(2) What's especially funny about this is that what dude's unironically re-tweeting is my half-joking argument that no left-winger can logically - WITHOUT ad hominems - that Ben Shapiro is not smarter than "thinkers" like Kendi. #keep_the_SAT
**prove that**
(3) Political Psych wasn't a focus field, but I think there's a deep level of projection here. Many Wokists - purple-haired daughters of rich men, POC in Ivy schools with 1020 board scores - MUST obsess over how their peers and rivals view them, and project this angst outward.
(4) Their rage is shame in disguise.
I, OTOH, grew up in a diverse slum, "made it," and say what I think. I could care less what whites, Blacks, etc think about it. Hell, Ben Shapiro IS smarter than Ibram Kendi.
This attitude is very healthy. Don't let others tell you it's not.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
(2) It's actually worth breaking down the "logical" framework behind the claim that everything is WS.
Essentially, the idea here is that any large gap between groups must be due to either (a) racism, however subtle/hidden or (b) probably-genetic "inferiority (Kendi 2019)."
(3) If you accept this thesis (and reject all hereditarian claims), the "logical" next step must be: "Any system which produces performance gaps between groups is thus racist/WS, and any person who DENIES this is also is racist, because they are supporting hereditarianism."
(2) You can take issue with my takes and jokes, but the numbers are ~always on point - these (attached) are some representative affirmative action edges, from recent studies and lawsuits.
(3) Worth noting: none of this has anything to do with the question of whether a 200pt SAT advantage is needed to "compensate for racism."
The point is that one EXISTS, and every single urban Caucasian kid knows this.
Worth noting: the label of Wokism/CRT isn't broad and meaningless - equivalent to "supports the civil rights laws," or "has a bisexual girlfriend."
These definable terms refer specifically to belief in particular post-Critical theories, which all share certain characteristics.
(2) The first True Crit characteristic is the belief that (per Delgado) racism/bias is "everyday," "everywhere."
Facially neutral systems like crim justice and SAT testing do not exist to help us lock up rapists or let smart kids into college. They exist to oppress Black people.
(3) The second big claim here is the idea that all disparities in group performance BY EXISTING prove discrimination (Sowell 2018; Kendi 2019).
According to the man IK, the only possible explanations for something like an SAT gap are "racism" and probably-genetic "inferiority."
One of the most enduring bad ideas in social science is that any large differences in performance (income, SAT scores) between groups have to be due to either racism or genetics.
There are many potential variables out here, gang. How OLD are the people we're talking about?
(2) When you think about it, the idea massive average differences in culture and training wouldn't much affect (say) IQ - which seems to be the default position on left and hard right - has to be one of the oddest things large groups of smart people have ever claimed to believe.
(3) Re a few DMs: a common hard-hereditarian position - see Nisbett (2005) reviewing Jensen (1978 on) -is that education and training don't much affect IQ.
This seems simply bizarre to me, since good schools literally teach the answers TO the questions that appear on IQ tests.
Serious question: why IS gender dysphoria the only major mental condition which is treated by telling the patient that what they believe is correct?
(2) I obviously have a starting position here, and am lazily asking on social rather than cramming through 12 queued JSTOR articles on affirmation v. "watchful waiting" - but I'm not trolling: why ISN'T this something we do with anorexics?
(3) As re the primary responses: first, GD IS currently considered to be a mental condition. Here's the DSM-5 description (psychiatry.org/patients-famil…). The note that this is only true if the condition causes distress seems to have been added recently, likely for political reasons.
The fact that the Founders of the first large modern democracy had slaves, in an era when ~all rich men of all colors had slaves or serfs, does not mean that founding the first large modern democracy was bad.
(2) This sort of cross-generational moral comparison could me used to de-legitimatize literally any set of heroes.
JFK and MLK were meat-eating homophobes with a...very male view of adultery. Should all of THEIR statutes come down, inside 20 years?
(3) For that matter, how does this work with the Crazy Horse statute?
By our standards TODAY, the (legitimately) great man was almost certainly a rapist, murderer/war criminal, home invader, and slaver if not slave trader. Tear it down or nah?