The Woke Temple Profile picture
Liberal/Left-leaning guy who sees Wokeness & CRT as illiberal, intolerant, unscientific & mean. Instead of ranting, I'm mocking. It's emotionally healthier. 🙃
Hecate's Crossroad #QVArmy Profile picture fche Profile picture Burseblaides Barrow Profile picture 4 added to My Authors
Jan 21
After posting a DiAngleo/White-Fragility meme, I often read comments from people espousing “The DiAngelo Projection Theory”. I’ve never liked this as it requires mind-reading of a person’s true motives.

But gosh, one can entertain the idea. 🤔 Image The DiAngelo Projection Theory agrees with the teachings in her book, which states that we are ALL racist & have racist thoughts, conscious or unconscious.

That’s a reasonable & defendable position. We all have stereotypes, biases & prejudices, both conscious and unconscious.
Read 17 tweets
Jan 21
I am a bundle of prejudices: height, weight, accent, looks, race, ethnicity, eye color, clothing, university alma mater, etc, etc. Conscious & unconscious.

I try to be aware of these prejudices & not let them affect my actions.

This scholar claims they ALWAYS affect . . . Image . . . my actions. Always.

She doesn’t give evidence for this claim. She just make that claim.

Which might seem like an odd thing to do for a scholar: assert without evidence.

But that’s what Race Scholars & CRT scholars do. Assert without evidence. . . .
Read 4 tweets
Jan 20
In 2018 I began reading the modern "Race Scholarship": Kendi, DiAngelo, Delgado’s “Critical Race Theory”, etc.

What I found was appalling. Quack scholarship: Circular reasoning, logical fallacies & ideological bullying. No methodology. No science. Assertions without evidence. Image A simple example: Dr. Kendi's use of the single-cause fallacy. A basic logical fallacy taught in Freshman Logic 1010. In fact, he uses it throught his "scholarship".

It's central to his thesis:
Read 5 tweets
Jan 20
🗣️ The scholar asserts.

🤔 Evidence for the scholar's assertion? A few cherry-picked anecdotes, mostly from 100 years ago.

😮 Are 100-year-old, cherry-picked anecdotes sufficient data to extrapolate to an entire population today? The scholar says so. Image This is the degree of "scholarship" in much contemporary "Race Scholship". Assert something about people today. Then look for anecdotes from 100 years to to support this assertion. No data. No statistics. No analysis. Just broad, sweeping assertions.
Read 4 tweets
Jan 20
In 2018 I began reading the modern "Race Scholarship": Kendi, DiAngelo, Delgado’s “Critical Race Theory”, etc.

What I found was appalling. Quack scholarship: Circular reasoning, logical fallacies & ideological bullying. No methodology. No science. Assertions without evidence. Image This was one of the manipulations. Your opinion was valid or invalid—based on your race. And then your opinion was valid or invalid based on the race of the person you agreed with—unless they had the "wrong" opinion. In which case their race came into play—but in a different way.
Read 19 tweets
Jan 19
In 2018, I began reading the "Race Scholarship": Kendi, DiAngelo, Delgado’s “Critical Race Theory”, etc.

What I found was appalling "scholarship": Circular reasoing, logical fallacies & ideologocial bullying. No methodology or science. Simply assertions, all without evidence. The basic framework for a paper is thus:

1. Read the ideology. Believe the core tents of the ideology.
2. Observe something.
3. Search for evidence that fits the ideology.
4. The end.

That's pretty much the "scholarship" of these papers.
Read 8 tweets
Jan 18
Some groups do better than others on standardized tests. What should we do?

1. Find out why (poverty, school funding, resources, crime, family dysfunction, etc.), and do the hard work of helping people.

2. Abolish the test.

The scholar likes Option 2. For centuries, countries around the world have used standardized tests to evaluate people’s competence in a subject.

And yet in the US, these tests were devised not to evaluate competence, but were “to degrade Black minds and legally exclude Black bodies”.

