The most amazing thing about the 2+2=5 nonsense isn't that it's happening. It's the number of mathematically informed people who keep falling on their faces to say it can be true without being able to provide a single, clear, convincing example.
The thing is, 2+2=5 is not true and may never be true (only example that isn't totally contrived is in the trivial ring, and there it's not equality but equivalence, and every number is equivalent to every other). Smart people HATE looking dumb, though, and it's wrecking them.
Some anti-realist nonsense language-game playing Wokie says something like "of course 2+2 can equal 5, and any mathematician worth his salt can think of tons of ways it's true." Then no clear, convincing examples are given because there aren't any.
Someone sent me the state of Washington's Equity Task Force proposal for health equity for the state. I have a feeling this is worth reading closely by many eyes and raising a ruckus about. Especially by Washingtonians. healthequity.wa.gov/Portals/9/Doc/…
"Creating processes based on equity is an exercise in challenging convention. It demands a deep and honest critical assessment of well-entrenched practices and comfort zones."
Yep. The key thing to redesigning healthcare in WA is going to be Critical Theory of identity.
And if you find that uncomfortable, it's proof that you're part of the problem bc you're not willing to get outside of your "well-entrenched practices and comfort zones." It couldn't possibly be that they're implementing bad or bigoted ideas. You just want to stay comfortable.
For pretty obvious reasons, a lot of you are circulating a picture of a real Christian fundamentalist saying that if the Bible said "2+2=5," he'd do all he could to make it true. That's not what the Woke are doing with it, though. It is, in fact, almost exactly the opposite.
The Christian claim there is that if that which they believe is the sole objective authority in the universe, God, declared 2+2=5, then it must be because God is never wrong. That is, they'd say 2+2=5 is objectively true because God said it is and that's what "objective" means.
The Woke are doing the opposite. They're rejecting any possible claim to objectivity. Their argument isn't "two plus two equals five." It's "two plus two CAN EQUAL five." It's a completely different argument. Their point is there is no objectively right answer to the question.
Truly an insane exploration in biomedical ethics around lifelong puberty blocking in non-binary people to keep them with a childlike body (and brain, to some degree) for life. jme.bmj.com/content/early/…
Here, the foundation for the discussion is framed in terms of Western societies imposing the belief that there are two (overwhelmingly dominant) genders, thus male and female puberties, and that these are natural expressions of underlying biology in most cases, which is true.
Regarding the "childlike brain" aspect. They say that they tested the brain functioning of children whose puberty was delayed against a control group, and they turned out to have become cognitively impaired.
Dismantle private property, they say. Probably need to start taking them seriously and saying no. They won't go easily, but it's the better option than continuing to try to appease them.
Where's your Woke breaking point? Finding it is important.
The operating system of Critical Theory is to question the foundational assumptions of society, and by question they mean dismantle. They've questioned them and count on the fact that we think questioning them is unthinkable. That is, they mean what they say. Don't soften it.
If you're a person who is leaning left and finding yourself uncomfortable with Woke stuff and still saying, "they just..." after translating their radical nonsense into something more liberal and sensible, STOP IT. They mean the radical thing, and they're playing you.
This activist maneuver is called "wound collecting." The game is to act badly (here, blocking traffic, chasing someone down who tried to avoid them, harassing them in a terrifying way, etc.) until a reaction happens and then weaponize the reaction as more injury to them.
"Wound collecting" is so integral to the Woke activism game that it could almost be defining. It's been known under other names as well, "crybullying" and "outrage farming." It's a feature of "victimhood cultures" that doesn't exist in any other moral sociological context.
Another key example of "wound collecting" right now is "the Trump trap." The riots and "protests" in cities like Portland, Seattle, etc., are designed to stay out of hand until the National Guard or feds intervene, and then once they do, the wound is collected: "TYRANNY!"
I think a lot about how the Woke ideology is definitely deeply rooted in Marxian (not Marxist -- this is important) thought and yet is so overwhelmingly obviously super next-level bourgeois, not even meant to be comprehensible by laypeople, thus the working class. This gets dark.
You have to understand, as @MikeNayna trenchantly pointed out, that the MarxISTS want to seize the means of economic production because that's where they believe power is, but the Woke (MarxIAN, following CT and PoMo) want to seize the means of CULTURAL production.
That means that the Woke only really want high-status, influencer-type jobs, plus bureaucratic ones -- generally bourgie ones where they can influence the culture, ideology, and administrative policy of everything and bend it to their radical agenda. What about the working class?
While we're on the subject of watchwords with the Woke ("liberation," e.g.), let's add "community" to the list. It's one of the most important to keep an eye on because the people who use it want to define the [affinity] community so that they can be its cops.
I first noticed this problem, and wrote about it extensively, in 2012 or 2013, within the context of the New Atheism Movement. Certain people in that movement referred to the people in and around it as "the atheist community," which many of us rejected as nonsensical.
It rapidly became clear that the people who were really invested in the "atheist community" were people who were very interested in defining it through the usual means: outlining "community guidelines," or a moral law, that defines community behavior, thus inclusion/exclusion.
