#social justice orthodoxy

[orthopunkfox]

#orthodox christianity #orthodoxy #orthodoxleftist #social justice #socialism #christian socialism #queer christian #inclusive orthodoxy #faithfullylgbtq #trans christian

[autogyne-redacted]

Ok, so let's talk about "misandry."

(Heads up that I use terrible US foreign policy as an example of underlying gender ideology, Death to America of course)

1) if we're working within a social justice, privilege-oppression type framework, there is no systemic oppression of men as men, or trans men as trans men (beyond transphobia). Within these privilege oppression frameworks treating misandry or transandrophobia as a real thing is gonna have disastrous consequences.

2) But we need to be abandoning the identity politics social justice orthodoxy as fast as we can. Occupying a position of privilege within the discourse is dehumanizing and hellish, it has a terrible track record with transmisogyny (not a coincidence), and trying to map gendered power just by looking at identity groups means you miss a ton of what's happening within the groups, and in less straight forward ways.

3) a huge part of the gender binary is between camab ppl as (instrumental) subjects and cafab ppl as (responsive, feeling) objects. And this is fucked all around.

To pick one of the more egregious examples, US military directives make heavy use of the category of "military aged males." People outside this category are (theoretically) assumed to be non combatants while "military aged males" in ~warzones~ are basically valid targets by default. https://tinyurl.com/4skt53tx

This category also faces extra exclusion from refugee and asylum status: https://tinyurl.com/4txsmepy

We could explain this as a symptom of misogyny. That women should also be recognized as being capable of enacting violence and treated equally. This is the most straight forward application of orthodox gender theory and likely the worst.

Or we could say that there's something about the intersection of being Arab/Muslim/young/read as male that leads to a unique oppression.

But it's not like it's just this intersection. If we look at prison populations, or who gets hit by police violence, or weaponized accusations of Sexual Assault the logic is actually fairly consistent here, if a little messy to talk about.

Ppl seen as men are seen as capable of wielding power and this leads to benefits if they're seen as basically good. If they're seen as crazy, dangerous, evil, hostile, or at risk of being any of these, being seen as capable of violence makes shit way worse. Lots of intersections push you further towards being viewed as a threat.

(A pretty good bite sized model of transmisogyny is that it misgenders us as men + we get negative respect since we rejected masculinity + it frames us as crazy/dangerous).

Ppl seen as women are going to be seen as less competent, in need of guidance, control and protection by default. But it comes with certain (conditional) protections. Violence against women certainly happens, but the fact that it's a special protected category says a lot. (There's a lot to say about how much these protections are worth, who they really apply to and when they disappear and what happens then, but it's very clear that they exist and that they mean something).

4) so am I arguing for the existence of misandry? Absolutely not*. Gender is just a fucked up system of division and control all around. Privilege frameworks suggest that women are going to experience the same shit as men they share identities with + misogyny + possible extra intersectional oppression. And while this approach is sometimes helpful, I think a better default framework is that gender is just a way to create more social categories for a more complicated system of control with common threads like the subject-object binary that can play to different ways in different contexts.

The whole thing needs to be dismantled and we need to see ppl across gender categories as whole human beings with a meaningful interiority, the capacity for violence, etc. And if we recognize that gender is a complicated system of control, it follows naturally that our gender discourse shouldn't all ask men to sit down / shut up / listen.

5) the issue with transandrophobia BS is that it really wants to exceptionalize the trans masc experience. "It's fucked up that I'm being seen as suspect and capable of violence like terrible cis men, I'm obviously one of the good ones." And as they fight for the best of both worlds ("I should be respected like a man but still seen as incapable of chauvinism") it pushed naturally for trans fems to get the worst of both worlds.

6) returning to feminist "man-hating" there's a lot i oppose for being essentialist or doubling down on subject-object binary. Beyond that, a lot of it is just mean. And like, ppl can be jaded and mean sometimes. But a lot of social justice feminist dogma was ppl developing a bristly defensiveness from constant harassment and trolling. Ppl defending this as an understandable response, and then that shifting into codifying and valorizing it. And I just think it's a miserable way to live and it's miserable to be on the receiving end of it.

I think some grace and understanding for ppl being jaded and bristly is rly helpful but I'm done with valorizing it.

7) all of this said, basic feminist takes about men having lots of pressure and motivations to be chauvinist still apply. And they certainly apply to trans men. But there's a difference between having social expectations that you be a chauvinist and bowing to that pressure. And lots of men are chill and nice! Yes even cishet men!

It's easy to want to draw a hard line where you're "one of the good ones" and are categorically separated from the possibility of being sexist (ontologically incapable of violence, even?) and that goes really poorly.

(most of my beef with transandrophobia is that it's doing this + exceptionalizing trans masc experience in a way that fucks over trans fems).

But I'm not gonna ask ppl to constantly self flagellate or be hyper vigilant to make sure they don't slip up. Sin frameworks are miserable and it's not like being interpersonally shitty in a way that lines up with oppressive systems actually has consequences that much worse than just being an asshole.