/2
Read 10 tweets
Jan 18
Imagine an entire academic discipline that exempts itself from criticism.

Instead of responding to questions & disagreement, the scholars simply dismiss any questions & disagreement – based on mind-reading the critic's true intentions.

That would be Critical Race Theory. It's a basic "imputing motives" logical fallacy taught in Freshman Logic 101. And yet entire papers (like this one) are rooted in this fallacy.
Read 4 tweets
Jan 18
Speaking fee $20,000 per hour.

It's an important subject. We need to get it right. We need better scholars. Scholars who put out serious scholarship about this serious subject.

Not nonsensicial gibberish like this.
Read 5 tweets
Jan 18
Imagine an entire academic theory where disagreeing with the theory is proof of the theory.

That would be Robin DiAnelo’s White Fragility.

#ImportantSubjectClownScholarship. 🤡🎓👩🏻‍🎓 Image Incidentally, the scholar doesn't debate her idea in public or answer difficult questions. She also declines invitations to discuss her theories one-on-one as equals with other scholars. @Ayaan @MikeNayna
Read 6 tweets
Jan 17
The scholar’s proposal. The scholar doesn’t explore his proposal any further, just what’s stated here.

The scholar’s book “How to be an Antiracist” is recommended reading in schools across America, required reading at some universities.
/1 Image Incidentally, the scholar (1) doesn’t debate his ideas in public, (2) doesn’t answer challenging questions, (3) declines invitations to sit down one-on-one with other scholars to discuss his ideas, (4) calls people who disagree with him “racist”.
/2
Read 7 tweets
Jan 16
Two years ago I started to “do the work” & read the recommended literature on race & racism: Kendi, DiAngelo, Delgado’s “Critical Race Theory” etc.

What I read was appalling. Unscientific, intolerant, bullying & borderline religious. Ideology, not scholarship.

/1 What I found were “scholars” who didn’t do scholarship. There was no science, data, methodology, hypothesis testing, multivariate analysis or theories backed up by evidence & logical investigation.

/2
Read 9 tweets
Jan 16
Imagine an entire academic discipline that exempts itself from criticism.

Instead of responding to questions & disagreement, scholars simply dismiss any & all criticism—based on mind-reading the *true intentions* of the critic.

That academic discipline is Critical Race Theory. Critical Race Theory scholars are very fond of the logical fallacy called “Imputing motives”.

Instead saying:

👩‍🎓 “I stated X. You disagreed with X. Let’s discuss X.”
Read 6 tweets
Jan 16
The book "White Fragility" was the light version of DiAngelo-theory. Try reading some of her academic papers. 1. If you speak up and state your disagreement with these teachings, it’s proof of your fragility.😁

2. If you say, “Nevermind then. I won’t say anything,” it’s proof of your fragility.😅

3. If you say, “This is crazy, I’m leaving,” it’s proof of your fragility.🤣
Read 4 tweets
Jan 15
He’s a scholar. He proposes a bold idea, an idea that will “fix the original sin of racism”.

The scholar doesn’t explore or explain his idea, just proposes it.

Let’s explore the scholar’s idea for him. . . . The first “guiding anti-racist principle” is:

“racial inequity is evidence of racist policy”

The scholar defines INEQUITY as “when two or more racial groups are not standing on approximately equal footing”, & gives an example of white/Black wealth distribution. [HTBAA,p17]

/2
Read 21 tweets
Jan 15
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. 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.
Read 4 tweets
Jan 15
I've been reading it. Here's where I'm at. And (unlike most CRT "scholars") I'm willing to discuss.
Read 7 tweets
Jan 14
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. . . . 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.
Read 4 tweets
Jan 14
Collective guilt. The Bible is against it. The Quran is against it. Race scholar Dr. Robin DiAngelo appears to be for it. . . . 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 . . .
Read 9 tweets
Jan 14
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.
Read 10 tweets
Jan 14
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." 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?
Read 4 tweets