultural philosophy, however important the issue may be. I have contended, for example, that Critical Social Justice constitutes a religion of sorts (a postmodern one, as I laid it out at considerable length; a nominally “anti-racist” one, as Columbia University professor John McWhorter is tackling it currently, at book length) and must be thought of as such, at least by everyday citizens—though not by the law. Those were simpler times.

Now things are quite different and much more serious, so a much more serious inquiry is demanded of us. This escalation arrives not so much due to the externally obvious reasons like how profoundly parallel to religion Critical Social Justice and its practice have become—literally washing black people’s feet in the streets through tearful apologies against whiteness—but more because of its rapid and seemingly unstoppable penetration into our public institutions, including government at every level and, more importantly, our public schools.

It is nearly always a question of considerable importance and some urgency when an ideology, especially when it comprises a totalizing worldview, decides that it is to be the fundamental basis for how we organize society and educate our children, to say nothing of other legal concerns. This, to be certain, is happening now with astonishing rapidity. The overwhelming majority of our schools systems’ teacher training over the summer of 2020, to prepare teachers for the new mostly-online educational demands for the coming fall term, have been heavily, if not exclusively, about issues pertinent to Critical Social Justice. Our government agencies at all levels are taking on the basic principles and tenets of this belief system as matters of both policy and recommendation.

With astonishing speed, a shocking number of our nation’s school systems have taken up explicitly critical—as in Critical Theory—educational approaches that focus on teaching identity politics, “anti-racism,” and about the systems of power that the Critical Social Justice worldview assumes exists in everything. States like Washington, California, and New York are openly adopting “Ethnic Studies” programs that revamp their entire educational systems in line with Critical Social Justice so extreme that they seek to replace math with “ethnomathematics” and history with critical “hxstory.” These changes come alongside other equally questionable practices with even more jargon-heavy descriptions, all dedicated to awakening a “critical consciousness” of “anti-racism” through “cultural awareness” in our nation’s children. Our curricula, we’re told, have to be “decolonized.” New curricula are explicitly based not only in Critical Theories of identity, but upon the critical historiography of the infamously revisionist (and Pulitzer Prize-winning) 1619 Project and the explicit dictates of the radical Black-power activism organization Black Lives Matter.

Meanwhile, a veritable war is going on regarding whether or not assessment (like standardized testing) is “racist,” and excellence programs are being scrapped for being “inequitable.
” As parents react to this (often very negatively) by seeking to pull their kids out of our public schools in favor of homeschooling them, calls to abolish homeschooling are coming to the fore of the discussion from the priestly of this new faith, insisting that it is “racist” to teach one’s own children at home because the state has a duty to teach them subjects like “Social Justice.” These changes should facilitate the elimination of objective standards that will enable an increase in the ability to execute and hide rampant problems of applying discriminatory admissions policies at elite schools and universities, all in the name of “equity,” which people are led to believe is a hallmark of group fairness.

Simultaneously, many of our government agencies and departments are taking on the tenets of Critical Social Justice, especially Critical Race Theory and its derivative, “anti-racism,” as a matter of mandate. These entities include state and federal “departments of” as well as myriad government contractors and state funded entities, like National Public Radio (NPR). Even NASA, which is widely regarded as synonymous with scientific rigor, hosted “anti-racist” historian Ibram X. Kendi to lecture its employees on tenets of this Theoretical view of the world. This invitation is remarkable given that Kendi’s explicit ambition is to pass an “anti-racist” Constitutional amendment that would permanently create and empower a de facto fourth branch of the American government dedicated to critically examining and unmaking any “racist” policy, defined as anything that ends up having certain (but not other) disparate outcomes by race. This invitation is even less alarming than the fact that Kendi’s argument is being used in support of a California initiative to remove the anti-discrimination language from its state constitution in accordance with achieving equity and “anti-racism.” Equally, if not more alarming, are that the Center for Disease Control has institutionalized tremendous quantities of this Theory (during a pandemic, no less), even while states officially declare “systemic racism” a kind of “public health crisis” that obviates any reasonable measures for pandemic mitigation if done in the name of “racial justice.” Even large government contractors, like Sandia Laboratories, which handles extremely high-tech weaponry (including nuclear weaponry), have taken on this ideology deeply enough to have fallen into an internal “civil war” after a brave employee blew the whistle.

The matter of understanding Critical Social Justice, as the ideology is formally called, is, in some sense, no longer a mere philosophical issue (if it ever truly was). It’s now an emergency, and as more and more people are noticing (or, it seems, hoping, as it would provide them with recourse that currently seems not to exist), it’s likely to be a legal emergency. Unfortunately, very little legal architecture currently exists to do anything about the problem of this imposition of one particular belief system upon society via its most susceptible demographic—children. Further, perhaps due to failures of people like myself in the past few years, there has been very little push to generate this legal architecture in what is likely to be one of its strongest and most fruitful directions: identifying the Critical Social Justice worldview as a functionally religious worldview. This is required to open it up to the full machinery of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and its famous Establishment Clause, and would, at least, get it out of our school systems very quickly.

The argument, I think, needs to be opened up in earnest because we now face two incredible perils against the American ideal where it collides with the Critical Social Justice worldview, and these merit taking the issue and the risk that comes with it (legally protecting Critical Social Justice as a system of faith) very seriously. The first of these is the one I’ve already spent some time on pointing out: Critical Social Justice has already encroached deeply into our public education system and halls of government in the United States. In fact, this trend is accelerating to a pitch so extreme that complaints that schools are operating in the service of political indoctrination rather than as houses of a basic and liberal education, as they were initially conceived, are rapidly becoming plausible. The second is that a time may come in the not-distant future in which this totalizing and totalitarian worldview could be installed as the de facto state religion, even while it elides categorization as such. The state endorsement—or worse, enforcement—of any faith falls directly afoul of the protections the U.S. Constitution was written to ensure to individual citizens, and, in fact, to other systems of faith that would disagree with it. The question is, which totalizing worldviews that are not traditionally recognizable as faiths should be treated in the same way for the same reasons? While the answer to this question is not immediately clear, it must have to do with how they function in society and in the lives of those who believe them.

Therefore, to put it directly: It is my belief that the contents of the Critical Social Justice worldview should be protected as matters of private conscience only, and they should also be limited as such. That is, I want to contend that the Free-exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment apply to Critical Social Justice. It is therefore not merely a philosophical exercise to ask whether or not Critical Social Justice constitutes a religion but also a serious legal one that gets to the very core of what the American Experiment has always been about—freedom of belief and from state religion. It is my intention here to make this case as briefly as possible, which means it will still be very long.

Part I – The Philosophical Argument

(...)(...)

In Summary

I think this does a thorough job of summarizing the case that Critical Social Justice, as an ideological worldview, is very similar to religion in most of the relevant ways. It forms a moral community that is designed to meet the same psychosocial needs as religions are, though it is decentralized and disorganized (I have previously called it “disorganized religion,” though “decentralized” might be nearer the mark). It provides a mythology, metaphysics, and moral law that binds the community and enables “divinity”-based psychosocial valuation of adherents and others, and this gives rise to clear “critical” duties of conscience in everyone the system can touch. It ontologically grounds its moral commandments against the long view from the End of History, as a kind of legacy-based moral lawgiver and adjudicator. It possesses its own epistemological framework as well—one rooted in the critical mythology of problematization and postmodern mythology of lived experience and discursive production. Since it proceeds from a mythology with its own creation myth, metaphysics, and moral law, this view is totalizing to those who adhere to it, as is typical of religious belief. This system of belief is, in fact, constructed along the same lines as how Augustine organized Christianity and Aquinas “proved” the existence of God. Finally, it gives way to fundamentalism of both types and manifests in puritanical form, which is something that, while it is not limited to religion, is very common within sects or cults that arise within religious movements and worldviews.