So much of the more aggressive side of social justice just feels like ways to treat enemies, not your friends or ppl you want to be in community with.

I'm glad we've been moving on from it.

*editing a footnote since this has already come up a couples times / this post seems to be leaving my immediate circles: by saying misandry isn't real I mean: there isn't a systemic oppression of men as men that parallels misogyny. Gendered oppression isn't a "both sides" situation. When "egalitarian" or mra types brought "misandry" into the discourse this is what they were pushing for.

While I object to the idea that all men evenly oppress all women, patriarchy absolutely has men at the top. It's a complex and multi-directional system of power but there is an overall gendered slant to it. My framework here is still a feminist framework.

#writing #long post #not coming out of the closet #coates #transmisogny #gender theory #misandry #transandrophobia #i use men some places and ppl seen as men others none of it is super straight forward gender as it applies to trans ppl is complicated sry

[saintmachina]

easter is coming and an as an ex catholic i was wondering if you have any insight on wanting to reconnect with the christian religion but feeling like god has abandoned/forsaken/forgotten you? is it possible to conceive of a christianity that doesn’t center god? could you even be a christian in any capacity or within any denomination if you feel a disconnect or even just plain upset with god?

Hi anon! This is such an interesting ask to me, because people often come to me expressing a kinship with God but an alienation from the church or religion writ large. However, it sounds like you're seeking reconnection with religion while expressing ambivalence or a feeling of upset towards God.

I would start with a little soul-searching. What elements of the Christian religion are you drawn to? What currently speaks to you about the tradition? Following those affinities should be a good guiding light for you as you explore. There's no rush to this, no formula to follow. So give yourself grace.

That said, non-theistic Christianity does exist! This religious alignment typically celebrates the teachings of Jesus and/or the work of the church as a site of community and charity and social justice, but eschews traditional doctrines such as the divinity of Christ, the virgin birth, the resurrection, and so on. You might want to look into the work of John Shelby Sprong; he was an Episcopal bishop who encouraged the church to move away from theism towards a humanistic model. I might start with Jesus For The Non-Religious or Why Christianity Must Change Or Die. You might also poke your head into to a Unitarian Universalist Church, which unites people from many different faiths as well as agnostics and atheists in the pursuit of community care, connection, and justice. It could scratch the religious itch while giving you space to believe (or not believe) whatever you need to.

However, you told me you're an ex-Catholic, so religion for you may feel much more liturgical, sacramental, or mystical than what you'll find in a Unitarian Church. If you're thinking of reconnecting with Catholicism in some way, I want to remind you that you have every right to be there, no matter what your faith looks like at present. Also, there is a very long and deep tradition of doubt, anger, or ambivalence towards God in the Catholic Church. Some church leaders may only make space for those emotions as a stepping stone on the path back towards explicit faith (and be extension, orthodoxy), but I think it has value and legitimacy in and of itself.

You could look into the art and theology thinkers have created about "the dark night of the soul", a period (sometimes quite long) of spiritual helplessness, or discouragement, or, more importantly, the perceived absence of the presence of God. You could read My Bright Abyss, a series of essays by a poet wrestling with his relationship to God after being diagnosed with a rare and incurable cancer. You could try creating your own art about the emotions you're feeling about the Divine, or find an interfaith spiritual director (like a counselor for the soul) who can help your emotions work your way through your body. My spiritual director is Rachel Parsons, and I recommend her highly to anyone.

And, if it matters at all, (feel free to skip this section if you don't want to hear me pontificate about my own unverified personal Gnosis about God), I don't think God forsakes any of us, under any conditions. Even in the most abject and wretched of circumstances, God is there, suffering with us. Even when we look up at the most cruel, silent, empty sky, God is present in the stardust and the insect song and the sweat on the back of our necks. And, most importantly, God will always be there if you decide you want to walk that strange and winding path back towards some semblance of belief, often appearing to us in the way we least expect. And even if you literally never find your way back to any belief-shaped thing, that's fine. God is big and wild and incomprehensible and intensely personal. God can handle all your frustration and grief and rage. That's kind of God's whole thing. But that's just my opinion.

Be so well, anon. I hope you find what you're seeking, and I hope the Easter season is kind to you!

#theology #answered asks #religion #christianity #catholicism #religious doubt #dark night of the soul

[communistkenobi]

Could you elaborate on the different ways that Qui Gon, Obi Wan, Anakin, Ahsoka and Luke defined Jedi or what it means to be a Jedi? I love to read your thoughts on stuff like this!

Yeah of course! I’m a bit rusty on Star Wars canon so this will be a bit more vague, but my general opinion is basically some version of the following:

imo Qui-Gon is billed in the canon as being a skeptic of the Jedi Order. He questions rules and determinations made by the Council, seems to dabble in conspiratorial or esoteric interpretations of Jedi theology or rules (iirc this is from Master & Apprentice), and seems to generally hold himself out as a contrarian. I don’t know if this manifests as a comprehensive critique of the Order, or if he just believes that pushback against institutional orthodoxy is inherently good. And you can probably critique his skepticism (he’s still an agent of the Order and by extension, the Republic), but like from what I remember in canon he is a guy who likes debating and questions his orders from the Council. My instinct is that he’s one of those anti-institution libertarian types, it’s not like a comprehensive critique of the Order but a more surface level desire to question authority (which, hey, no complaints in that regard lol). Now this is a separate question from how he views being a Jedi, but clearly some element of that is a moral obligation to “find a better way” to be a good person as a Jedi, to pushback on norms. He wants to be the minority opinion in the room, keeping the Council honest and all that jazz.

