Everyone who isn't a die-hard liberal or bona fide conservative is a Marxist!
What, you didn't know you're a Marxist? You disagree with Marx? With Marxism? With self-identified Marxists? No matter! You're a Marxist! And you, you are a Marxist, too! Marxists everywhere! 2/
You know what it means if you don't like being called a Marxist because you say you aren't one? You are trying to confuse the good liberals and conservatives! That itself is an evil deed.
In fact, not calling yourself a Marxist is part of your plan to destroy everyone else. 3/
Does the author, Yoram Hazony, think he needs to provide any evidence for these conspiratorial claims? Nah. He does not. Onward with the fever dream! 4/
Marxists, who are everywhere and everyone who's not on the conservative side of things, they want only one thing. No need to provide any notes or sources, of course. Let's just feverishly proclaim: they want the destruction of liberalism itself! Scary and loud: Boo! 5/
While we're at it, let's conveniently equate liberalism with democracy and BOOM: Marxists, who are everywhere JUST LOOK AROUND YOU, they want to destroy democracy!
Democracy only works with two parties. Let's just say that. It's true because something something liberalism. 6/
Only a die-hard liberal and a bona fide conservative party, THERE MUST ONLY BE TWO PARTIES (less than 2+2), can have political legitimacy in a democracy. Take it from a philosopher in a country with a famously multi-party system, but no, actually, nevermind: ONLY TWO PARTIES! 7/
Now we get to the gorier part of the fever conspiracy dream: There is BLOOD IN THE WATER! Whose, we don't know. How so, who cares. Our author sees RED and MORE RED and that is that. Must be blood. Somehow. 8/
Well, that is not quite that, actually. I was too calm when I said so.
Because BLOOD IN THE WATER also means that Marxists WHO ARE EVERYWHERE are on their way to WORLD DOMINATION!
NO FREE NATIONAL WILL BE SPARED THIS TRIAL. 9/
I hope you can see why I needed to use so many all caps.
I've been fascinated by yet another pronoun discussion that's been happening in various subthreads. It all took off from this tweet. Let me share some interesting observations that have emerged—about the powerful aura of gendered pronouns! 1/
Pronouns are a very functional class of words. I love them, linguistically, because of the intra-situational relations they create and rely upon. Very basically, a pronoun is a word, chosen from a limited set, that is used to stand in for other words, phrases, and concepts. 2/
When analyzing how pronouns are pragmatically used, the first thing you ask yourself is: what is this pronoun's antecedent? What is the word, phrase, or concept which came before (in a text or utterance) or which is part of this situation and which is replaced by this pronoun? 3/
@AmberGloryHole @mashakleiner @skyscaping @AHousefather @marcomendicino @UBC In her own video, several protestors at the encampment speak to Masha. But she keeps claiming—falsely—that they won’t speak to anyone.
@AmberGloryHole @mashakleiner @skyscaping @AHousefather @marcomendicino @UBC In her own video, Masha reads aloud the camp community rule of “solidarity with Gaza & the Palestinian people.” But she keeps claiming—falsely & insistently—that this means, “You have to agree that Israel must be annihilated to go in. This is genocidal.”
@AmberGloryHole @mashakleiner @skyscaping @AHousefather @marcomendicino @UBC Once again, this happens. I engage in dialogue with one of the insistent critics of the UBC encampment, a critic who repeatedly professes to want dialogue and who complains that protestors don’t talk to them as often as they want them to.
Someone tweeted a Riley Gaines clip at me today thinking it unassailably showed we should not teach about trans identities and experiences in schools. The question attached to it was, „Are you okay with enabling this kind of abuse?“
In the clip, Gaines talks about feeling mistreated in a photo op with Lia Thomas. They both won 5th place. Thomas was the tiniest fraction ahead, not enough to effect placement. But enough to say Thomas should hold the single available 5th-place trophy. Gaines got hers mailed.
Gaines gets tearful about the emotional effect it had on her that Thomas was holding the trophy which she had also won.
#NathanCofnas has written a response to recent journalistic articles critical of his appointment as Leverhulme fellow in philosophy at Cambridge. I was tempted to line up the terms he is using to give the impression that his work can't have been debunked.
So, let's do that. 1/
A: terms he uses to describe his own work
B: terms for the work of his critics
A: He works in "philosophy of biology and ethics" and his paper in a "highly respected philosophy and psychology journal" calls for "free inquiry into all possible causes of race difference" in IQ.
B: In response to that story, a "small group of philosophers" had "a meltdown" which is "its own funny story."
I'll leave out the description of his encounters with the journalists at the two news outlets; it's not as relevant to the characterization of his & others' research.
1. Do your white supremacists things. Write blog posts, tweets, articles in which you take white supremacist positions. Attend white supremacist rallies. Take photos with Nazi symbols. Whatever it is you like to do.
2. Do it repeatedly, perhaps more openly in public & more veiled in professional life. Do it enough until your students and colleagues are alert to it and your university administration notices.
3. When an investigation is launched, immediately contact FIRE. Let them in on the public parts.
4. Provide FIRE with receipts that show you engaging in public political expression. Indicate how people have noticed you doing so & have sent career-threatening emails to your uni.
Pit of a puzzle to me how one can say faculty *must* work to make their institutions more equal and inclusive, and then dismiss a request to sketch out how faculty do this work they *must* do as "purity tests" that open some mysterious yet unsavoury doors.