1/ A very common tactic "woke" postmodern neo-marxists use is to redescribe what they are up to in a way that hides the pieces of their ideology and worldview which they know everyone else will reject.
They play "hide the ball" with their contorversial ideas.
A thread 🧵
2/ Let me illustrate what I mean by "redescribing what they are up to" then I'll give an example.
Suppose a man is selling stolen goods and you ask him "what are you up to?" Suppose he responds by saying "I'm just trying to make a living by selling these items."
Has that man...
3/ given you an honest explanation of what he is doing?
No.
He has redescribed the act of selling stolen goods by telling you the part that is acceptable (making a living by selling things) and leaving out the part you would reject (that the goods for sale are stolen)
4/ The thing that he is doing which is wrong, objectionable, dishonest, and controversial has been cut out of his explanation.
One more example.
I can get remove dirt from car by washing it, I could also remove dirt by sandblasting the car. The difference is one of those...
5/ Is going to take off both the dirt and the paint job. If I offer to clean your car and I say "I'll remove that mud for you," but I don't tell you I'm going to sandblast it off, you're going to be upset when I return your car and the paint is stripped off.
In that case...
6/ I have redescribed what I am going to do (sandblast your car) in terms of my goals (remove the dirt)...but the way I redescribed it (I'll take that dirt off) leaves out the METHOD that I am going to use
I redescribed what I'm doing in a way which leaves out something key...
7/ This is what the "woke" very often do.
For example: they will say something like "we are trying to study racism so we can end it," but they leave out the fact that they are using the neo-marxist assumptions of Critical Theory because they know people will reject it...
8/ Another example:
They will say "we want to study gender and get a hold of all the ideas society has baked into our ideas about gender which are not justified." They then keave lut the fact that the way they are going to do this is to use postmodern assumptions and methods...
9/ The woke will say "we're analyzing what people say about race and gender," but leave out the fact they reinterperet what people say using "impact not intent," which says it doesn't matter what you mean to say, what matters is how other people are impacted when they hear you...
10/ In this way, the "woke" describe what they are up to in terms of lofty goals and ideals, while hiding the fact they are using neo-marxist Critical Theory and relativistic postmodern methods and assumptions.
This is how they hide the controversial aspects of their ideology...
11/ The result is that they bury the deeply flawed assumptions, concepts, ideas, worldview, and methods by redescribing what they are up to in terms of their lofty goals. This way they avoid having to describe the PROCESS that they are actually using to pursue those goals...
12/ So when regular people ask the woke what they are doing, the woke tell them a story about wanting equality, or ending racism, or analyzing gender...and then they leave out any description of the intellectual machinery that they are using when they pursue those goals.
13/ So regular people don't fully understand what's really going on (they don't have the full picture the intellectual process that the woke are using) when the woke are engaged in advocacy, academic work, or activism.
The woke have avoided telling people the whole truth...
14/ By redescribing it in a way which hides the pieces of their ideology, worldview, and methods that people would reject if they could grasp the full picture of what the woke are up to.
This is a difficult problem, but it can be solved: we teach our way out of this mess...
15/ What we do is explain the entire project that the "woke" postmodern neo-marxists are up to.
We have to carefully and clearly lay out for people all the flawed assumptions, ideas, concpets, and methods that make up the woke ideology and worldview.
Once people fully grasp...
16/ The full picture of what wokeness is up to, how it thinks, what the entire woke ideology and worldview says, how it operates, and what it's methods are...I am confident that people reject it and work with us to defeat the insidious woke ideology.
Thanks for reading 🙂
/fin
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The woman who won a Pulitzer Prize for the 1619 project and was then granted tenure at a major university can't figure out why Europe is a continent...and you think it's *the right* that is so commited to culture war politics it has no framework to interpret global affairs.
Look, there's no shortage of bad takes that try to cash out Putin's behaviour in term of America's internal cultural fights (something I warned against in the thread below) but let's not pretend this phenomenon is restricted to the political right.
I have also had a take on Putin's aggression, but I didn't cash it out in terms of debates over wokeness or culture wars. I think it has to do with foreign policy weakness and refusal to use sanction on earlier smaller incursions by both China and Russia.
What saddens me about this is that As far as Christian academics in the academy go, she might be the best we've got. And the best she caN do during a time of war is to snark conservatives about masculinity.
Christianity will lose in the academy, and it deserves to lose....
We will lose because we lack talent, we have no originality, and we can't say anything meaningful or relevant.
Whag our academic think is meaningful, beautiful, deep and important, makes no impact outside a small slice of upper middle class evangelical faux Aesthetes...
We have no vision to offer the world. Most of our writers have been reduced to writing Christian knock offs of secular books.
Like when Rachel Held Evans wrote 'A year of Biblical Womanhood' (in 2012), which is a knock off of 'The Year of Living Biblically' (written 2007)
Putin does not care about American culture wars, they are useful to him only insofar as he can use them to subvert and sow division.
Putin has his own goals, and his own worldview. Until we understand him as he understands himself, we'll fail to understand the moment...
2/
I freely admit I'm not a Russia expeet, and I get my takes from others. This is why I have tried to stay within the limits of what others, who are knowledgeable about this stuff, have told me.
What I do know, is that we cannot apply our culture war reasoning to putin...
3/ We absolutely cannot try to cash out this conflict in terms of western cultural values. The Russians have very different concerns, and a different political and moral conception of what is going on.
That is the axis upon which Putin's decision making turns...
1/ Let's discuss woke double standards 🧵
IE: Kristin Du Mez wants her book judged on the merits but she endorses the idea conservative Wayne Grudem is a best seller because publishing/distribution networks supported by white patriarchial power structures protect their interests
2/ Woke authors (like Kristin) wants their books judged on the merits of the book, but when it comes to conservstives they switch the standard. Instead of looking at the merits of what a conservative book says they look at "whose interests does the book serve and who benefits?"
3/ Woke writers want their books to be judged fairly using the standard of merit and truth, but she wants conservative authors to be judged cynically according by the standard "whose interests are served and who benefits?"
Kristin Du Mez explicitly mentions blurbing each others books in disscussing the ways various people legitimize each others work, it's perfectly legitimate to say to Kristin "who are you legitimizing, and who legitimizes you."
The game being played by Du Mez, Barr, etc, is to see positive reviews of their own work as rigorous engagement with scholarship, but to regard positive reviews of scholarship they don't like as a social process of legitimization meant to platform and elevate.
That's the move...
"When *YOUR* work is reviewed by people who are politically close to *YOU* it is because you want to legitimize each other and increase your power. But when *OUR* work is reviewed by people who are politically close to *US* it is because we are just doing rigorus scholarship...