Which Obi-Wan fucking hated lol. Again pulling from M&A (mostly because it’s the most recent SW novel I’ve read with them in it), but Obi-Wan seems to be like this beleaguered bright-eyed student who has to put up with his Master’s bullshit antics. My personal view of Obi-Wan is a guy who fully buys into the Jedi Order as an institution that facilitates justice - he may critique the methods the Order uses or bend rules to get a better outcome (thinking of the 2016 Obi-Wan & Anakin comic here), but I think at the end of the day Obi-Wan believes the Order is a net-good for the world, believes in the mission of the Jedi to engage in diplomacy on the Republic’s behalf (I believe this is in conflict with his Legends characterisation, but iirc in the new canon he’s much more of a keener and I tend to like that interpretation more), and in his pursuit to be an ideal archetype of Jedi, he craves the legitimacy and prestige the Order confers onto his status as a Jedi Knight, especially as a Knight training The Chosen One. I think this is also why his death is integral to Luke’s story, as Luke had very different ideas about what a Jedi Order would look like and had Obi-Wan survived ANH, they likely would have fought bitterly about it.

Anakin I haven’t thought as much about, I think in general he was becoming a Jedi because that’s what everyone wanted him to be, and maybe he did have that dream at some point, but I think Anakin is mostly resigned to training and being knighted because that’s just how his life is going. He doesn’t seem to have a great deal of respect for the Order or Jedi customs (this informs a lot of his conflict with Obi-Wan), and he seems disinterested in furthering the Order’s political and social role in the Republic. He was actively hostile to taking Ahsoka on as a student, and I think his eventual fall from grace and turn towards the Sith marked this like, ultimate form of indulgence for him - a total rejection of his destiny, of all the expectations put on him, and a way to perform the perceived inadequacy that he was burdened with as a child. Like look dad, I’m the bad guy asshole everyone was so afraid I’d become! I’m not a Jedi and never could be! Fuck you!

Ahsoka I think has a much more developed version of the skepticism that we see from Qui-Gon, because she was confronted with the entire might of the Order and was cast out for a crime she didn’t commit. For her, being a Jedi is synonymous with institutional acceptance, and so if the Council doesn’t consider her to be a Jedi, then fuck that noise she’s not a Jedi. I think in terms of outlook you could say she’s still very Jedi-like, in the same vein as Luke, idealistic and self-sacrificing, but with Ahsoka it’s tinged with more cynicism and pragmatism than I think we see with Luke (at least in terms of the OT - I’m not familiar with the ST at all and don’t have a desire to engage with it so maybe later in life that’s a different story for him, idk). I think the loss of Anakin in particular also affects her a lot, and probably informs her non-attachment to a lot of people. She’s a drifter for personal safety reasons, but I also think she wouldn’t do well in a group long term (compared to someone like Kanan, who very much eschews the attachment rule and finds community with the Ghost crew). In that sense I think you could argue she’s a Jedi in practice but not in writing.

And Luke like. Idk where to even begin lol. He’s the only one of this group who was not brought up in the Order and has no formal training. Even Yoda and Obi-Wan’s training can’t substitute for growing up around other Jedi and being taught that kind of discipline and culture from a young age. He doesn’t have access to Jedi written teachings or Jedi history, he doesn’t place them in the same political context as the rest of his lineage does, experiencing the Jedi only as a bygone era, mysterious and ultimately fundamentally unknowable. Which means that his vision of Jedi-hood is probably “heretical” but also sort of a necessary new way forward, responding to what he perceives to be the failures of old Jedi teachings and ways of life. So for him Jedi-hood is a much more provisional affair, it is what he makes of it because he’s the guy who is literally making it. Which is ironic given that he’s literally THE original Jedi in the canon, like he’s how audiences are introduced to Jedi, but so much of that lore has been built up around him that he kind of becomes the odd one out. Which makes Filoni’s comment that he’s not really a Jedi sort of correct? Almost? Like I don’t actually really agree with it and his reasoning is idiotic, but Luke is not the traditional Jedi, he’s the origin point for an entirely new tradition. So he is a Jedi, very much so, but there is a break in tradition that can’t really be squared with the previous historical circumstances that created the Order. He has to forge a new way forward and reshape how Jedi exist and practice in a totally new context. Which is very cool!