Better start saying no to anyone and anything that sensitizes, weaponizes, or prioritizes racial issues in the workplace, like adults. No workplace that tolerates this Woke mentality will be competitive in the market, and most won't even be functional. bloomberg.com/amp/news/artic…
Making racial or other identity-based offense, subjectively assessed, even by outsiders, a "zero tolerance" transgression is a recipe for deadlock, failure, and extortion. Workplaces that value diversity must point the other way, toward thicker skin, resilience, and tolerance.
People looking to start new businesses should see opportunity like never before. Your big competitors who create massive barriers to entry into marketplaces are going to render themselves non-competitive or drive themselves out of business. Nothing functions when Wokeness rules.
On deadnaming and misgendering: The underlying ideology is predicated on Jacques Derrida's belief that the word for a thing can't convey the real meaning of the thing, and then activists go batshit berserk over someone using the wrong name/words for someone, usually by accident.
Derrida, high af: A word is not the thing. Words cannot convey meaning about things, only about other words they exist in relation to.
Queer theorists, edgying: Male and female are just words.
TRAs, a tad unwell: Use my new name and my right pronouns or you literally murder me
We laugh (oh, do we laugh), but this is consistent with the Critical Social Justice evolution of postmodern Theory, which always identifies something you can't deconstruct (queerness, here, so thus trans identity; race in CRT) and then goes berserk if you don't use their rules.
Taking to social media and accusing someone, especially their business, of failing to sufficiently support causes like BLM is extortion.
Activists are intentionally doing this in business groups/pages to force compliance and saying anyone who resists is silencing PoC.
Small business owners in particular need to start talking to each other and standing up to this together because no one is safe until it's rejected, and much of it isn't organic. It's intentional activist agitators hustling it (makes me wonder if it's illegal if provable).
I'd urge people to start making a norm of taking screenshots and sharing them with as detailed an explanation as possible while banning these activists from their business groups. Stand your ground. You're not silencing POC. You're silencing agitators trying to extort your group.
This is still the very beginning. This is... something. Lots of political in there, "critical" (I bet I know what that means), storytelling, etc. California, you might want to save your kids from your schools.
One of the things that really galls me about the Woke/Critical Social Justice ideology is how it positions itself as the unique pathway to authentic expression and, even more, authentic relationships. It fails both of these, and the latter is infuriating.
I'll save my general thoughts about personal authenticity for another time. I could talk about it all day since I think it's one of the most important virtues to cultivate. I'm annoyed due to what I've seen today about the idea that Wokeness leads to authentic relationships.
The Woke belief is that power dynamics like racism are present in every interaction, and thus authenticity in a relationship requires constantly looking for those dynamics, examining them, making them visible, and interrogating any defensiveness or other issues that brings up.
We tell people about this line of Woke thought, and they think we're making it up, or that it must mean some reasonable thing instead of something every bit as insane and irresponsible as it actually is.
Nothing builds a space wherein psychological safety, thus healing, friendship, trust, treatment, or therapy can flourish like the threat of cancellation for missteps and mistakes.
You have to show up. You have to write letters, complain, and start going to whatever meetings are publicly accessible (by zoom, I guess... 😬). It probably can't be stopped, but if people don't speak up, it's hopeless. wsj.com/articles/calif…
I'm told there was an outcry when this ball started rolling in 2016, and then activists organized a formal petition, got tons of signatures from academic "experts," and started steamrolling it through. Activists show up, organized, and keep showing up. Doing the same is necessary
It's a common misconception that only conservatives or the alt-right disagree with Wokeness. It's also opposed by Marxists, other socialists, materialists, religious people of many descriptions, and liberals of all types, classical, traditional, left, and progressive.
Each of these positions, and also libertarians, have their own unique views that disagree with Wokeness and describe other approaches, understandings, and solutions to the problems Wokeness claims to solve.
The Woke are full of shit on everything, including other positions.
More people on the list of people who hate the Woke: Real postmodernists, who resent their blatant metanarrative and perversion of their theories, and real Critical Theorists (not just the materialists), who hate their lack of aesthetics and anti-intellectualism.
Working on the Encyclopedia again. New entries soon. Let's quote the Woke! This is a real quote.
"Imagination nurtures dietetic theory and practice, whereas an impoverished imagination glorifies the status quo by silencing and repressing vulnerable, feminist texts.
"Poetry is born of the imagination, instigates rather than routinizes, and illuminates alternative ways of telling, knowing, and being a dietitian. Poetics enlivens the emotional capacity of dietetic practice, which buttresses a feminist dietetic ethics because our work is
"at its core a fundamentally human endeavor. Our intention with this chapter is to bring forward contemporary examples within dietetics where anti-fat, healthist discourse enacts a type of violence;
The truth is, I don't see something deeply wrong with the old machinery, and I don't think this can be easily fixed. I see a vulnerability to the old machinery that a rapidly changing information/media universe has created and that can be adapted to with some significant effort.
The old machinery, the liberal source code, is essentially correct. The problem is that it was left vulnerable to a rapid increase in networking capacity, which empowered victimhood narratives and cheap, cynical complaining faster than people could realize how to deal with them.
Ours is essentially a problem of knowing who to listen to and who to ignore, as it always was, and a certain category of people and certain incentives that exist in the information economy now and up until now have rendered us confused on these points, perhaps in our decadence.