How do these “everything is power and a social construct” folx so blatantly ignore that being morbidly obese benefits Unilever, puberty blockers benefit Pharma, racial divisions prevent labour organising…
How on earth can you study power without economic interests? Dolts.
It is endlessly fascinating to see how the Humanities were gutted in a way that even departments don’t notice. Just slowly build an army of idiots with no actual education who do the bidding of the structures they’re supposed to critique.
Marx would be enthralled/impressed.
Watching the people attempt to debate in any setting outside their bubble is legit embarrassing for them. Like, devastatingly embarrassing.
It really does strike me as religious: “if you would just read the bible, you’d agree” kind of arguments…
Nar. Read it. Nonsense.
It saddens me to see what happened to the Humanities, because of the greatest Democracy™️ in the World™️ sponsored by Monsanto™️ and Coke™️
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
People do understand that “far left” and “far right” do not mean “how much I disagree with them on the internet”, right?
Just asking.
PS. The “far left” in America are Centre-Right at best.
Words and concepts have bloody definitions and I am getting pretty damn tired of America and their made up “if you say it or believe it, it’s true” utter nonsense
“Left” is organising the economy more around a safety net, plus more progressive policies (of which Wokeness is not progressive as it feeds the superstructure)
“Right” = Laissez Faire economics, minimal government, corporate power, status quo, WASP.
Desperately want to talk about the mass formation psychosis stuff (I already knew about it, and have been warning about it in so many words for some time), but I know what's good for me. As for whether this is another bullshit twisting by the far right, I have concerns... but...
So, this has played out very much like I expected.
The far right disinformation propaganda/radicalisation networks use SEO effectively as part of their strategy. So they make sure they are the source when people Google. It's like whack-a-mole there.
Now, one thing the right does is take a niche concept and create checklists that feed confirmation bias. I have had things I said to people in that network taken and used in that way. But the thing is they both do it. You need to look at the tactics.
She has a name. She has expertise. She thinks you should get better sources than James Lindsay, who is promoting the same old red scare nonsense from the 1960s. lol
Is there anything more tedious than pseudointellectual culture wars bros quoting Lindsay at women who know better?
It’s always nice to know that a random dude quoting a person outside the Humanities who purposely leaves parts out due to his funding is still considered more authoritative than a “she” who knows what she’s talking about.
We are arguing this from the wrong angle - those who love censorship don't care about the civil liberties of their enemy. That is how outgrouping works.
It's like spanking of kids. You can't proselytize it.
It simply doesn't work.
The problem with the radicalisation funnels is that they already have this stuff built in.
You are the victim
You are under attack
THEY are powerful
THEY will censor you
So when you censor it, what happens?
You ENCOURAGE the double down.
The unique problem with radicalisation vs people being just dumb is that it is more like cult programming/thought reform than evidence and reason.
Reasonable actions are all reframed as some big conspiracy by an all-powerful out-group to persecute you.