#sw.txt #asks #sw meta #also thank you <3 sorry if any of the canon is wrong like I said I’ve forgotten a lot #honestly though this is fun. I need to get back into it

[vomitdodger]

Long and thorough article. Choice paragraphs below showing every step of the way is compromised:

“In May 2021, the AMA released its Organizational Strategic Plan to Embed Racial Justice and Advance Health Equity, “dedicated to embedding racial justice” in all medical practice. Among the plans key priorities is one whose implications for medical education and medical school admissions are readily apparent: “Develop structures and processes to consistently center the experiences and ideas of historically marginalized (women, LGBTQ+, people with disabilities, International Medical Graduates) and minoritized (Black, Indigenous, Latinx, Asian and other people of color) physicians.”

The medical profession’s leaders, almost without exception or dissent, now vigorously enforce this new orthodoxy of anti-racism. Most notably, they have designed and implemented a new version of medical education explicitly grounded in ideology rather than scientific excellence. In pursuit of this project, the president of the AAMC (which accredits U.S. medical schools) and the chair of the AAMC’s Council of [Medical School] Deans stated publicly in July 2022: “We believe this topic [Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion] deserves just as much attention from learners and educators at every stage of their careers as the latest scientific breakthroughs.”

The AAMC’s DEI Competencies, issued in October 2021, details the new required social justice skills that medical students must acquire. In addition, the AAMC has discouraged the use of the rigorous Medical College Admissions Test (MCAT) as a filter to help select medical students. Dozens of the 158 allopathic (MD granting) U.S. medical schools have made the MCAT optional. Several medical schools, including the prestigious University of Pennsylvania, have programs to admit students from designated “underrepresented” identity groups without requiring the submission of MCAT scores at all. The MCAT itself has been revised to include social justice questions that are easy to ace because the answers are always the same: structural racism is the cause of any group disparities that disfavor underrepresented groups. But even this re-engineered test shows persistent group disparities in test scores, which means that Asian applicants must score almost 4 times higher than black applicants to have an equal chance of admission.”

The MCAT was the only aspect of the entire application process which demonstrated true aptitude for a science/medical based curriculum. And they’re largely doing away with it.

And it isn’t just medical schools. The indoctrination and dumbing down of standards continues through residency/fellowship and practice. Example: This is how certain hospitals come to the forefront to promote the trans mutilation. Brigham and Womens Hospital in Boston being one of the worst.

Emergency Medicine is another example. EM is represented by ACEP:

👆the president of ACEP (black female naturally-not a racist comment-just an observation for a demographic that is less than 5% of emergency medicine physicians) actively OPPOSES that anti-DEI legislation.

And to prevent trolls citing the usual lazy dumb denial of sOuRcE???? for that 5% statistic, here it is:

[dhaaruni]

In recent years, social-justice activists have made a practice of seeking to deplatform or punish speech on the grounds that it (1) causes emotional (or theoretically physical) harm to oppressed groups or (2) is motivated by bigotry. Others on the left have argued that organizations and institutions canceling speakers or refusing to platform certain perspectives was itself an exercise of First Amendment rights worth defending: The “freedom of association” entitles Americans to form collectives that dissociate from some forms of speech. Anti-woke types of the center and the right, meanwhile, tended to decry such censoriousness as an illiberal bid to impose orthodoxy on others through emotional blackmail and institutional capture. And they were also inclined to emphasize that “free speech” is not just a matter of constitutional law but a civic ethos. Sure, activist groups have a right to pressure a hotel into canceling a rival political movement’s conference, and that hotel also has a right to comply. But whether they should exercise those rights — or, more to the point, whether it is healthy for democratic life if the practice of deplatforming controversial groups becomes widespread — is a separate question. The Israel-Hamas war has flipped the ideological valence of these positions. Now, many on the right are fighting to suppress Palestinian speech on the grounds that it is motivated by antisemitism and emotionally harmful to Jews (i.e., members of a historically marginalized group). And these conservatives are leveraging the institutional power of Israel hawks in order to deplatform their adversaries. Meanwhile, social-justice activists have taken to condemning the deplatforming of pro-Palestinian speech as a threat to America’s civic health.

#Iinks #media matters lots #politics

[lesbiansandgayssupporttheminers]

I think the willful misunderstanding of "hey, we should question this seemingly unquestionable social construct" aka the ideological basis of all resulting social justice movements so that it's transformed into "hey why are you telling people they should lie to and hurt their partners" is ... an unfortunate indicator of how deeply held our beliefs about what relationships should look like. I am gay and alarmed by how the queer liberation movement wants to shift simply from straight and monog to gay and monog - a broad generalization yes, but I definitely feel this pressure and it comes from gay people and straight people.

Most tumblr users, and an awful lot of young people, are very very unwilling to consider their "orthodoxy", and they love a pile on.

They've taken the puritan values they grew up with, and put a rainbow flag or an anarchist symbol on it and are very ready to hound anyone they see as "bad".

And people must be all good or all bad- there's no room for grey.

For me, both leftism and queer lib is about building broad based movements rather than drawing dividing lines.

Tbf, I am aware whenever you challenge a deeply held belief someone has, especially if it's emotive subject, you get a lot of kick back.

[kendrixtermina]

Something I've recently been thinking in the light of a lot of the discourse on here that everyone is distracted left vs right when they should be paying attention to the libertarian vs authoritarian axis as well.