Part II: The Legal Argument

(...)(...)

A Functional Definition of Religion

At this point, at last, we can turn to Clements’ functional definition of religion, and I think enough argument has been made so far that little or no elaboration afterward will be required to convince the reader that it is either met or very plausibly grounds for serious discussion about whether it is met. Clements gives the following definition (emphasis added):

Supplementing Judge Adams’ idea of a comprehensive belief system that addresses fundamental questions with the notion of duties of conscience provides a workable definition of religion for purposes of the First Amendment. Taking these two ideas together, religion can be defined as a comprehensive belief system that addresses the fundamental questions of human existence, such as the meaning of life and death, man’s role in the universe, and the nature of good and evil, and that gives rise to duties of conscience.

I am, given my background in mathematics and all I’ve written so far, tempted here to type only “quod erat demonstrandum.” Clements, however, is more prudentially circumspect than that and offers a number of potential objections to his definition, some of which might bear relevance. The Objection for Marxism, discussed above, is one such argument. The one below, which in the case of Critical Social Justice I might call the Objection to Nihilism, remains:

Moreover, the proposed approach does require that the alleged religious belief play a certain role in the claimant’s life: it must be part of a comprehensive belief system that addresses certain fundamental questions and gives rise to duties of conscience. Thus, the issue in a free exercise case is not simply whether the claimant sincerely believes that the belief or practice in question is a religious belief, but whether he sincerely believes that it plays the religious role in his life. The definition of that role provides a basis for the factfinder to question the nature of the belief, and to assess the claimant’s sincerity, thereby reducing the likelihood of successful fraudulent claims.

It is clear that some faiths look upward to God while retaining awareness of sin, temptation, and evil, and their faithful tend to be enriched by this habit. Other faiths—particularly, puritanical ones—tend not to do this and look downward at sin that needs to be called out, temptation that must be avoided or repressed, and evil that must be destroyed. Their awareness of their God is remote and distant, a secondary feature of their faith, and they tend to see their God as a stern judge who will, in the end, adjudicate on the moral worth of their struggle against the evils of the world. Critical Social Justice is such a downward-oriented faith. The Eye at the End of History will know, as will the future generations between now and then, whether they stood for liberation or oppression. In this sense, while postmodernism might have been nihilistic, Critical Social Justice has taken up only traces of this blind negativity (particularly the blindness). For them, it is not that everything must be destroyed, just everything that maintains systemic oppression.

But Can It Be Believed?

This extraordinarily nonsensical set of beliefs about the world and willing embrace of self-serving double standards produces perhaps the most common difficulty I encounter when trying to tell people about Critical Social Justice: people really do believe it. It should be sufficiently clear to people, as families are literally being torn apart as a result of falling on different sides of the relevant issues, but perhaps more argument than this is needed.

The difficulty arises because to an outsider, the Theory of Critical Social Justice is simply unbelievable, if not blatantly self-contradictory, flatly ridiculous, and transparently unethical. It isn’t clear how anyone could truly believe ideas like that there is no truth, only your “truth” and mine (communicated, no less, by smartphones equipped with GPS). Given the cartoonish conflict theory it inherited from late-stage, Marcusian neo-Marxism, which was made even more cartoonish by the identity-politicians who took it up in earnest (including black feminists like Angela Davis, radicals like the Weatherman Underground, and other Liberationist revolutionaries within the so-called New Left that emerged after One-Dimensional Man and the Vietnam War) and the ridiculous and unsustainable postmodernist break from truth, doubts the sincerity of Critical Social Justice advocates seem always at the heart of liberal and conservative reactions to descriptions of the worldview. Yeah, but does anybody really believe that?

I think the answer to this question, though, is undoubtedly in the affirmative—sincerity of belief and conviction to the faith are undeniably real—and the theologians of the movement, at the least, tell us this in the clearest possible terms. To them, objectivity is, as Robin DiAngelo has put it, “undesirable” and “an impossible goal.” Thus, truth, in the objective sense that it could be shared as true by all people in all places and times regardless of their cultural milieu, does not exist (or is, at least, entirely inaccessible). Our comprehension of reality is wholly and radically subjectivist, so that reality becomes “realities,” which are not comprehensible on shared terms but lived and interpreted through cultural paradigms that either align with systemic dominance or the attempt to liberate people from dominance.

This leads Critical Social Justice scholars (theologians) to compose and compile lists of tenets, which, in articulating just the “systemic racism” aspect of this belief system (while other dimensions of Theory admit other, parallel expressions), read like this example from DiAngelo, et al. One will notice that they form something of a creed (oppi, usko, uskontunnustus):

Racism exists today in both traditional and modern forms. Racism is an institutionalized, multilayered, multilevel system that distributes unequal power and resources between white people and people of color, as socially identified, and disproportionately benefits whites. All members of society are socialized to participate in the system of racism, albeit in varied social locations. All white people benefit from racism regardless of intentions. No one chose to be socialized into racism so no one is bad, but no one is neutral. To not act against racism is to support racism. Racism must be continually identified, analyzed and challenged. No one is ever done. The question is not “Did racism take place?” but rather “How did racism manifest in that situation?” The racial status quo is comfortable for most whites. Therefore, anything that maintains white comfort is suspect. The racially oppressed have a more intimate insight via experiential knowledge into the system of race than their racial oppressors. However, white professors will be seen as having more legitimacy, thus positionality must be intentionally engaged. Resistance is a predictable reaction to anti-racist education and must be explicitly and strategically addressed.

These are the core tenets developed by scholar-activists Heather Bruce, Robin DiAngelo, Gyda Swaney (Salish) and Amie Thurber at the National Race and Pedagogy Conference at Puget Sound University. They went on to be implemented explicitly at The Evergreen State College, presaging its descent into riotous madness in a way that bears every indication of having been implemented by true believers convinced not only of the capital-T Truth of these propositions but of their righteousness. In light of reading this creed and seeing its real-world implementation, perhaps first at Evergreen and now throughout our society, the question of whether this is, in fact, a religious creed becomes pressing. This lends considerable weight to the question of whether or not Critical Social Justice is a religion, not just by philosophical argument by also by legal argument. My case in this essay is that according to a functional legal argument with significant Supreme Court precedent, the answer to that question is yes. It is a credal faith exhibiting clear liturgical forms and epistolic writings that proceeds upon a recognizable Augustinian construct that it has cobbled together from various features of the Western canon, including progressive aspects of faith, the moral but not practical cores of liberal thought, anti-liberal Critical Theory, and anti-everything postmodernism.


Conclusion: What Now?

Given the situation we find ourselves in, in society today, this matter demands serious debate. If this argument is correct, Critical Social Justice must be protected under the Free-exercise Clause of the First Amendment, so that any who wish to hold this religious view for themselves as a matter of personal conscience must be protected in doing so. That is their fundamental right, and it shall not be infringed. In the same turn, the rest of us have fundamental rights to our own consciences as well, and Critical Social Justice has no standing upon which it can infringe upon them, or us. The Establishment Clause should remove Critical Social Justice from our schools, our administrative state, and the halls of our government, as this faith, like any other, cannot receive state endorsement or become a state religion.

The secularist principle of our free, pluralistic society should also unbind the consciences of any individuals who, understanding Critical Social Justice as the system of faith that it is, have other conscience, morals, and mind, so that they might reject its imposition as inappropriate and unduly intrusive. Just as those who wish to hold to a faith of Critical Social Justice with its transcendent systems of power and its spiritualism of liberation from them are free to do so, the rest of us are free to say no and to believe otherwise. We should feel as confident in this as we would in rejecting the impositions of any other faith we don’t believe in.

