Wokeness is fundamentally an illiberal, intolerant, non-inclusive ideology – the very ideals they claim to be fighting for.
A very simple test.

😀 "Listen to and elevate voices of color!"

😒 "Except of course THOSE voices of color."

The moment you add that caveat, it's over. You've violated your own ideal.

The ACLU had it right long ago.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_…
Chomsky had it right.
DiAngelo violates her own "listen to voices of color" ideal.

Here she states what it really means: 👩🏻 Listen to voices of color that agree with me. Other voices of color not worth listening too. . ..
You either uphold a standard or you don't. When you exempt yourself from your own standard, you're not really upholding that standard.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with The Woke Temple

The Woke Temple Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @WokeTemple

15 Jan
Page 45:

1. Jane was worried about a friend’s safety in a high-crime neighborhood.
2. The scholar immediately assumed the neighborhood was Black.
3. The scholar decided to find out if her assumption was correct.
4. It was.
5. The scholar’s conclusions . . .

6. Jane is a racist. Image
The DiAngelo Projection Theory* is quite popular. I have never liked it as it required mind-reading. CRT scholars think mind-reading is a valid approach to knowledge. I don't.

But gosh, there sure seems to be something to it.
As in,

👩🏻 I have bad thoughts. That means:

🟩I have bad thoughts.
✅ Everybody else has bad thoughts. They're just as bad as I am. Even worse!

I think Freud said something about this.
Read 4 tweets
15 Jan
I've been reading it. Here's where I'm at. Image
And (unlike most CRT "scholars") I'm willing to discuss.
Why do I do these memes?

A few years ago I decided to do the right thing and read the recommended books on racism. I started with White Fragility, then How to be an Antiracist, then Ta-Nehisi Coates, then Dyson, then Delgado’s Critical Race Theory.
Read 7 tweets
14 Jan
1. Doesn’t debate his ideas in public.
2. Doesn’t answer challenging questions.
3. Declines invitations to sit down & discuss one-on-one as equals with other scholars who might challenge his ideas. . . . Image
4. Sets up dichotomous with-us/against-us racist/antiracist choices that bully people to agree with his ideas. (Otherwise, they’re racist.)
5. Blocks on social media people who challenge his ideas.
6. Lectures about being an intellectual.
Noam Chomsky said:

"Intellectuals are specialists in defamation, they are basically political commissars, they are the ideological administrators, the most threatened by dissidence."
Read 4 tweets
14 Jan
Collective guilt. The Bible is against it. The Quran is against it. Race scholar Dr. Robin DiAngelo appears to be for it. . . . Image
Valid, invalid or something else, Wikipedia says: “In ethics, both methodological individualists and normative individualists question the validity of collective responsibility. Normally, only the individual actor can accrue culpability for actions that they . . .
. . . . freely cause. The notion of collective culpability seems to deny individual moral responsibility."

It continues with . . .
Read 9 tweets
14 Jan
Imagine if a cancer scientist said:

👩🏾‍🔬 “You are either pro-cancer or anti-cancer. To be anti-cancer, you must agree with my prescription for fighting cancer. If you don’t agree, you are pro-cancer.”

That is approach of scholar @DrIbram X. Kendi when dealing with racism. . . .
It's not only a bad method for fighting a serious problem, it's arrogant, scientifically unsound, bullying and morally wrong.
Now imagine that cancer scientist was a #1 bestseller with a book titled “How to be Anti-Cancer”. Millions of people bought his book. Some of them questioned the cancer scientist’s prescription, but they were dismissed as being “pro cancer”. (After all, you’re either pro-cancer..
Read 10 tweets
14 Jan
Imagine if we accepted the same level of scholarship from our cancer researchers . . . ⚕️🦠

👨🏾‍⚕️ "I would define cancer as a collection of cancerous things that lead to cancer that are caused by cancer-causing stuff." Image
It may seem like I'm being cheeky here, but I'm not.

If we really consider this a serious subject, why are we accepting this level of scholarship?
My mother died of cancer. She fought for three years. Without cancer medicine she would've lived for a year. Those smart cancer researchers gave our family two extra years with our mother. 🙏🏽 What a beautiful gift.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(