(Of course few authoritarians call themselves that, but it is this belief in strict rules & that people can't be trusted to decide for themselves, that ppl need to be controlled for their own good etc) 

The authoritarian left hasn't been a thing for 20 odd years after communism fell but I suppose it was a matter of time till they would come back in some form - just like, alas, the far right nuts came back after the ppl who personally remember what a bad idea the nazis were gradually died off. 

There was a post on tumblr recently calling the censor crowd "functionally conservative" but they really aren't, they're pro gay, pro environment, pro minority, pro change, pro tax etc. they are leftists, but what they also are is authoritarian.

The authoritarian left is back, & this is what's happened in this last decade with this neo-puritan/paternalist/cancel culture stuff. It just gradually crept into left spaces frogs in a boiling pot situation & was just nodded along with because everyone wants to be pro-justice etc, 

& then in the news/ by critics it is all just often it's just all lumped together as "the left" - When people say "libertarian" they usually mean libertarian right (eg doesn’t care about social control or anyone smooking weed or being gay in private, but pro corporate, against tax, wants to keep social categories somewhat the same etc. )

No one applies the libertarian/authoritarian split to the left any more as if they're all libertarian by default but they aren't. Not the "censor stuff that makes me uncomfy" crowd, for sure. They're just as authoritarian rightist censors, they just want their own team to win. 

But when anyone complains about “leftists censors” they’re usually accused of projecting, decried as immoral etc. even when they’re not being hostile & possibly open to rational dialogue. in other words, there is heavy “for us or against us” logic, treating anyone not 100% on your side as indistinguishable from extremists. Which is authoritarianism: No dialogue, no divergence from orthodoxy not even just for argument’s sake, no thinking bad thoughts

In some situations I may have more in common with a centrist libertarian than an authoritarian of either left or right. I don’t want no puritan crusaders of either paintjob telling me what to do. 

I think this difference needs to be emphasized more, basically. 

#politics #leftism #political compass #authoritarianism #discourse #cancel culture #feelings #censorship #freedom #purity culture #neo puritanism #anti

[azspot]

But it has happened and continues to happen in all of these traditions! God’s truth is marching on! We are discerning that God’s love, justice, freedom, mercy, and faithfulness cannot be contained in our self-imagined categories of chosenness and privilege. Our several orthodoxies of nationalism, racism, sexism, and gender exclusion all have imagined a God who could be safely kept in our preferred boundaries. But the God of the covenant who is the God the Gospel will not be so contained. Indeed, it is evident that God’s peculiar attentiveness is especially drawn toward those who are regularly denied legitimacy in our social arrangements. We can knowingly speak of “God’s preferential option” not only for the poor but toward all those who are otherwise discounted.

The God of the Other (Amos 9:7)

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Mike Nayna

Published: May 19, 2023

In the deleted scene above, Peter proposes a thought experiment to his philosophy class. He asks his students how they would have gone about discrediting the pseudoscience of phrenology at the height of its popularity. This not-so-subtle dig at the identity studies departments is an interesting way to think about how theories can flourish into fields with almost no connection to material reality.

The scene highlights Peter, James, and Helen's fundamental critique of the identity studies canon, which is that it gains legitimacy by mimicking scientific forms but doesn’t adhere to the expectations of the scientific method. Allow me to flesh this perspective out by drawing a comparison.

A scientific theory emerges from the observation of facts. It’s a kind of story we tell about how certain groups of facts relate to each other and why they show up in the way they do. There’s an expectation among scientists that you should be able to familiarise yourself with a scientific theory and then use its principles to predict something new and verifiable about the world.

A Critical Theory, however, which is the genre of theory studied in the identity studies departments, doesn’t hold itself to this expectation. Critical theorists claim that the social sciences must integrate philosophy into their methods to make their findings work practically toward a moral cause. Where the purpose of a scientific theory is to understand the world as it is, the purpose of a Critical Theory is to change the world into something it ought to be.

Critical Race Theory, Postcolonial Theory, and Queer Theory, the three heads of the Social Justice hydra, are all different methods of criticising Western social norms from the perceived perspectives of outsider identities. I use the word “perceived” here because critical theorists are self-appointed representatives of the groups they study and they seek to generate a particular kind of “oppressed” perspective among thier subjects rather than exploring their authentic thoughts and feelings.

They critique everything, from the way we form couples, to how buildings are designed, right down to the way white people prepare food. Thier seemingly bottomless body of criticism is now decades old and is actively disseminated with the aim of “liberating” non-normative identities from the bondage of conservative social values and customary expectations.

“Criticism, yoked to a fixed set of conclusions, turns into an orthodoxy.”

-- Kenneth Minogue

While some scholars working with Critical Theory use these theoretical frameworks as starting points to do real research, the standards of the field have devolved so badly that a fundamentalism has emerged from their vast body of work. This happens through a process I call “theoretical laser surgery,” where a scholar imbibes so much abstract theoretical philosophy that they can’t unsee it. Critical Theory is no longer a lens to apply to particular phenomena but a worldview grafted into every aspect of their consciousness.