In closing, the question that needs answering is whether or not Critical Social Justice meets these criteria: “a comprehensive belief system that addresses the fundamental questions of human existence, such as the meaning of life and death, man’s role in the universe, and the nature of good and evil, and that gives rise to duties of conscience.” I contend that it very well may. If that is the case, it must not be given special status by our American government and must be stripped from public spaces, including our federal, state, and local governments and, especially, our public schools, in none of which it belongs. Wokeness is a matter of personal conscience, and it must be protected as such, just as we must be protected from state enforcement of it.

Edit. Artikkeli onkin siis kirjoitettu jo 9.9.2020.
« Viimeksi muokattu: 14.02.2021, 22:33:16 kirjoittanut zupi »
"If all the votes are added up in PA, Trump is going to lose." - Pennsylvania AG Josh Shapiro, 31.10.2020

“I do not accept the rules imposed by others.... And in periods of regime change, the normal rules don’t apply.” - Soros

zupi

  • Jäsen^^^
  • ***
  • Viestejä: 1 229
  • Liked: 6376
Vs: Critical Social Justice
« Vastaus #47 : 11.02.2021, 13:48:20 »
Yksi käytännön esimerkki wokeporukan toiminnasta. Disney potki Gina Caranon pihalle wokeistien cancelointikampanjan seurauksena.

https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/people-are-trying-to-cancel-gina-carano-for-what-exactly/

Lainaus
Lucasfilm Folds To the Twitter Mob and Fires Gina Carano

(...)

Before her acting career, Carano made a name for herself as an MMA fighter. You have to be a badass to be a successful female MMA fighter, so it makes sense that Carano plays a badass character in The Mandalorian. She began her acting career during her MMA career, but it didn’t really kick off until her retirement. Although she has been in blockbuster films like Deadpool, she’s most well known for her role as the mercenary Cara Dune on The Mandalorian.

The fan backlash against Carano began over the summer after she was silent about the Black Lives Matter movement. Fans began to pressure Carano into speaking up (and some were bullying her by calling her a racist for not being vocal).

She responded by writing, “In my experience, screaming at someone that they are a racist when they are indeed NOT a racist & any post and/or research you do will show you those exact facts, then I’m sorry, these people are not ‘educators.’ They are cowards and bullies.”

She came under fire again in September for not putting her pronouns in her Twitter bio. She responded to the criticism by joking that her preferred pronouns were "boop/bop/beep."

(...)

The first calls for her firing started in mid-November, when Carano tweeted a meme questioning why Democratic politicians want their constituents to wear masks. This led fans to call for her firing from The Mandalorian on Twitter.

(...)

On Wednesday, #FireGinaCarano began trending again on Twitter after the actress shared a post stating the American political climate resembles Nazi Germany. Her post was deleted but screenshots circled on social media, along with renewed calls from the outraged Twitter mob that Disney and Lucasfilm fire her from The Mandalorian. 

(...)

Ja kenkää siis tuli. Kuten alla olevan twiitin kuvasta selviää, mitään antisemitististä Carano ei postannut, vaan vertasi nykyisiä vihavasureita natseihin. Taisi osua arkaan paikkaan...


Tästä olen Cernon kanssa samaa mieltä:



Edit. Mandalorianin päätähdelle vastaavat heitot ei aiheuta mitään ongelmia.


Poso viitannee tällaisiin juttuihin, vaikka ehkä tuosta "he/him" pätkästäkin voi jotain päätellä.

Lainaus
The Mandalorian And Wonder Woman Actor Pedro Pascal Compares Donald Trump Voters To Nazis

(...)

The meme reads “Losers in 1865” next to the Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia.

It then reads, “Losers in 1945” next to the flag of Nazi Germany, officially called the flag of the German Reich.

Finally it reads, “Losers in 2020” next to a Make America Great Again hat.

(...)

https://boundingintocomics.com/2020/11/07/the-mandalorian-and-wonder-woman-actor-pedro-pascal-compares-donald-trump-voters-to-nazis/

Babylon Beekin aktivoitui, tuollainenhan se Pedowoodin moraali / prioriteetit ovat. Kaikki menee, kunhan kannatat oikeita tahoja ja ideologioita.


Lainaus
"I'm not a Republican actress -- I'm actually a toxic, abusive, gaslighting director of many popular shows and films over the years," Carano said. (...)

Disney's response was immediate, as the company profusely apologized and hired her back.

"We are so sorry to Ms. Carano for firing her -- we did not realize she was actually a sexually abusive male director trapped in a woman's body," said a Disney spokesperson. (...)

https://babylonbee.com/news/gina-carano-rehired-by-disney-after-she-identifies-as-an-abusive-male-director
« Viimeksi muokattu: 11.02.2021, 17:30:38 kirjoittanut zupi »
"If all the votes are added up in PA, Trump is going to lose." - Pennsylvania AG Josh Shapiro, 31.10.2020

“I do not accept the rules imposed by others.... And in periods of regime change, the normal rules don’t apply.” - Soros

Urban Moving Systems

  • Jäsen^^
  • **
  • Viestejä: 187
  • Liked: 458
Vs: Critical Social Justice
« Vastaus #48 : 11.02.2021, 16:50:42 »

Ja kenkää siis tuli. Kuten alla olevan twiitin kuvasta selviää, mitään antisemitististä Carano ei postannut, vaan vertasi nykyisiä vihavasureita natseihin. Taisi osua arkaan paikkaan...

Lainaus
On Wednesday, #FireGinaCarano began trending again on Twitter after the actress shared a post stating the American political climate resembles Nazi Germany. Her post was deleted but screenshots circled on social media, along with renewed calls from the outraged Twitter mob that Disney and Lucasfilm fire her from The Mandalorian. 

Aiemmista tapauksista ei kuitenkaan seurannut mitään, mutta nyt kyseessä oleva twiitti sisältää juutalaisten kohtelun vertaamista nykypäivän poliitiseen ilmapiiriin. Tämän seurauksena Gina Carano sai potkut.

Sama pätee myös liberaaleiksi itseään kutsuvia: The Guardianin toimittaja sai juuri potkut mainittuaan Israelin negatiivisessa valossa.
Lainaus
One of the most serious threats to free speech is the silencing of criticism of the government of Israel.

I have now found this out the hard way, having just been fired as a Guardian columnist for sending a tweet about US military aid to Israel
Invalid Tweet ID
« Viimeksi muokattu: 11.02.2021, 22:00:49 kirjoittanut Urban Moving Systems »
"I believe in a God that doesn't need heavy financing." ― Irvin Fletcher

zupi

  • Jäsen^^^
  • ***
  • Viestejä: 1 229
  • Liked: 6376
Vs: Critical Social Justice
« Vastaus #49 : 11.02.2021, 23:15:29 »
Tällaista Philadelphiassa, oikein kunnon vihavasurimeininkiä. Muistakaa kuitenkin, että oikeasti siitä, mitä siellä koulussa todellisuudessa opetaan, ei saisi puhua mitään. Kysykää vaikka OAJ:ltä.

Mutta eiköhän tuolla(kin) kaikki äänet laskettu täysin oikein...


Pistetään koko ketju lainauksina.

Lainaus
SCOOP: A Philadelphia elementary school forced fifth-grade students to celebrate "black communism" and simulate a Black Power rally to "free Angela Davis" from prison.

