“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.”
This is easily shown to be FALSE.
Thus: A accuses B of wronging her. C does not know whether A’s accusation is true or false.
If B did wrong A in the manner accused, there is a situation of injustice.
If not, then A has falsely accused B, and there is a situation of injustice.
C being neutral is not unjust.
The neutrality of C is the foundation of DUE PROCESS. Neither A nor B have any claim on C’s allegiance, so long as C is in a state of ignorance regarding the particulars, even though C knows that EITHER A OR B has acted unjustly, and so there is ‘a situation of injustice.'
“Most important, and of greatest concern, was how intelligents thought. An intelligent signed on to a set of beliefs regarded as totally certain, scientifically proven, and absolutely obligatory for any moral person.”
“A strict intelligent had to subscribe to some ideology—whether populist, Marxist, or anarchist—that was committed to the total destruction of the existing order and its replacement by a utopia that would, at a stroke, eliminate every human ill.”
“The mentality of the intelligentsia constituted a cruel parody of religion, preserving “the external features of religiosity without its content.”
“What is it? It is, I’d argue, the sudden, rapid, stunning shift in the belief system of the American elites. It has sent the whole society into a profound cultural dislocation.”
“It is, in essence, an ongoing moral panic against the specter of “white supremacy,” which is now bizarrely regarded as an accurate description of the largest, freest, most successful multiracial democracy in human history.”
Nothing so far has made America accept Communism — but a race war might.
Well, most of us won’t accept it, but our elites might.
If America falls to Race Communism, it will achieve what Communism always achieves: totalitarian terror, misery, mass murder, the end of freedom, and incalculable human suffering — for a century or so, until it collapses under its own evil weight.
Even Verne — who is wrong to say that anything that can be imagined can be done — subordinates imagination to “what can be done,” or reality.
Verne is obviously wrong: we can *imagine* all sorts of things we cannot do, e.g. squaring the circle in Euclidean geometry, building a perpetual motion machine, implementing a happy, non-tyrannical Communism, and so on.
Mahound is in his paradise above the evening star,
(Don John of Austria is going to the war.)
He moves a mighty turban on the timeless houri’s knees,
His turban that is woven of the sunset and the seas.
He shakes the peacock gardens as he rises from his ease,
And he strides among the tree-tops and is taller than the trees,
And his voice through all the garden is a thunder sent to bring
Black Azrael and Ariel and Ammon on the wing.
Giants and the Genii,
Multiplex of wing and eye,
Whose strong obedience broke the sky
When Solomon was king.
They rush in red and purple from the red clouds of the morn,
From temples where the yellow gods shut up their eyes in scorn;
So TYT and Jimmy Dore are feuding because Ana Kasparian sexually harassed Dore and later tried to blackmail him?
Not sure what Cenk and Ana’s point is.
So, Jimmy Dore worked at The Young Turks for years, but left in the past couple of years and started his own show. Lately, he’s been pretty critical of TYT.
Seven years ago, Ana Kasparian was wearing a micro-skirt at the TYT news office [sic], and flashing her ass at everyone in the room. Jimmy Dore said “Nice news skirt, Ana!” and everyone laughed at her.
Let Sporus tremble—"What? that thing of silk,
Sporus, that mere white curd of ass's milk?
Satire or sense, alas! can Sporus feel?
Who breaks a butterfly upon a wheel?"
Yet let me flap this bug with gilded wings,
This painted child of dirt that stinks and stings;
Whose buzz the witty and the fair annoys,
Yet wit ne'er tastes, and beauty ne'r enjoys,
So well-bred spaniels civilly delight
In mumbling of the game they dare not bite.
Eternal smiles his emptiness betray,
As shallow streams run dimpling all the way.
Whether in florid impotence he speaks,
And, as the prompter breathes, the puppet squeaks;
Or at the ear of Eve, familiar toad,
Half froth, half venom, spits himself abroad,
In puns, or politics, or tales, or lies,
Or spite, or smut, or rhymes, or blasphemies.
White Complicity Pedagogy will not help, because a great many people—particularly but not limited to white people—will see that the call for racial justice made here requires racial injustice—racial scapegoating—and will want nothing to do with such an evil project.
It is no good to protest how much “good” Hitler did for the Germans, given his means …
Five Things Everyone Needs to Know about Critical Race Theory
Critical Race Theory rests on the unfalsifiable claim that racism exists everywhere, in every person and every institution, so all white people are inherently complicit in racism and all nonwhite people are inherently victims. This first dogma of CRT cannot be questioned.
Critical Race Theory is the opposite of Martin Luther King’s dream. CRT teaches that people should be judged on their race, which it holds to be the only or most important thing about a person, instead of the content of their character. CRT regards Dr. King as tool of racism.
@benshapiro described the Woke as “race essentialists.”
He’s not wrong, exactly, but in a way, he is. Enough to clarify.
Race essentialism is the THESIS, race non-essentialism is the ANTITHESIS, and what the Woke hold is the SYNTHESIS. They both are and are not essentialists.
@benshapiro The way the Woke ARE race essentialists is that the treat race is as indelible characteristic of a person that marks and defines them, that cannot ever be escaped (consider how the Woke view transracialism).
The Woke aren’t race essentialists by not appealing to essence.
@benshapiro So the Woke can claim *technically* not to be essentialists, because essence isn’t what does the work for them, the same work that essence would do, but rather IDENTITY does the work.
When I say “race isn’t real” what I mean is this: If an alien biologist came to earth, knowing nothing of humans, and set out to learn about our biological and genetic make up, it would not discover “races.” There is no natural fact of the matter that human beings are so divided.
An alien anthropologist who studied our history and customs would discover that we have, in recent centuries, taken to dividing ourselves up in such social categories, but he would also be aware that this habit of ours has no foundation in nature.
After all, whether there are “races” is an empirical question, and one that has been answered: No, there aren’t.
We thought for millennia that Euclid’s Parallel Postulate was really a Theorem, until it was finally proven not to be a Theorem. It’s a Postulate.
Just had a dispiriting conversation (sort of) with a friend who, I learn, has a severe case of Trump Derangement Syndrome.
I cannot fathom how otherwise linguistically competent people can impute such insane and malicious meanings to Trump’s otherwise reasonably plain words.
There is something opposite to the Principle of Charity at play here—call it the Principle of Malice: when it is Trump, his words are *always* to be taken in the worst possible light, no matter how *wildly implausible*, no matter how much language must be tortured to get there.
My friend is (apparently) absolutely convinced that Trump told people to INJECT DISINFECTANT to cure COVID.