“The question is not ‘did racism take place?’ but rather ‘how did racism manifest in this situation?’”

Differing from scientific practitioners who are required to attempt to disprove their starting assumptions, these fundamentalists start with their conclusions and move into the field to accumulate proof and punish dissent. They write papers, books, articles and tweets, devise courses and workshops, create art and films, and contort statistics to reify their beliefs and evangelise their worldview.

The quasi-religious movement that proceeds from this body of work is my narrow definition of “Woke.” They themselves call their worldview a “critical consciousness,” and they seek to create a mass awakening to the oppressive superstructures of patriarchy, heteronormativity, and white supremacy, through our centres of cultural production - academia, law, media, religious institutions, and the arts.

I think it’s important to keep this label narrow and avoid applying it to the vast array of left-wing sensibilities that are now popularly deemed “Woke.” The work done by the fundamentalists in these fields, and now far beyond, informs many people I wouldn’t consider fundamentalists at all. If you make a distinction between the activists I’ve described above and your garden-variety leftie with technocratic leanings, you can paint a more detailed picture of how something like this has been able to claim so much power from within ostensibly liberal institutions.

==

We're living in a world created by phrenologists.

#Mike Nayna #Peter Boghossian #The Reformers #critical theory #phrenology #grievance studies hoax #science #fundamentalism #critical consciousness #critical social justice #woke #wokeism #cult of woke #wokeness #wokeness as religion #presupposition #identity studies #academic corruption #unfalsifiable #religion is a mental illness

[susansontag]

genuinely these people think they’re the brave leftists fighting for social justice, yet they’re spewing depraved fantasies about the ways in which they hoped a famous children’s author would die, discussing how they were smiling so wide and so disappointed...! pathetic. not only do they not have morals nor care about anything but they don’t even care about the communities they claim to support as soon as it’s inconvenient or takes them a place that might take some effort to consider. I swear even five years ago some of these same people would have been saying “hey guys I don’t like what she’s said either but isn’t this a bit messed up?”, no, now they have completely lost all sense of normal behaviour. young people used to challenge dominant orthodoxies in their groups all the time and it was accepted as normal but with the rise of insular internet communities and resulting groupthink I really think a generation are being raised to cater their political insights or conduct to whatever would put them in the good graces of various twitter activists

#I always think I'm being dramatic then I see something like that #and realise just how out of touch these ppl are with anything of substance #it's hugely worrying for the left #moth.txt #to delete

[schraubd]

Debate Me, You Cowards

The other day, the Wisconsin Supreme Court (two weeks away from Janet Protasiewicz taking her seat on the bench and flipping the court's 4-3 majority) denied a request by the Wisconsin Bar to create a CLE category for DEIA (diversity, equity, inclusion, and access) credit. "DEIA courses would address “the subject of diversity, equity, inclusion, access, or recognition of bias, which includes topics addressing diversity and inclusion in the legal system of all persons regardless of age, race, ethnicity, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disabilities and topics designed to educate attorneys on the recognition and reduction of bias."

The court's denial, joined by the conservative faction, was a short per curiam opinion. The liberal coalition's dissent was likewise short, focusing on the Court declining to give the matter even a hearing which, under the Court's standard rules, should have been offered assuming the petition had "arguable merit". Since many states have DEI CLE credit akin to what the Bar was proposing in Wisconsin, the petition clearly had at least "arguable merit" and should have gotten a hearing.

(Underneath all of this is the imminent change in the Court's partisan composition. Scheduling a hearing would have pushed the decision back past the point where Judge Protasiewicz will join the court; a factor which no doubt encouraged the majority to try and slam through this lame-duck decision without giving it normal consideration. It also seems highly likely that the new majority will revisit the question in the near future).

However, aside from the short per curiam, and the short dissent, there was a very not-short concurrence from Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley* (last seen engaging in election-denierism while comparing the use of ballot drop boxes to North Korean autocracy). The concurrence is little more than a Townhall-style rant against the dangers of diversity initiatives. It is replete with bitter buzzwords more commonly found in the recesses of social media: claiming that the "very point of mandating DEIA CLE would be to create a 'goose-stepping brigade[]' of attorneys," accusing the Bar of trying to "virtue signal, and railing against "the predictable and petty slanders of the cancel culture crowd." She even contorts the unanimous support of the Wisconsin Bar for this initiative as illustrative of a "grave illness in our society" that can only be explained by the way DEI supporters "demoniz[e] dissenters."

There's more in that vein, all bolstered by a bevy of citations to a range of right-wing shock jocks. But I don't want to parse Justice Bradley's concurrence. Rather, I want to flag how the dissent addresses it -- or rather, quite consciously declined to address it -- in its concluding footnote:

I choose not to respond to the substance of the concurrence, which is hostile, divisive, and disrespectful. This political rhetoric has no place in an order of the court. We should instead engage earnestly with opposing perspectives by granting a hearing on the petition, which is what our ordinary process requires.

Perfectly appropriate under the circumstances. Not only was Justice Bradley's concurrence not worth the dissent's time, it's not germane to the dissent's point; namely, that if these debates are to be had, they should occur through the normal process of granting a hearing and engaging earnestly with the various perspectives on the issue.