I've obtained exclusive whistleblower documents and photographs from the school. Here's the story.
Lainaus
Last year, a fifth-grade teacher at the William D. Kelley School designed a social-studies curriculum to celebrate the political radical Angela Davis, praising the "black communist" for her fight against "inequality" and telling students to "define communist" in favorable terms.
Lainaus
At the end of the unit, the teacher led the ten- and eleven-year-olds into the school auditorium to "simulate" a Black Power rally to "free Angela Davis" from prison, where she had once been held on charges of murder. The students chanted "Black Power!" and "Free Angela!"
Lainaus
The William D. Kelley School's student population is 94 percent black and 100 percent “economically disadvantaged.” Academically, it is one of the worst-performing schools in the state: by graduation, only 13 percent of Kelley students will have achieved basic literacy.
Lainaus
Despite this abysmal academic performance, administrators have gradually abandoned traditional pedagogy in favor of political radicalism. They recently commissioned murals of Angela Davis and Huey P. Newton, who represent the Communist and Black Panther revolutionary movements.
Lainaus
In recent years, the entire Philadelphia public school system has embraced the philosophy of “antiracism.” Last summer, the superintendent released an Antiracism Declaration promising to “[dismantle] systems of racial inequity” and implemented racially-segregated programs.
Lainaus
The local teachers’ union produced a video denouncing the United States as a “settler colony built on white supremacy and capitalism,” which has created a “system that lifts up white people over everyone else.”
Lainaus
The teachers' union openly demands that the United States overthrow the “racist structure of capitalism,” provide “reparations for Black and Indigenous people,” and “uproot white supremacy and plant the seeds for a new world.”
Lainaus
The gap between rhetoric and reality is almost beyond comprehension: the ten-year-olds marching for “black communism” can barely read and write. Rather than come to terms with this failure, educators have shifted the blame to “systemic racism” and promises of “revolution.”
Lainaus
This should be a crime. The School District of Philadelphia has 18,000 employees and a $3.4 billion annual budget—and fails, year after year, to teach basic literacy. Educators promise to "plant the seeds for a new world," but condemn their students to illiteracy and failure.
"If all the votes are added up in PA, Trump is going to lose." - Pennsylvania AG Josh Shapiro, 31.10.2020

“I do not accept the rules imposed by others.... And in periods of regime change, the normal rules don’t apply.” - Soros

zupi

  • Jäsen^^^
  • ***
  • Viestejä: 1 229
  • Liked: 6376
Vs: Critical Social Justice
« Vastaus #50 : 12.02.2021, 12:57:52 »

Piti oikein useampi varmistus hakea, että tuo on tosiaan totta, mutta kyllä tuon sekopään ajatuksista voi todellakin tuollaisen johtopäätöksen vetää.

https://newspunch.com/being-kind-to-dogs-is-racist-university-professor-says/
https://areomagazine.com/2021/02/01/critical-race-theory-is-coming-for-the-dogs-katja-guenthers-the-lives-and-deaths-of-shelter-animals/
https://www.amazon.com/Lives-Deaths-Shelter-Animals/dp/1503612856
https://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=32332

Lainaus
In her recent book The Lives and Deaths of Shelter Animals, Katja Guenther claims that dogs are being killed because of “capitalism, anthroparchy, white supremacy and patriarchy.” She argues that allowing dogs to sleep inside is a privilege reserved for the white and wealthy and that policies against keeping dogs chained up in backyards are intended to oppress people of color by imposing “middle-class norms of animal keeping in which companion animals are considered family and treated accordingly,” which ignore the fact that people of color “are themselves trapped in poverty, may have few options for legitimate income generation and possibly rely on their dogs for … status.”

Unfortunately Guenther’s misguided book is gaining traction. Shelter director Kristen Hassen opines that Guenther “gets it right” in concluding that “racism, classism and the caste system are at the heart of the broken animal sheltering institution.” Arguing that laws to prevent mistreatment of dogs discriminate against “anyone in the US other than white, middle class and upper-class individuals,” Sloane Hawes, Tess Hupe and Kevin Morris of the University of Denver Institute for Human-Animal Connection cite the book in their proposal to relax enforcement of animal protection laws—a proposal that threatens to reverse decades of hard-won progress.

Lainaus
In Guenther’s book, moreover, white people do things; people of color have things done to them. For example, people of color who abandon their dogs in empty apartments are victims “ensnared in the legal system,” forced to leave their animals behind “under the duress of sudden eviction or deportation or arrest.” Guenther even claims that such people actually believe that what they are doing is for the best, because of “the constraints of their knowledge and resources, both of which are limited by the nexus of their class, status as immigrants, and ethnicity.”

When a Latino man on a bicycle drops a dog “while escaping from mall security officers … after stealing a pair of Wrangler jeans,” she explains this away as the result of his “status as marginalized.” When a woman leaves her dog to die at the pound after she has finished breeding her and selling her puppies to buy drugs, it is the fault of her “status as a poorly educated queer woman of color.” Guenther laments that “rescuers … critique urban Black and Latinx communities for not seeing companion animals as sufficiently part of the family and instead seeing them as resources, whether protective (as in guarding) or financial (as in breeding or possibly fighting).”

She appears to be arguing that if a person of color can turn a profit or build a reputation through animal exploitation that excuses animal suffering—even in the case of sadistic animal abuse: “From a class perspective, wealthy people are believed to be too ‘civilized’ to engage in barbaric activities like dogfighting, and it’s no coincidence that the only affluent person who has been publicly shamed for dogfighting in the U.S., Michael Vick, is Black, newly wealthy after growing up in poverty.”

Dogfighting, however, is not considered barbaric because it violates the norms of wealthy people—who, after all, have historically had their own versions of animal cruelty masquerading as entertainment, such as fox hunting and pigeon shooting. Nor is dogfighting considered uncivilized because of the skin color of the organizers—many of whom are white—but because of what it does to dogs.

Lainaus
While Guenther explains away mistreatment if the perpetrator happens to be a person of color, she has plenty of harsh words for those trying to save animals. Day in and day out, rescuers and volunteers show tremendous courage and compassion when they visit their local pounds. At many high kill shelters, they face hostile treatment from staff and endure heartbreak at seeing animals destined for lethal injection or gas chambers. And yet they go back, again and again.

Despite acknowledging these traumas, because most of the volunteers Guenther encountered were white, she accuses them of working to “reinscribe hierarchies of power and status within the shelter” against the non-white workers and thus “maintain existing social inequalities between humans even as they seek to help animals.” When a rescuer laments the condition of a dog “with sagging belly skin, elongated nipples, and enlarged genitalia” and expresses dismay that the former owners “confined their dog outdoors” and “used the pit bull primarily for income generation through breeding,” Guenther dismisses the criticism as “the animal practices of white rescuers.”

Lainaus
The most dangerous thing about Guenther’s book, however, is her view that human-animal relations are “a zero-sum political struggle involving identity markers like race.” In the early nineteenth century, cruelty to dogs was not recognized in law because they were considered property. Likewise, harming a homeless dog was not illegal because there was no property interest at stake. The animal did not matter. Guenther is once again suggesting a standard that excuses harm based on the interests of those causing it.

Lainaus
Katja M. Guenther is Associate Professor of Gender and Sexuality Studies at the University of California, Riverside, and author of Making Their Place (Stanford, 2010).
"If all the votes are added up in PA, Trump is going to lose." - Pennsylvania AG Josh Shapiro, 31.10.2020

“I do not accept the rules imposed by others.... And in periods of regime change, the normal rules don’t apply.” - Soros

Lalli IsoTalo

  • "Hallituksenkaataja"
  • Jäsen^^^
  • ***
  • Viestejä: 36 690
  • Liked: 50223
  • Kyllä tästä vielä selvitään, kaikesta huolimatta!
“Tavoitteemme on pakolaisten suojelu. Kansalliset rajat ovat sille este.”
— Soros

“Rajat auki ja Suomi kiinni tai rajat kiinni ja Suomi auki.  Kas siinä pulma.”
— Jäsen Valtakunnanpärkhele

“Järjestelmän tavoitteena on epänormaaliuden normalisointi ja normaaliuden epänormalisointi.”
— Jäsen Marcus Porcius Cato

zupi

  • Jäsen^^^
  • ***
  • Viestejä: 1 229
  • Liked: 6376
Vs: Critical Social Justice
« Vastaus #52 : 12.02.2021, 23:04:50 »
https://newspunch.com/being-kind-to-dogs-is-racist-university-professor-says/

Everything Is Racism Except Critical Social Justice.

