1/ AOC is on the cover of vanity fair and no one says a word
The Girl Scouts made a nice tweet about Amy coney Barret, then got mobbed and had to delete it.
This👏 isn't 👏about 👏free 👏speech
This is about Discourses.
A THREAD🧵
2/ The "discourse" refers to the discussion that occurs around a topic or idea. This includes the words used, how the ideas are conveyed, and the ways in which various points of view gain traction in the conversation and become dominant or become the "default" view.
3/ So included in the idea of "the discourse" are:
1. the words, signs and symbols used in a discourse 2. The ways in which ideas are conveyed and communicated 3. How particular ideas are used in a given discourse 4. The idea that certain views come to dominate the conversation
4/ So, legal discourse includes the fact there is specialized legal language, particular ways lawyers use ideas, the fact that there are ways the law is talked about both formal (court rooms, legal texts) and informal (TV shows, twitter), and which legal ideas currently hold sway
5/ Why do the woke focus on the discourse so much? Because the discourse includes both the language we use to build ideas, and the ways those ideas are communicated and shared. If you control both of those things you have control over ideas in society...
6/ And if you have control over the language, ideas, and communication in society you're getting really close to controlling thought, which is basically the game the woke are in: they want to control thought.
7/ So, to use the legal example, if you control the legal discourse, you can control how legal language is built, which legal concepts are used, how those concepts are used, and which arguments hold sway. At that point you can basically control how people *think* about the law.
8/ Because the Woke think that the "discourse" is what controls us all, we are all held captive to the ideas we have access to and the ways we are trained to used them in line with which ideas are dominant, they want to control the discourse.
9/ So the woke want the discourse about AOC to revolve around how she means well, how smart she is, how cool she is, and why you should trust here. They want the discourse around Amy Coney Barret to be that she's a religious nut coming to steal your birth control and abortions...
10/ For this reason when AOC gets on the cover of Vanity Fair, they want AOC to eat up every drop of clout she gets from that. On the other hand they don't want the "discourse" around Amy Coney Barret to include the idea that women can see her as a role model.
11/ So what do they do?
They say "YAS SLAY KWEEN" to the AOC Vanity Fair cover, and then mob the girl scouts for saying a nice thing about Amy Coney Barret. This is done to control the discourse, to take over the discourse, and impose rules of wokeness on the discourse
12/ The point being that if you control how ideas are built, how they are communicated, and which ideas win out in society, well then you are a hair's breadth away from thought control. And that's what the woke want... to control thought. They are totalitarians. Simple as that
13/ Understand that and you understand why the woke always try to influence, limit, and otherwise control what people say and how they say it....
They want to control the DISCOURSE. See through them, and don't let them do it. Speak your mind openly, honestly, and carefully.
14/ Do NOT let the woke control the discourse, determine what is off limits, or decide which ideas will hold sway.
Fight back and think clearly and honestly for yourself without letting yourself get bullied into compliance.
/fin
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Most of you have been told postmodernism contradicts other key elements of wokeness like critical race theory, neo-marxism, and standpoint epistemology, which means wokeness can't be postmodern.
This is wrong, and I'll explain why:
A thread🧵
2/ We need to understand the objection before we can show why it is wrong, and show just how completely postmodern wokeness is.
The objection revolves around the idea that postmodernism is relativistic, nihilistic, and skeptical of meta-narratives. This needs unpacking...
3/ A meta-narrative is a theory that tries to give a comprehensive account of how the world works, and how society works and functions, by appealing to universal truth or universal values. So a meta-narrative appeals to absolute truth to try to explain "the arc of history."
When I do a thread about why enlightenment liberalism is better than critical race theory
"So you see, Critical Race theorists accept the postmodern worldview, but deny the skepticism of meta-narratives, and they think that gets them off the hook for their postmodernism"
"This is why they think they avoid the charge of relativism. Isn't that right @ConceptualJames ?"
The woke: "tHeRe'S nO PoStMoDeRnIsM iN cRiTiCaL RaCe ThEoRy"
Critical Race Theorists:
Hello philosophy Bro's and CRT people:
The point here is to show Critical Race Theorists have absolutley made use of postmodern ideas and tools even though many of them claim a commitment to liberalism, and have been aware and discussing the tension since the early 90's
This shows CRT has been trying to figure out how to use postmodern theory for a long time.
And, as it turns out, intersectionality was how they brought postmodern theory and politics together. From Kimberlee Crenshaws essay "mapping the Margins":
1/ I mean, dude, it's right in your own quote. Mills likes what postmodernism does politically and he says so in the highlited portion of the bit YOU quoted. Also, he seemingly accepts large portions of Postmodernism via postcolonial theory (hence his focus on deimperialism)....
2/ Yes, he rejects the move of some of the postmoderns to be skeptical of all meta narratives.
But postmoderns did away with the "incredulity toward meta narratives" since Kimberlee Crenshaw wrote "Mapping the Margins" and she states explicitly that....
Intersectionality a
Is a “provisional concept linking contemporary politics with postmodern theory."
So yeah, they don't accept the postmodern conclusion that doubts all and every metanarrative. They do accept many other aspects of postmodernism and he says so...
This is the philosophical equivalent of a biologist examining every tree, leaf, and branch, and then proclaiming he had not seen a forrest...just some leaves, branches, trunks and seeds.
This is common :
"that isn't what Derrida meant by trace."
I could talk about how every experience must point beyond itself, or about oresence and absence and differance and meaning is always endlessly differed and all the rest...
Or .....
I could say "this is the bit about what Derrida said that people took and ran with, and here is what they did with it"
I'm not getting bogged down in a discussion of Greman Phenomenology.
I'd read the Crisis of the European sciences if I was.
The Woke think everything is "rooted in white supremacy." Understanding why they say this is key to cracking the code of woke ideology.
So let's look at it
A Thread 🧵
2/ "Rooted in White Supremacy" is a term from woke academic literature, so it comes loaded with the worldview of wokeness; And the worldview of the wokeness is NOT the same as the worldview of enlightenment liberalism.
The worldview of wokeness is postmodernism.
3/ This means there's more going on then it first appears.
In 1997 the critical race theorist Charles Mills wrote "The Racial Contract," and the first sentence in that book is: "White supremacy is the unnamed political system that has made the modern world what it is today."