And that mature response by the dissent caused an already rage-filled Justice Bradley to truly go ballistic:

Proving well that many proponents of DEIA orthodoxy demonize its critics, the dissenting justices "choose not to respond" to this concurrence, instead dismissing it with a headline-grabbing caricature as "hostile, divisive, and disrespectful" "political rhetoric[.]" Dissent, ¶46 n.4. This concurrence cites more than a dozen United States Supreme Court decisions, multiple state supreme court decisions, Frederick Douglass, Martin Luther King Jr., Thurgood Marshall, Clarence Thomas, James Madison, Montesquieu, and at least an additional dozen legal scholars, authors, and professors. Of course, the real reason for the dissenters' refusal to engage with the substance of an opinion spanning more than 30 pages is the imminent change in court membership. The new majority will reverse this court's order at its first opportunity.

The dissenters borrow a rhetorical tactic from the modern political sphere increasingly employed by justices of this court in lieu of legal argument. See, e.g., Jane Doe 4 v. Madison Metro. Sch. Dist., Nos. 2022AP2042, 2023AP305 & 2023AP306, unpublished order, at 3 n.1 (Wis. May 19 2023, amended June 14, 2023) (Hagedorn, J., concurring) ("I also do not respond to this supplemental writing because of its abandonment of basic judicial decorum."). When lawyers decline to respond to legal arguments advanced in a case, the court considers the point conceded.

If ever there was a time for applying "I'm not mad" to a legal opinion, this is it. Note, incidentally, the final shot at Justice Hagedorn, who is actually a member of the Court's conservative faction but has generally refrained from joining the more fever-like portions of the Court's analysis (he didn't join Bradley's concurrence, for instance, though he joined the majority here). As is so often the case, the most immediate targets of conservative legal grievance posturing in defense of "ideological diversity" are other conservatives who don't want to engage in conservative legal grievance posturing.

In any event, it's tough to imagine a better example of conservative legal grievance culture than writing a 30-page 4chan post accusing the other side of being dishonest, virtue-signaling goose-steppers and then stomping your feet with "debate me, cowards!" (and accusing them of "demonization") when your colleagues don't deign to jump in the mud pit with you.

As I've written before, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has been a national embarrassment for years, and Justice Bradley certainly has played a large role in that. One can only hope that the new majority will restore some desperately-needed sanity and decorum to the circus-show.

* There are actually two Justice Bradley's on the Court -- Rebecca Grassl Bradley, who is among the conservatives, and Ann Walsh Bradley, who is one of the liberals. The latter Justice Bradley joined, but did not write, the liberal dissent, so throughout this post all references to "Justice Bradley" refer to Rebecca Grassl Bradley.

via The Debate Link https://ift.tt/ZA17odn

#diversity #judiciary #racism #Wisconsin

[hindahoney]

Thank you sm for your answer and sorry for assuming Orthodoxy of you, though I can guess the same antisemitic sentiment extends to anyone who is frum. (I try to be pretty frum and as observant as I can but I wont lie, there are places where I don't put in the effort that is expected of a frum Jew, so even though I'm probably way more 'tight' about my practice than most people at my synagogue, I have always identified myself as Reform/Liberal/Progressive depending on where I lived at the time)

I equally feel really sad seeing my family at odds with one another. Disagreement isn't necessarily a bad thing but moral subjects can get touchy and people get very trigger happy with accusations of things like sexism and homophobia without considering who they are actually talking to. One of my favourite Jewish values is discussion, debate, disagreement, and learning from different views.And that value seems to be largely forgotten when faced with Jews of other movements.

Not that things like homophobia and sexism are up for debate whatsoever. (Discussion yes, debate no.) But, people conflating Orthodoxy with particular beliefs and biases, without ever bothering to speak to Orthodox Jews and learn what they actually feel, or why they feel how they do, and without bothering to learn Orthodox congregations' history and progress with equity and social justice.

Honestly if I were an Orthodox Jew I would be really really upset by Reform Jews completely ignoring or overlooking all the work that queer Orthodox Jews continually put in to making Orthodoxy safe and welcoming, and going straight to the accusations. Like there are queer Jews in these communities who are putting in soo much work to educate and accommodate, and then none of that work is recognised bc folks just want to point fingers and say "well YOUR movement thinks women are LESSER" or something. If they put in even a minute of their time to listen and converse with Orthodox Jews, they would realise how wrong they are. But ugh. Too much to ask i guess.

This is half the reason I never tell people what movement Im with (unless Im on anon :P) because it gives me a chance to weed out anyone who's weird about Orthodoxy. Like yeah I might be Orthodox for all anyone irl knows. If that makes them uncomfortable then they can gtfo haha. I protect my family before most if not all other things and that explicitly includes Orthodox family.

This is a really good response and I connect with it a lot. This is part of why I hope we are moving into a post-movement form of Judaism where we stop caring about the labels so much. Jews are so diverse, it's only natural most of us don't feel like we 100% fit into any movement.