Sekä tietenkin Joe "the blackest of lesbians" Biden, monikansalliset jättifirmat ja multimiljardöörit.

Pistetään tämä mukaan niin ei tule yksrivinen...


Tämäkin ihan hyvä ketju.

"If all the votes are added up in PA, Trump is going to lose." - Pennsylvania AG Josh Shapiro, 31.10.2020

“I do not accept the rules imposed by others.... And in periods of regime change, the normal rules don’t apply.” - Soros

zupi

  • Jäsen^^^
  • ***
  • Viestejä: 1 229
  • Liked: 6376
Vs: Critical Social Justice
« Vastaus #53 : 13.02.2021, 01:03:44 »
Tämä sinänsä ihan mielenkiintoinen kirjoitus sopinee tähän ketjuun.

https://quillette.com/2021/01/03/return-of-the-strong-gods-understanding-the-new-right/

Lainaus
Return of the Strong Gods: Understanding the New Right

(…)

What is most striking about Atkins’s comments is not his evident belief that 75 million Americans are conspiracy theorists, nor his suggestion that we re-educate citizens for wrongthink—in the world of Left-Twitter, this is comparatively mild fare—but rather his insistence that the Democratic party is a uniquely heterodox space, a forum for robust policy debates, while the GOP is some kind of monolith. A “cult,” as he called it. And yet, the Republican Party possesses more viewpoint diversity and is more internally factional than its competitor by a wide margin. Of all the exhausted canards one hears from liberals and never-Trumpers alike, the one that most needs retirement is the notion that Trump bent conservatism to his will, or, as Tim Alberta put it in 2017, “The conservative movement is Donald Trump.”

Trump’s election in 2016 was not the reflection of a unified coalition, but a deeply divided one. A great many Americans held their noses to vote for Trump, whom they saw as the lesser evil. Atkins’s caricature of half the country is the sort of monocausal explanation that declines to take seriously the real forces that led to Trump’s rise: the economic dislocation brought about by automation and globalization; the collapse of the manufacturing sector; dueling opioid and suicide epidemics; a three-year consecutive decline in the life-expectancy rate; a crisis of loneliness and despair brought about by family collapse, institutional decay, and declining social capital; a student-debt crisis that has crippled young people’s futures; the corruption of our media and sense-making institutions; and a growing disconnect between our politically correct, chthonic governing elites and the concerns of ordinary Americans, which include such untouchable issues as immigration, the warfare state, and corporate bailouts. As Tucker Carlson puts it in his book Ship of Fools: “Happy countries don’t elect Donald Trump… desperate ones do.”

There is a growing intellectual movement on the Right (I call them the “New Right,” though they have also been called the “illiberal Right” and even “America’s Orbánists”) that understands this, even while acknowledging Trump’s many flaws. For some in this cadre, Trump is not unlike Hegel’s “world historical figure,” a leader who embodies the zeitgeist, if only for a moment, and carries forward the ruthless march of Kant’s “World Spirit,” discarding stale orthodoxies and outdated structures along the way. For others, Trump was merely a bull in a china shop who shattered the postwar consensus, brittle as it was, and summoned in its place a return of the “strong gods” (to borrow Rusty Reno’s phrase) of loyalty, solidarity, and home. The oracles of these strong gods are an impressively credentialed cast of scholars and writers; they include Notre Dame professor Patrick Deneen, former Trump advisor Michael Anton, New York Post opinion editor Sohrab Ahmari, Israeli political scientist Yoram Hazony, and Harvard Law professor Adrian Vermeule.

The New Right is not a monolithic entity, nor does it follow a set of prescribed tenets. It is, what George F. Will (of all people) might call, a “sensibility.” Certainly, there are uniting threads of nationalism, populism, protectionism, and traditionalism at play; yet what distinguishes the New Right more than anything is its counter-revolutionary spirit, its politics of opposition. “In this progressive theocracy in which all must worship at the altar of Wokeness,” writes Hillsdale professor David Azerrad, “conservatism, if one can still even call it that, is more about overthrowing than conserving.” If Atkins is right about anything, it is this: With Trump at the helm, conservatism has become less an ideology than a battle cry. Where the old guard stood athwart history yelling “Stop!” the new guard screams, in a pitch closer to that of Rousseau than Burke, “Tear it all down!” “This new Right,” says Azerrad, “has a decidedly unconservative temperament.”

(…)

Deneen spoke passionately of the need for a strong middle class and of the various civic and national security reasons for retaining a robust manufacturing sector, citing the pandemic and our inability to produce the necessary personal protective equipment. For Hillsdale College professor David Azerrad, the question of economy also comes with significant cultural ramifications. “The issue is,” said Azerrad when we spoke, “do we have an economy that is producing well-paying jobs that allow men without degrees to find dignified employment so they can get married and raise a family? The issue is less location than the bifurcation of the economy into menial service jobs and abstract thinking jobs. That’s the issue,” he told me: “the fact that manly men are viewed as a problem and made to feel less and less at home in the American economy and society.” When I brought up Kevin Williamson’s point, Azerrad responded, “There has to be a backbone of the country that will work with its hands. If it means moving a few towns, that’s fine. But you can’t move to Mexico.”

Azerrad looked pained when I asked him to give his brand of conservatism a label. “I don’t know that I’m comfortable—I mean, if I had to give myself a label, I would say I am part of the New Right that is dissatisfied with the platitudes of what Rusty Reno has called ‘the rotting flesh of Reaganism.’ I want a Right that is anchored in the realities of the 21st century, that understands its base, that is aggressively fighting the culture wars, that is not beholden to the neocons on foreign policy or to the libertarians on economic thinking.” At one point in our conversation, he shared a line from one of his friends, whom he declined to name: “The Republicans should be the party of men who like being men, women who like being women, and Americans who like being Americans.” He flashed a boyish grin.

(…)

For all that, attacking the New Right through Orbán, while rhetorically effective, offers a distorting lens at best. My conversation with Deneen made it clear that for traditionalist conservatives the allure of Orbán’s approach runs deeper than politics and boils down to the question of what the telos (purpose or function) of a society should be. “It’s a concept of society,” Deneen told me, “that is pre-liberal, that has at its basis the fundamental society, the family.” Whereas liberalism sees the individual as the fundamental organizing unit of society, traditional conservatism begins with the family. The family, after all, shapes and gives rise to the individual. I cut in: “So instead of stripping society down to atomized individuals in a ‘state of nature’ and then building up Lockean rights,” I asked Deneen clumsily, “you’re starting with the family, and then society grows out of that?”

“That’s exactly right,” Deneen told me. “It’s conceptually and anthropologically different from liberal assumptions. If you begin by building from that point and you think about the ways that those institutions are under threat from a variety of sources in modern society… to the extent that you can strengthen those institutions, you do the things that someone like David French wants, which is to track a lot of the attention away from the role of central government. One of the reasons liberalism has failed in the thing it claims to do—which is limiting central government—is precisely because it is so fundamentally individualistic that radically individuated selves end up needing and turning to central governments for support and assistance.”

According to Deneen, liberal orders seek to liberate individuals from the “despotism” of custom, place, and tradition, reducing culture to a sterile consumerism, allowing us to “sample from other cultures but not be of a culture.” This “anti-culture,” as he calls it, is at the heart of the liberal project, whose aim is to “free us” from the traditional associations and commitments that would bind us, limit us, and define us. Liberalism, then, is a fundamentally homogenizing force. By compelling us to affirm all cultures, it deprives us of our culture. By taking us everywhere, it leaves us nowhere. By urging us not to conform, it renders us formless. This formlessness is a hallmark of the liberal anti-culture. “In the same way that we have bankrupted the next generation by leaving them negative balances in their bank accounts, we’ve given them negative balances in their cultural coffers,” Deneen said.

In his recent book Return of the Strong Gods: Nationalism, Populism, and the Future of the West, Rusty Reno expands on this critique. His central thesis is that, since 1945, Western culture has been one of “anti-imperatives”—anti-fascism, anti-totalitarian, anti-imperialism, anti-colonialism, and anti-racism. These are what the author calls “weak gods.” (…)

But citizens, Reno argues, will not tolerate a society of “pure negation” for long. The strong gods always return. Public life requires a shared mythos and a higher vision of the common good—what Richard Weaver called a “metaphysical dream.” Human beings long to coalesce around shared loves and loyalties. We unite in solidarity to elevate the sacred. “Our social consensus,” Reno writes, “always reaches for transcendent legitimacy.” There must be a center of things. Without that integrating ideal, without that centripetal force, societies begin to disperse, spiraling ever outward in a “widening gyre” until the culture lies in fragments. “There can be no society,” wrote the French sociologist Émile Durkheim, “which does not feel the need of upholding and reaffirming at regular intervals the collective sentiments and ideas which make its unity and personality.”

The strong gods, in other words, will always be with us. The only question is, what form will we allow them to take? And how will we prevent them from overpowering us once we summon them?

(…)
"If all the votes are added up in PA, Trump is going to lose." - Pennsylvania AG Josh Shapiro, 31.10.2020

“I do not accept the rules imposed by others.... And in periods of regime change, the normal rules don’t apply.” - Soros

zupi

  • Jäsen^^^
  • ***
  • Viestejä: 1 229
  • Liked: 6376
Vs: Critical Social Justice
« Vastaus #54 : 14.02.2021, 21:28:05 »
Aasialaisiin kohdistunut väkivalta on USAssa kovassa kasvussa, tekijät kaikki tietää. Sinänsä tuo kasvu on aika kova suoritus, kun mustat kohdistivat aasialaisiin väkivaltaa jo 2018 noin satakertaisesti verrattuna tilanteeseen toisinpäin. James Lindsay avaa tässä lainauksina esitetyssä twiittiketjussa asian syitä. Eli woketus tulee väistämättä johtamaan siihen, että ne vähemmistöt, jotka eivät alistu mielipuolisille CSJ-teorioille ja menestyksellään todistavat teorioiden ääliömäisyyden, joutuvat vihan ja väkivallan kohteeksi. Tosin wokeväki on sitä mieltä, että tämäkin väkivalta on pohjimmiltaan valkoisen ylivallan aiheuttamaa...  :facepalm: No, voihan tekijöissä hyvinkin olla myös valkoisia wokenatseja.

Lainaus
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, intersectionality was a tool to get as many people as possible to think of themselves as victims so they'd carry water for the ideology at the heart of Wokeness: queer black feminism, which derives from Critical Theory and adopted PoMo.

Lainaus
Queer black feminism is unapologetically invested in "identity politics" in the 1977 Combahee River Collective (not Civil Rights Movement) sense, which disfavors universal humanity and places divisive rhetoric and identity (and victimhood in that identity) first. Bad ideas.

Lainaus
The rise in anti-Asian discrimination and violence and some Anti-Semitism we see right now is a direct result of the intersectionality con game. "Minoritized groups" that don't do the radical politics to demand get called "anti-Black" and targeted. Racism and division rise.

Lainaus
Wokeness is about leveraging identity, like race, sex, gender, sexuality, etc., to force "minoritized groups" to take up the narrow, divisive, regressive, damaging identity politics of radical queer black feminists in the late "liberation" school vein (Critical Theory). Or else.

https://mobile.twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/1360968282241654785

Niin kuin Lindsay tuossa vähän tuo esiin, niin asiaan liittyy myös aasialaisten suora syrjintä esim opiskelupaikkojen suhteen.


Tämä on vähän OT, mutta kuitenkin osittain asiaan liittyvä twiitti, aika hauska vaan tuo oikeanpuoleinen kuva.


Edit. Tämä vielä mukaan, kun antifan tilalle voi huoletta heittää myös anti-rasismin.

« Viimeksi muokattu: 14.02.2021, 22:45:17 kirjoittanut zupi »
"If all the votes are added up in PA, Trump is going to lose." - Pennsylvania AG Josh Shapiro, 31.10.2020

“I do not accept the rules imposed by others.... And in periods of regime change, the normal rules don’t apply.” - Soros

zupi

  • Jäsen^^^
  • ***
  • Viestejä: 1 229
  • Liked: 6376
Vs: Critical Social Justice
« Vastaus #55 : 16.02.2021, 00:16:04 »
Bidenin otettua ohjat näitä putkahtelee kuin sieniä sateella. Tuo oikeanpuoleinen kuva on vaan sinänsä aika paljastava. Eli käytännössä kaikki suomalaiset(kin), jotka pitävät ja arvostavat länsimaista / omaa suomalaista kulttuuria, ovat "white supremacist"eja. Tämän tapaiset kielipelithän ovat woke-psykopaattien toimintatapojen ytimessä.

"If all the votes are added up in PA, Trump is going to lose." - Pennsylvania AG Josh Shapiro, 31.10.2020

“I do not accept the rules imposed by others.... And in periods of regime change, the normal rules don’t apply.” - Soros

zupi

  • Jäsen^^^
  • ***
  • Viestejä: 1 229
  • Liked: 6376
Vs: Critical Social Justice
« Vastaus #56 : 16.02.2021, 15:00:23 »


Lainaus
    It's like a tower of useful idiots.

    Very Smart People and Wokish sympathizers are useful idiots for the Woke.

    The Woke are useful idiots and vanguards for the "stakeholder capitalism" supranational fascists.

    Those tools are useful idiots for the CCP.
    — James Lindsay, increasingly relevant (@ConceptualJames) February 16, 2021
"If all the votes are added up in PA, Trump is going to lose." - Pennsylvania AG Josh Shapiro, 31.10.2020

“I do not accept the rules imposed by others.... And in periods of regime change, the normal rules don’t apply.” - Soros

zupi

  • Jäsen^^^
  • ***
  • Viestejä: 1 229
  • Liked: 6376
Vs: Critical Social Justice
« Vastaus #57 : 18.02.2021, 22:39:43 »

"If all the votes are added up in PA, Trump is going to lose." - Pennsylvania AG Josh Shapiro, 31.10.2020

“I do not accept the rules imposed by others.... And in periods of regime change, the normal rules don’t apply.” - Soros

zupi

  • Jäsen^^^
  • ***
  • Viestejä: 1 229
  • Liked: 6376
Vs: Critical Social Justice
« Vastaus #58 : 19.02.2021, 23:17:53 »
Tästä oli jo aiemmin ketjussa jonkin verran keskustelua, mutta alla Lindsayn artikkeli viime vuoden heinäkuulta marxismin, postmodernismin ja nykyisen woke-hulluuden (CSJ) yhteydestä.

Lainaus
The Complex Relationship between Marxism and Wokeness

(…)

People who observe that Marxism is somehow tied into all of this Woke stuff, then, are certainly not wrong, but it just as certainly isn’t Marxism. Marxists, like the real thing, might be behind this whole “Social Justice” phenomenon, or ready to come in after it tears society apart, as it does, but the Woke themselves are not Marxists, proper, and neither are the Marxists Woke. The simplest way to put this would be the following:

Critical Theory is “neo-Marxism,” or, as it’s sometimes phrased, “Cultural Marxism,” which plainly derives from Marxism and retained much of what was core to its thought while completely modifying other aspects of it in the hopes of achieving communism.

Postmodernism is a particular form of “post-Marxism,” which had given up more or less entirely on Marxism and thus everything else, though it was still a fairly significant fan of communist efforts as they played out in the 1950s and 1960s, and it was no friend to liberalism.