#jumblr #judaism #jewish #frumblr #antisemitism #ask

[apilgrimpassingby]

Things That Guided Me On My Trad Journey, In Chronological Order

The music of Heather Dale (specifically her albums "Call The Names" and "The Green Knight") and Mercedes Lackey (specifically her songs "Demonsbane" and "Shadow Stalker"). I didn't fully realise it at the time, but listening to it something stirred in me: I don't want to be a social justice warrior. I want to be a knight.

"The Dangerous Book For Boys" which I picked up in WHSmith because it was going cheap and I remembered liking it at my old school. And it intoxicated me because it lived and breathed freedom. Freedom from agonising over "am I being problematic?" and "am I being inclusive and egalitarian enough". The freedom to be my true self: history-loving, chivalrous, curious, polite and respectful to girls, always striving to be kind and thoughtful to other people without worrying if I was doing it enough or not to the right people. And I drank deep of its wine.

The book "Woke Racism" by John McWhorter. While his argument that modern anti-racism is a religion was thoroughly unconvincing, it did convince me that this kind of behaviour is fundamentalist - refusing to consider any other views, condemning all who do not share them, and unshakeably convinced of its own rightness. As my old school was a Christian school with a fundamentalist headteacher in my last year there who got rid of R. E. for not being Christian enough and hijacked history and geography with Young-Earth Creationism, I swore I would never be a fundamentalist. And McWhorter awakened me to make good my vow.

The writing of Jake Meador on the Christian news site "Mere Orthodoxy". I saw there that I could be an environmentalist, oppose industrial capitalism and still believe in traditional gender roles and conservative Christianity.

A prayer last summer that awakened me to Christ, and turned my Christianity from a set of inanimate mental propositions to a way of being human, and gave me the strength to fight against my masturbatory habits. I've still got a long way to go, but I'm on a good track to giving them up, and undoing internet-learned patterns of objectifying lust. I don't need far-left moralism anymore. My old self was crucified with Him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with, that I should no longer be a slave (Romans 6:6, my paraphrase).

Conversation with my form tutor, my best friend, that turned me around and helped me shake off the last of the indoctrination.

And finally, Tumblr (specifically, @homeiswherethewitchcraftis, @barefoot-a-pregnant and the now deactivated @unsweetened lemon), giving me the language to express my desires and showing me that other people like me exist.

#heather dale #mercedes lackey #traditionalism #christianity

[angrybell]

I keep seeing people saying they don’t want to be Americans anyone more because this or that didn’t go their way. That they want to go live in some other country they deem to be acceptable.

Good. Please renounce your citizenship. If you don’t want to be here, get the fuck out. I don’t want you here and you’re too much of coward for the rigors and demands of advanced citizenship.

So go somewhere where you don’t have to worry about things, where the socialist has embedded itself into the fabric of society and you can enjoy the glories of government run healthcare and left of Centre governments that provide generous social subsidies. Enjoy paying the taxes you’ve always wished the rest of us would want to pay.

But don’t come crawling back when those supposedly better places start doing things you don’t like either. What things? Well…

Like suppressing freedom of speech. Take your pick, but I’ll cite the UK as an example, where people have been jailed for bad jokes.

Like using emergency powers to institute tyranny and punish their political enemies. Whic is what Trudeau this pst winter.

Or when they come for your property, informing you that you have no right to property. Which the Trudeau’s government has stated is the case. They feel can do when they fee like it, and this is nothing like the Eminent Domain power.

Or perhaps when the government decides to put you in an internment camp on suspicion that you have a disease. Which is what Australia started doing.

So please, all you wealthy (or even not so wealthy, Left-wing worshippers of statism, leave. You don’t like it here. You will not stand the temerity of a Black man, a serving as a Supreme Court justice, ruling in ways that violate the orthodoxy of your secular religion. You can’t fathom that people are unwilling to trust that the government will protect, despite the historical evidence to the contrary, while you have armed private security protecting you.

So please get the hell out of here. Leave me and the others who want to be here alone. I’d rather this “hellhole” than any other.

[dhaaruni]

For those within the critical-social-justice-ideological complex, asking questions, encouraging other people to ask questions, and considering multiple perspectives—all of these things, which should be central to academic work, are an existential danger. The advocates of critical social justice emphasize oppression and tribalistic identity, and believe that a just society must ensure equality of outcomes; this is in contrast to a classical social-justice approach, which focuses on freedom and individuality, understands knowledge as objective and tied to agency and free will, and believes that a just society emphasizes equality of opportunity. The monoculture of critical social justice needs to suppress this alternative worldview and insulate itself from criticism so its advocates can maintain their dominant position. Protection of orthodoxy supersedes all else: collegiality, professionalism, the truth. [...] As my experience shows, questioning the reigning orthodoxies does carry many risks. But the alternative is worse. Authoritarian ideologies advance through a reliance on intimidation and the compliance of the majority, which cowers in silence—instead of speaking up. Engaging in civil discourse and ensuring that multiple perspectives are presented are crucial, if we want to preserve the components of education that ideologues are seeking to destroy.

#links #I mean.... I knew this would happen lol