Critical Social Justice is the intentional fusion of these two schools of thought with the goal of achieving its ideas about “Social Justice” through radical identity politics.


None of this is simple, though, unfortunately, and so it all requires more elaboration. A quick history might therefore be in order. The relevant object to understand, though we don’t develop this specifically in Cynical Theories, is Marx’s “conflict theory,” which he derived from Hegel’s master/slave dialectic.

(…)

As for the neo-Marxists, they understood that Marx was wrong to say that economics were the relevant object upstream of politics. They realized it is culture and thus the impacts culture has on individual psychologies that is upstream of politics. (Andrew Breitbart didn’t come up with this idea; he read it from the Critical Theorists before deciding that they were right and putting it into his own applications!) Critical Theory, then, arose as an application of conflict theory to ideology and culture, as analyzed partly through (psychoanalytic) psychology and the emerging field of sociology. They blamed Marxism for failing to understand people and society just as much as they blamed liberalism for producing a means by which people could see society as essentially fair and success as essentially the result of talent and effort.

So, neo-Marxism is Marxian but not Marxist, in that it continues the conflict theory-style analysis of Marx into a different realm and does so toward essentially Marxist ends. One could say this is a distinction without a difference, but that is incorrect. The consequence of this shift is profound. It means that rather than attempting to unite workers and seize the means of economic production, as the Marxists had envisioned, the neo-Marxists wanted to change culture itself. This led them to find multiple sites of the oppressor/oppressed dynamic in society and get inside peoples heads with it, which they derived from the intentional forced marriage of Freudian psychoanalysis into Marxian social theory. They led them to understood the importance of seizing the means of cultural production—education, media, arts, journalism, faith, and entertainment—though, in many respects, they weren’t particularly good at it. For that, they would need the postmodernists and the critical pedagogists, as we shall see.

Of course, this is an oversimplification rather in the extreme. (…)

(…) This postmodern pessimism was more or less universal, though, and extended to Marxism as well as to capitalism, liberalism, and everything else, all of which Jean-François Lyotard named as “metanarratives” to be radically skeptical of. It is in this sense that postmodernism is actually more post-Marxist than it is anything else.

So, that sets the history of both the neo-Marxist and postmodernist (post-Marxist) schools of thought and explains their connection to Marxism, including what they kept from Marx and what they rejected. The Marxian roots are obvious, and yet it isn’t Marxism, and this antagonistic relationship between the theoretical approaches goes in both directions.

(…)

Nevertheless, both of these traditions had major problems, as one would expect from even hearing a superficial description of their ideas, and both of them more or less burned themselves out in public popularity pretty quickly. The French postmodern Theory was rejected completely in France and more or less ignored everywhere else (…)  and was wrongly declared dead by the academy as a serious intellectual pursuit by sometime in the 1990s.

Neo-Marxism, on the other hand, turned radical and violent under Herbert Marcuse, who even claimed himself that it had gone beyond his vision, and it burned itself out in terms of public support. (His influence, combined with that of the French postcolonialist  and psychoanalyst Frantz Fanon,  is, to decent approximation on its own the origin story of the radical anarchist project called Antifa.) Critical Theory then went underground into the universities, in that whole long march through the institutions project, starting in the early 1970s, working its way first into feminist and then other forms of critique, mostly in English departments, under headings like women’s studies, gender studies, African American studies, and ethnic studies.

Thus, again, it’s our avant-garde humanities scholars who remained interested in this at the time, mostly feminists (…) More or less everyone else ignored it even as they believed themselves more and more crucially relevant within the academy, with one horrible exception, to our peril, until quite recently.

The one notable exception is the schools of education, particularly following the “critical turn in education,”  which sought to make education about “consciousness raising” and instilling a “critical consciousness” into children as an educational priority. Some of this was explicitly anti-capitalist, and thus Marxist in origin, but it was mostly much more subtle. Critical pedagogy, as the result came to be called, was much more interested in undermining the national metanarratives, if you will, and getting students to be “educated” in a way that would lead them to be critical of their own national histories,  culture, and civics—or, more explicitly, to get them to learn to see their home nations as oppressive bad actors rather than as imperfect leaders of spreading a liberal order throughout the world and thus come to doubt or even hate them.

(…)

Freire, I’m told, ruined Brazilian education more or less singlehandedly, and it was his approach that Henry Giroux found so inspiring that he dragged it and its influence into North America. Giroux then incorporated first neo-Marxist and then postmodernist ideas (“the European theorists”) into education and educational theory, though the latter of those projects happened much more extensively later under the hand of another critical pedagogist named Joe Kincheloe. Thus, our schools of education turned heavily in the “critical” direction (meaning a blurry mix of Marxism, neo-Marxism, and postmodern post-Marxism, plus Freire’s own slightly tangential post-Marxist ideas) by the early 1980s, when Giroux became massively influential after publishing his first book, Ideology, Culture, and the Process of Schooling,  which was first published in North America in 1981.

Tähän väliin on pakko heittää pätkä Reaganin jäähyväispuheesta, äijä näki mitä oli tapahtumassa, vaikkei osannutkaan sitä silloin Lindsayn tavoin selittää.

Lainaus
“An informed patriotism is what we want. And are we doing a good enough job teaching our children what America is and what she represents in the long history of the world? Those of us who are over 35 or so years of age grew up in a different America. We were taught, very directly, what it means to be an American. And we absorbed, almost in the air, a love of country and an appreciation of its institutions.

(...)

“But now, we're about to enter the '90s, and some things have changed. Younger parents aren't sure that an unambivalent appreciation of America is the right thing to teach modern children. And as for those who create the popular culture, well-grounded patriotism is no longer the style. Our spirit is back, but we haven't reinstitutionalized it. We've got to do a better job of getting across that America is freedom – freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of enterprise. And freedom is special and rare. It's fragile; it needs [protection].

https://hommaforum.org/index.php/topic,130391.msg3194547.html#msg3194547

Ei se Reagan tainnut ihan niin tyhmä olla, mitä 80-luvun piirretyt antoivat ymmärtää... No, takaisin asiaan.

Lainaus
A lot was going on in the 1980s and into the 1990s in this regard. By then, the (liberationlist, i.e., neo-Marxist) black feminists (this is a school of thought, not black people who happen to be feminists) had taken up quite a bit of interest in postmodern Theory, as had some other fairly radical feminists, especially those like Gayle Rubin, Judith Butler, and Eve Sedgwick, who would go on to lay the foundations of queer Theory. (…)

This generation of activists saw postmodern Theory as somewhat incorrect but intrinsically useful for deconstructing the power dynamics their underlying neo-Marxist and radical feminist worldviews believed dominated society. (…)

The big idea these particular Theorists had was to limit the deconstructive potential of postmodern Theory so that it couldn’t be applied to any identity factor that’s on the “oppressed” end of the neo-Marxist liberationist view. They outlined the idea that to deconstruct a site of oppression, as it is understood through lived experience, is itself a luxury, thus application, of oppressive privilege. That removed systemic oppression, as the liberationists (neo-Marxists) defined it, from the acid bath of postmodernist deconstruction.

That is, a moral rock—the imperative to liberate from oppression—was inserted into the philosophical universe touched upon by these varied Marxian lines of scholarship, thought, and activism. That reification of systemic oppression, as understood through its lived experience (the one thing the deconstructionists said would be left when everything else is deconstructed), created a neat package by which postmodern Theory could be simplified and packaged up for activists.

(…)

Thus, “liberationist” politics were even by then, and much more by the time in 1989–1991 when postmodernism was fully and formally incorporated into them, unapologetically centered upon a narrowly particular and aggressive approach to identity politics that sought to forward social responsibility at the level of identity groups as the answer to the question of systemic oppression. The postmodern view that knowledge is just another application of unjustly empowered politics effectively liberated neo-Marxism from any obligation to making true statements about the world in service of its liberationist agenda. Instead, it elevated for these rather cutthroat activists the power of both unfalsifiable claims to lived experience (of systemic oppression) and the problematizing (i.e., offense-taking) that the Critical Theorists had forwarded as a means beyond defeasibility and falsification for invalidating undesirable (note: not “incorrect”) statements about the world and social reality within it (these, of course, would be those that are “not liberationist,” in the sense of producing a communist, or ethno-communist, revolution).

 (…)

This very radical approach as it appeared in the 1990s makes the Black Power movement from the 1960s and 1970s look quaint by comparison. It ultimately carried the goal of earning liberation for those who endure systemic oppression, not just from their oppressors but from oppression itself by seeking a complete overthrow of the existing system, in part through a complete deconstruction of anything that confers, produces, legitimizes, or upholds systemic power in any regard whatsoever. Whiteness itself, in all of its various manifestations, for example, must be unmade to end systemic racism, it contends. Here, then, is where postmodernism (post-Marxism) and neo-Marxism fused into “Critical Social Justice,” and this fusion can be read quite explicitly in Kimberlé Crenshaw’s landmark 1991 paper, “Mapping the Margins”.

That was the official birth of the Critical Social Justice school of thought (…)

So, in that sense, the Critical Social Justice that we describe in Cynical Theories (under the moniker “Social Justice scholarship and activism”) is profoundly Marxian in more than one way at once but is very expressly not Marxist. In particular, Marxism is an economics-based social theory, and Critical Social Justice actually usurps economic analysis and obscures it to use it as a proxy for its peculiar approach to identity politics. To be more specific on that, for example, it’s overwhelmingly obvious that economic causes are the sources of many of the phenomena Critical Race Theorists name as “systemic racism,” but they use the fact that there are statistical economic differences by race to claim that racism (not capitalistic exploitation) are the ultimate causes of those differences. Thus, they make class a proxy for the site of oppression that they’re actually obsessively focused upon, race, and thereby obliterate any possibility for liberal, rational, or even materialist or Marxist analysis of the underlying issues.

There’s something of an exception to that point, however, as though this isn’t already complicated enough. As Critical Social Justice not particularly suited to do much of anything except tear things apart and seems positively disinterested in building anything at all, the truly Marxist underpinnings of the movement do tend to show through a bit when its activists try to do anything practical in the sense of building something. We see this, for example, in demands for equitable and diverse hiring, as those ideas are quite obviously related to Marxism but only as filtered through identity-based lenses, which Marxism would reject on principle (not for bad reasons). In this way, it’s probably more accurate to describe the efforts of Critical Social Justice not as Marxist but as ethno-communist, where “ethnicity” here applies to the “culture” of any particular “systemically oppressed” identity group.

I know it’s confusing, but hopefully this helps clarify the complicated relationship between Marxism, neo-Marxism, postmodernism, and their kind of mutant-hybrid descendant, Critical Social Justice scholarship and activism. So it goes when radical Marxian-Utopian activism evolves against both reality and the solid liberal societies that successfully push back at all of its many endless attempts to undermine society from within.

https://newdiscourses.com/2020/07/complex-relationship-between-marxism-wokeness/
"If all the votes are added up in PA, Trump is going to lose." - Pennsylvania AG Josh Shapiro, 31.10.2020

“I do not accept the rules imposed by others.... And in periods of regime change, the normal rules don’t apply.” - Soros

zupi

  • Jäsen^^^
  • ***
  • Viestejä: 1 229
  • Liked: 6376
Vs: Critical Social Justice
« Vastaus #59 : 20.02.2021, 23:45:28 »
Lainaus
Whistleblower at Smith College Resigns Over Racism

Jodi Shaw made less in a year than the cost of tuition. She was offered a settlement, but turned it down. Here's why.

We all know that something morally grotesque is swallowing liberal America. Almost no one wants to risk talking about it out loud.

Every day I get phone calls from anxious Americans complaining about an ideology that wants to pull all of us into the past.

I get calls from parents telling me about the damaging things being taught in schools: so-called antiracist programs that urge children to obsess on the color of their skin.


I get calls from people working in corporate America forced to go to trainings in which they learn that they carry collective, race-based guilt — or benefit from collective, race-based virtue.

I get calls from young people just launching their careers telling me that they feel they have no choice but to profess fealty to this ideology in order to keep their jobs.

Almost no one who calls me is willing to go public
. And I understand why. To go public with what’s happening is to risk their jobs and their reputations.

But the hour is very late. It calls for courage. And courage has come in the form of a woman named Jodi Shaw.

Jodi Shaw was, until this afternoon, a staffer at Smith College in Northampton, Massachusetts. She made $45,000 a year — less than the yearly tuition at the school.

She is a divorced mother of two children. She is a lifelong liberal and an alumna of the college. And she has had a front-row seat to the illiberal, neo-racist ideology masquerading as progress.


In October 2020, after Shaw felt that she had exhausted all her internal options, she posted a video on YouTube, blowing the whistle on, what she says, is an atmosphere of racial discrimination at the school.

“I ask that Smith College stop reducing my personhood to a racial category. Stop telling me what I must think and feel about myself,” she said. “Stop presuming to know who I am or what my culture is based upon my skin color. Stop asking me to project stereotypes and assumptions onto others based on their skin color.”

Watch the whole thing here:

https://youtu.be/blqpCMChBpI

Lainaus
Now today, she is resigning from the college.

In doing that — and in speaking out — she is turning down a settlement that would have given her a much easier way out. We need more people like her.

Here’s how Shaw put it in her resignation letter to Smith College President Kathleen McCartney, which she sent to me to publish in full:

(...)

I graduated from Smith College in 1993. Those four years were among the best in my life. Naturally, I was over the moon when, years later, I had the opportunity to join Smith as a staff member. I loved my job and I loved being back at Smith.

But the climate — and my place at the college — changed dramatically when, in July 2018, the culture war arrived at our campus when a student accused a white staff member of calling campus security on her because of racial bias. The student, who is black, shared her account of this incident widely on social media, drawing a lot of attention to the college.

Before even investigating the facts of the incident, the college immediately issued a public apology to the student, placed the employee on leave, and announced its intention to create new initiatives, committees, workshops, trainings, and policies aimed at combating “systemic racism” on campus.

In spite of an independent investigation into the incident that found no evidence of racial bias, the college ramped up its initiatives aimed at dismantling the supposed racism that pervades the campus. This only served to support the now prevailing narrative that the incident had been racially motivated and that Smith staff are racist.

Allowing this narrative to dominate has had a profound impact on the Smith community and on me personally. For example, in August 2018, just days before I was to present a library orientation program into which I had poured a tremendous amount of time and effort, and which had previously been approved by my supervisors, I was told that I could not proceed with the planned program. Because it was going to be done in rap form and “because you are white,” as my supervisor told me, that could be viewed as “cultural appropriation.” My supervisor made clear he did not object to a rap in general, nor to the idea of using music to convey orientation information to students. The problem was my skin color.

I was up for a full-time position in the library at that time, and I was essentially informed that my candidacy for that position was dependent upon my ability, in a matter of days, to reinvent a program to which I had devoted months of time.

Humiliated, and knowing my candidacy for the full-time position was now dead in the water, I moved into my current, lower-paying position as Student Support Coordinator in the Department of Residence Life.

As it turned out, my experience in the library was just the beginning. (...)

(...)

https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/whistleblower-at-smith-college-resigns



Vielä pari muuta.


"If all the votes are added up in PA, Trump is going to lose." - Pennsylvania AG Josh Shapiro, 31.10.2020

“I do not accept the rules imposed by others.... And in periods of regime change, the normal rules don’t apply.” - Soros

Tagit: