Critical Social Justice / Woke-sekoilu

[JiM]

Appalling BBC Broadcast : We want to kill whitey, but not today

https://gab.com/a/posts/105916981123226442

..

[zupi]

Tuossa edellä on lyhyesti käsitelty "kriittistä pedagogiikkaa" ja tuo eläinjuttu liittyy ilmeisestikin "kriittisiin eläintutkimuksiin". Jälkimmäinen on näiden sekopäisyyksien uusin aluevaltaus, mistä löytyy juttua esim tuolta:

https://newdiscourses.com/2020/10/boldly-go-critical-animal-studies-final-frontier/

Lyhyet lainaukset alusta ja lopusta.

To Boldly Go: Critical Animal Studies (CAS), the Final Frontier

An article from this summer in Psychology Today by Katherine Compitus demonstrates how far critical social theories can take us if fully imbibed. In the article, Compitus attacks "speciesism," which is "the concept that one species (usually human) considers themselves superior to other species." No species is superior, just different, says Compitus. Instead, she prefers to relegate all species to the lowest common denominator: "We are all living beings."

Compitus is horrified that some anachronistically minded people haven't yet bought into this—the barbarians, if you can believe it, still use oppressive words like "master" and "owner" to "describe their superior position in relation to their pets." This offends Compitus on principle because she has sanitized her memory of any real distinction between humans and other animals. But speciesism is all the more terrible because "Recent studies in the intersectionality of oppressed people and animals have shown how similarly marginalized humans are treated to non-human animals." For example, there are "similarities between the way women are oppressed by society and how animals are dismissed, bullied, and oppressed by society."

Speciesism is also a problem because it, and the "oppressive language" endemic to it, is tantamount to anti-black racism. Compitus looks to Benedicte Boisseron's Afro-Dog: Blackness and the Animal Question (2018) which employs Critical Race Theory (CRT) to analyze how both people of color and "non-human animals" are marginalized and oppressed, and how (per intersectionality) the oppression of one by the dominant class (in this case, white humans) reinforces and compounds the oppression of the other and adversely affects the relationship between the two groups. (We will return to Boisseron later.)

To combat the racist implications of our language, and the "dominance theory" embedded therein, Compitus advises speaking of "including" the dog, not "using" it. We don't own dogs; we are their "guardians," not "masters." We don't discipline or "correct" or punish animals; that's bullying.

(...)(...)

CAS presents a truly frightening prospect: the elimination of the most basic foundation of Western civilization, the priority and unique status of human beings. The result is the relegation of all "living beings" to animal status. Ironically, where CAS theorists think that the elimination of species distinctions will eliminate the means of oppression, it will, in fact, almost certainly make it easier to dehumanize whoever the marginalized group happens to be. If we are all relegated to the lowest common denominator then whatever can be done to an amoeba can be done to a human person. Any argument otherwise would be arbitrary and capricious.

CAS has followed the same trend in the academy as other critical social theories: slowly transitioning from a niche discipline to being regularly featured on course schedules to making appearances in mainstream publications.[46] The sheer absurdity of the discipline and its core assumptions should not induce us to sleep on it, as they say. We must recognize that if half-baked ideas like "white fragility" can so easily and quickly capture the public discourse then so too can ideas like "speciesism." The same lazy logic and resentful worldview animates—to use a word no doubt offensive to CAS scholars—both.

The New York Times article quoted above relays arguments based on a human-centric standard. That is, if certain non-human animals use language and even possess an analog to our conception of morality, then is a distinction really as stark as we imagine? That was 2012. Things have progressed since. Now, the cutting-edge scholars detest such human-centric arguments. The human-animal binary is socially constructed and should be dismantled because it is oppressive, full stop. To allow some animals to qualify for legal rights or a diminished form of personhood only perpetuates the liberal status quo that centers humans and elevates rationality.

This signals a big shift in only a few years. Presumably, CAS theorists were making such arguments all along. The difference is that they are now quite comfortable openly expressing them to the public, and even more so in college classrooms. This development is even scarier when we survey the gullibility of the media and intellectual class, at the moment, for anything having to do with race. The connection made between the speciesist binary and racism makes CAS ripe for more mainstream reception. Look for it soon at a course list, think piece, and protest event near you! If CAS is fully imbibed—not an unlikely prospect given what we've seen so far—we will move rapidly from "four legs good, two legs better" to "four legs good, two legs just the same," or, if you like, "all animals are equal, some are more equal than others," to "all animals are equal, and we are all just animals." We are all farm animals now.

Were the Grievance Studies team to attempt another hoax today they might have a more difficult time. The CAS literature is almost beyond parody. A specious connection between dog parks, misogyny, and rape culture is one that a publication like the Journal for Critical Animal Studies would almost certainly accept. The only question would be whether "Helen Wilson" could come up with a proposal that was radical enough.

Ja Suomi kulkee luonnollisesti kehityksen keihäänkärjessä...

Oikeastaan piti kuitenkin kirjoitella "feministisestä pedagogiikasta", joka tuntuu olevan näiden... kröhöm... tieteilijöiden suosima suuntaus Suomessa. Tuollain niin kuin yleisten havaintojen perusteella. Eikä ole tämä(kään) mikään uusi asia.

Rekola, Hilkka – Vuorikoski, Marjo. 2006. FEMINISTINEN PEDAGOGIIKKA RAJOJEN
YLITTÄJÄNÄ. Kasvatus 37 (1) 16–25.

Artikkelissa tarkastellaan bell hooksin kehittelemän feministisen pedagogiikan ideoita.
Hooksin pedagogiikkaa voi luonnehtia kriittisen pedagogiikan suuntaukseen kuuluvaksi
vapauttavaksi koulutustavaksi, jolla pyritään horjuttamaan vallitsevia ajattelu- ja määrittelytapoja,
totuttuja rajoja ja valtasuhteita. Hooksin kehittelemässä opetuksellisessa
lähestymistavassa, osallistavassa pedagogiikassa, hierarkkisia valtasuhteita puretaan luomalla
tasa-arvoinen oppimisyhteisö. Osallistujat – niin opettajat kuin oppijatkin – nähdään
aktiivisina toimijoina ja kokonaisina ihmisinä tunteineen ja kehoineen. Osallistavan
pedagogiikan anti kriittiselle pedagogiikalle on merkittävä: bell hooks ei jää yleisten
tavoitelausumien esittämiseen, vaan hän kehittelee konkreettisia opetuskäytäntöjä kriittisen
teorian tavoitteiden saavuttamiseksi.

Feministinen ja kriittinen pedagogiikka
ovat sateenvarjokäsitteitä, joiden alle kuuluu
erilaisista teoreettisista perustoista ammentavia
lähestymistapoja koulutuksen ja opetuksen
kehittämiseksi tasa-arvoisempaan
suuntaan. Molemmissa suuntauksissa lähtökohtana
on, että kasvatus ja koulutus tuottavat paitsi tietoa myös poliittisen ja ideologisen
subjektiuden. Muita yhteisiä tekijöitä ovat
muun muassa eettisten kysymysten korostuminen,
pyrkimys poikkitieteelliseen tietoon,
näkemys tiedon historiallisuudesta sekä yhteiskunnallisen
tiedostamisen lisääminen.
Feministisen ja kriittisen pedagogiikan
pitkälti yhdenmukaiset lähtökohtaoletukset
eriytyvät monien feministipedagogien mielestä
sukupuolten tasa-arvoa koskevissa kysymyksissä.
Feministisen pedagogiikan edustajat
katsovat, että kriittinen pedagogiikka ei ota
riittävästi huomioon naisnäkökulmaa. Feministipedagogit
painottavat naisten aseman
parantamista, tiedon uudelleenarviointia feminististen
teorioiden pohjalta sekä feminististen
teorioiden soveltamista kasvatustieteessä
ja pedagogisissa käytännöissä.

Feministiseen pedagogiikkaan kuuluu
erilaisista teoreettisista perustoista ammentavia
lähestymistapoja (ks. Vuorikoski 2005, 48–
49). Niiden keskeisiä avaintermejä ovat empowerment
(valtauttaminen) ja voicing (äänen
antaminen). Ne kuvaavat pedagogisia ratkaisuja,
joilla valtaa pyritään opetustilanteissa jakamaan.
Valtauttamisen käsitteellä viitataan
opiskelijoiden oman olemassaolon oikeuden
tunnustamiseen ja voimistamiseen. Äänen
antaminen tarkoittaa opiskelijoiden itsetiedostuksen
lisäämistä ja itseilmaisun tukemista.
Perusajatuksena on autoritaarisen opetuksen
mallin murtaminen sellaisella pedagogiikalla,
joka antaa tilaa opiskelijoiden omille kokemuksille
ja vahvistaa näin heidän subjektiuttaan.

Bell hooksin kehittelemä opetuksellinen
lähestymistapa osallistava pedagogiikka (engaged
pedagogy) tarkoittaa, että opetus on opettajan
ja oppijoiden yhteinen projekti.

https://www.google.fi/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiH4tKJ_8TvAhWktYsKHRwcDc4QFjAAegQIAxAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Fmycourses.aalto.fi%2Fmod%2Fresource%2Fview.php%3Fid%3D365471&usg=AOvVaw2cHGS-wcga2VIkABcEDqZY

Pitkä, ylistävä kirjoitus, eiköhän nuo lainaukset riitä. Lähinnä oli tarkoitus osoittaa, että tuo on myllännyt Suomessa jo 15 vuotta. Ja useimmat myös tietänee, mitä on tapahtunut suomalaisten PISA-tuloksille tuona aikana... Mutta hei, wokeisteja on ainakin helvetin paljon enemmän...

Erityisesti juuri tällä hetkellä "feministinen pedagogiikka" tuntuu olevan nosteessa. 2018 ilmestyi tällainen.

Feministisen pedagogiikan ABC — Opas ohjaajille ja opettajille

Feministisen pedagogiikan ABC on yleistajuinen tietokirja, joka on suunnattu opettajille ja ohjaajille erilaisissa oppimisen ympäristöissä. Kirja antaa esimerkkejä siitä, miten monesti haastavilta tuntuvia sukupuolta, seksismiä ja rasismia eli vallankäytön muotoja koskevia teemoja voidaan sisällyttää opetukseen rakentavalla tavalla.

Opetuksessa tarvitaan keinoja käsitellä sukupuolen moninaisuutta, hierarkkisoivia eroja ja antirasistisia käytänteitä. Sukupuolen moninaisuuden ja risteävien erojen ymmärtäminen sekä normikriittisyys ja antirasismi pedagogisena asenteena kytkeytyvät kaikki feministisen pedagogiikan käytäntöihin. Kirja toimii myös inspiraation lähteenä ja johdatuksena erilaisiin toiminnallisiin menetelmiin sekä vinkkikirjana kokeneillekin opettajille.

Kirja koostuu yleistajuisista tietokirjoituksista, joissa esitellään feministisen pedagogiikan juuria ja keskeisiä ajatuksia, feministisen pedagogiikan historiaa Suomessa sekä intersektionaalisuutta opetuksessa. (...)

https://vastapaino.fi/sivu/tuote/feministisen-pedagogiikan-abc/2737058

Kirjan "arvostelu":

https://journal.fi/kasvatusjaaika/article/view/84816/47404

Miksi meidän kaikkien pitäisi olla feministisiä pedagogeja

Suomessa koulutusjärjestelmän ja koko yhteiskunnan läpäissyt tasa-arvoisuuden illuusio on
vaikeuttanut keskustelua sukupuolen, yhteiskuntaluokan ja etnisen taustan vaikutuksesta
opettamiseen ja oppimiseen. (...)

Feministisen pedagogiikan ABC – Opas ohjaajille ja opettajille onkin kaivattu, otteeltaan
ja visuaaliselta ilmeeltään kutsuva käsikirja, jonka tarjoamilla näkökulmilla ja työkaluilla
voimme tarkastella ympärillämme olevia eroja. Kirja on kokoelmateos ja se ovat toimittaneet
kokeneet tutkija-opettajat Anu Laukkanen, Sari Miettinen, Aino-Maija Elonheimo,
Hanna Ojala ja Tuija Saresma. He ovat myös sukupuolentutkimusverkosto Hilman
keskeisiä hahmoja sekä antaneet feministisen pedagogiikan opetusta verkoston kautta. (...)

Tuija Saresma lienee sama kuin persujen haukkuja Tuija, Hallis on rasisti Tuija ja vihapuhetutkimus Tuija. Ja siis sama Tuija, joka oli mukana koostamassa hälytyssanalistaa, mitä myös se "NATO"-tutkimus käytti. Pienet on piirit Suomessa...

Teoksen nimi Feministisen pedagogiikan ABC saattaa ohjata ajattelemaan "vain" naisten
ja tyttöjen oikeuksia. Feministinen pedagogiikka ei kuitenkaan ole pelkästään sukupuolen
huomioimista opetuksessa ja yhteiskunnassa tai sukupuolten välisten erojen korostamista.
Sen sijaan feministinen pedagogiikka pyrkii olemaan eroille herkkää pedagogiikkaa.
Kyse ei ole vain naiserityisten kysymysten havaitsemisesta vaan myös sukupuolen moninaisuuden,
seksuaalisuuden, värin, iän, luokan, ruumiin muodon ja kyvykkyyden perusteella
muodostuvien erojen tiedostamisesta.

Teos on rakenteeltaan selkeä, sisällöltään monipuolinen ja ilmavasti taitettu, mikä tekee
lukukokemuksesta miellyttävän. Teos tarjoaa lyhyitä käsitteellisteoreettisia katsauksia
sukupuolentutkimuksen peruskäsitteisiin ja feminismin perusteemoihin: mitä on esimerkiksi
sukupuolisensitiivisyys, yhteiskuntaluokka, ableismi tai queer. Kirja koostuu taustoituksesta,
yleistajuisista tietokirjoituksista (esim. "antirasistinen koulu"), harjoituksista ja
menetelmäkuvauksista sekä lyhyistä tietoiskuista. Taustoituksen ja tietoiskujen lisäksi teoksessa
on paljon erilaisia, mainiota työkaluja ja ideoita, joita voi käyttää opetuksessa (esim.
etuoikeuskävely). Lopusta löytyy myös sanasto.

Tietokirjoituksissa käydään läpi feministisen pedagogiikan taustaa: teoreettisen perustan
nähdään nivoutuvan Paulo Freiren ajatteluun ja sosiaalista oikeudenmukaisuutta tavoittelevaan
kriittiseen pedagogiikkaan. Feministiaktivisti bell hooks kehitti vapauttavan kasvatuksen
ajatusta (teaching to transgress) ja yhdisti kriittiseen pedagogiikkaan postkolonialistisen
feminismin ajatuksia sukupuolittamisesta ja rodullistamisesta. Vaikka taustoitus on kirjassa
todella lyhyt, se avaa, miten feministisessä pedagogiikassa korostuvat dialoginen opetus
ja yhdessä tietämiseen pyrkivä tapa, jotka purkavat opettajan ja oppilaan välistä hierarkiaa
ja tallentavan opetuksen (banking education) mallia. Feministisen pedagogiikan keskeiseksi
tavoitteeksi onkin muotoiltu "pyrkimys rohkaista oppijaa ajattelemaan itse ja
kriittisesti ja tuottaa tietoa yhdessä opettajan ja toisten oppijoiden kesken."

VMP. Jostain kumman syystä lopputuloksena on aina vihavasemmistolaisten ideologioiden mukaisten ajatusmallien ylistäminen.

Vaikka teos tavoitteidensa mukaisesti soveltuu hyvin laajalle kirjolle erilaisia pedagogeja,
korkeakoulun lisäksi myös peruskoulu ja aktivismi mukaan lukien, se tarjoaa yllättävän
vähän työkaluja siihen, miten olla feministinen pedagogi "kovilla aloilla" kuten matematiikan,
luonnontieteiden ja terveystieteiden parissa. Riittääkö moninaisten erojen tiedostaminen
vai onko se vasta ensimmäinen askel? Miten tiedostaminen viedään käytäntöön ja esimerkiksi
matematiikan, biologian tai kvantitatiivisten menetelmien opetukseen korkeakouluissa?

Kirja ei myöskään käsittele perinteistä ammattialojen horisontaalista ja vertikaalista
segregaatiota ja siitä seuraavia koulutuksen ja työelämän tasa-arvokysymyksiä, esimerkiksi
miksi tytöt päätyvät useammin opiskelemaan hoiva- ja kasvatusaloille ja pojat teknisille
aloille ja johtaviin tehtäviin. Kirjan tietoiskut yhteiskuntaluokasta, ableismista tai queerista
ovat erittäin tarpeellisia kaikille aloille ja eri oppilaitoksissa työskenteleville, mutta lisäksi
tarvitaan myös kättä pidempää ja vertaistukea. Jäämme siis odottamaan kirjan kakkososaa!

Armi Mustosmäki on tutkijatohtori yhteiskuntatieteiden tiedekunnassa, sukupuolentutkimuksen
oppiaineessa Tampereen yliopistossa.

Tuolta muuten löytyy Osmo Tammisalon läpikäynti kirjasta:

http://ihmisluonto.blogspot.com/2019/01/opas-feministiseen-propagandaan.html

En ala tuota sen enempää lainailemaan, pari nostoa kuitenkin. Mielestäni Osmo yrittää, ihan turhaan, ymmärtää sellaista, mikä on täysin sekopäistä. Tuota hulluutta ei pitäisi yrittää ymmärtää yhtään, sen levittäminen pitäisi vaan estää.

Kolmen viime vuoden aikana olen uudelleen haastanut joitakin sukupuolentutkimuksessa esitettyjä ajatuksia ja yleisemmin myös feminististä retoriikkaa (täällä, täällä, täällä, täällä ja täällä). Kritisoimieni ajatusten esittäjät ovat tällä kertaa kieltäytyneet keskustelemasta, kenties jopa kuuntelemasta. En usko, että he ovat yli-itsevarmoja tai ylenkatsovat kirjallista keskustelua. Altistuminen akateemiselle feminismille tai sukupuolentutkijaksi identifioituminen eivät voi viedä kykyä mielipiteenvaihtoon. Jostakin muusta on kyse. Ehkä perusteluni ovat vastaansanomattomia? Ehkä perusteluni on esitetty väärällä tavalla?

Osmon kannattaisi tutustua James Lindsayn kirjoitukseen siitä, miksi wokesakki ei suostu väittelyihin. Osmokin kuitenkin näkee tämän:

PS. Kokonaisuutena teos saattaa olla rönsyilevin lukemani tietokirja. Eräs luku kertoo esimerkiksi QTF-itsepuolustuksesta (QTF=queer- ja transfeministinen). Siitä löytyy myös kirjan yllättävin kommentti:

    S. 186: QTF-itsepuolustus on parhaimmillaan osa sellaista feminististä politiikkaa, jossa ymmärretään kapitalistisen yhteiskunnan seuraukset eri ihmisryhmille. Se sisältää laajemman poliittisen analyysin ja sen pyrkimyksenä on vankiloiden lakkauttaminen.

Vertaa tuota Armin kommenttiin, "Teos on rakenteeltaan selkeä, sisällöltään monipuolinen ja ilmavasti taitettu, mikä tekee
lukukokemuksesta miellyttävän"...

Ilmavasti taitettu...  Mutta onneksi Armin suuri toive toteutuu, mikä ei tietenkään liity mitenkään nykyhallitukseen.

Olemme toimittamassa Feministinen pedagogiikka – murrokset ja utopiat –kirjaa (työnimi), joka on itsenäinen jatko-osa vuonna 2018 ilmestyneelle suuren suosion saaneelle teokselle Feministisen pedagogiikan ABC– opas ohjaajille ja opettajille.

Kirja jatkaa keskusteluja kriittisestä pedagogiikasta, sukupuolesta ja intersektionaalisuudesta opetuksessa ja ohjauksessa sekä nostaa esille pedagogiikassa ja opetusympäristöissä tapahtuneita muutoksia.

Kirjassa käsitellään feministisen pedagogiikan mahdollistamia muutoksia opetuksessa ja ohjauksessa sekä jaetaan hyviä käytäntöjä. Lisäksi mietitään, mitä ovat ne muutokset ja murrokset, jopa utopiat, jotka ovat vasta tuloillaan ja joiden haluaisimme tapahtuvan, ja kysytään, mitä toimintamahdollisuuksia ja uudenlaisia toiminnan tiloja ne avaavat.

Feministinen pedagogiikka – murrokset ja utopiat –kirja on tarkoitettu käytettäväksi opetuksen ja ohjauksen eri konteksteissa aina peruskoulusta yliopistoon. Haemme kirjaan seuraavanlaisia tekstejä:

1)teoriakeskeisiä, mutta yleistajuisia tietotekstejä
2) konkreettisia ja kokeiltuja feministisen pedagogiikan käytäntöjä ja kokemuksien kuvauksia
3) opettamisen ja ohjaamisen tulevaisuutta hahmottelevia utopioita.

Ajankohtaisia ja kirjassa käsiteltäviä aiheita ja teemoja ovat esimerkiksi sukupuolen moninaisuus, saavutettavuus, rodullistaminen ja rasismi, etäpedagogiikka ja oppilaitosten toiminnan kehittäminen tasa-arvo- ja yhdenvertaisuusnäkökulmasta.

https://blogs.helsinki.fi/hilma-verkosto/ajankohtaista/

VMP 

[zupi]

Tuosta feministisestä pedagogiikasta vielä. Mikä siis käytännössä tarkoittanee opettamista intersektionaaliseen feminismiin pohjautuen. Toisin sanoen, intersektionaalisen feminismin levittämistä.

Alla Osmo Tammisalon kirjoitus lähes kuuden vuoden takaa, missä asiaa käsitellään teoksen Eroja ja vaarallisia suhteita – Keskustelua feministisestä pedagogiikasta (toim. Jaana Saarinen, Hanna Ojala & Tarja Palmu, Jyväskylän yliopisto 2014) kautta. Tuon feminismi termin ei kannata kuitenkaan antaa liikaa hämätä, sillä käytännössä kaikki CSJ-teoriat pohjautuvat samaan sontaan: Etsitään eroja ryhmien väliltä ja päätetään, täysin tämän päätelmän vastaisista faktoista piittaamatta, että ne erot ovat VHM:n rakentaman "tietokäsityksen" ja sorron seurausta. Ennen kuin asioita voidaan alkaa parantamaan, on siis irtauduttava länsimaisen patriarkaatin / valkoisen ylivallan ja kapitalismin irvokkaasta otteesta, koska nämähän ovat erottamattomasti sidoksissa toisiinsa. Tarkoitan tässä lähinnä siis sitä, että vaikka feministinen pedagogiikka / intersektionaalinen feminismi on ehkä se käytetyin käsite Suomessa, ja taas esim. USAssa se on kriittinen rotuteoria, niin periaatteet, mitä siellä tuodaan esiin, ovat täysin samat. Tuo, mikä käsite kussakin maassa nostetaan esiin, liittynee pitkälti maan väestörakenteeseen.

Ja nykyisinhän tuo VHM, tai millä nimellä sitä äärimmäistä pahuutta nyt kutsutaankaan, alkaa olemaan jo enemmänkin käsitteellinen juttu, kuin todelliseen ihonväriin, seksuaalisuuteen tai sukupuoleen perustuva.  Eli siis kaikki ne, jotka ovat vihavasemmistolaisia CSJ-paskateorioita vastaan. Esim. musta, joka on näitä teorioita vastaan, ei oikeasti ole musta.

Kun tätä nyt lukee näin kuusi vuotta myöhemmin, niin pitää todeta, että Osmo(kin) oli aika lailla oikeilla jäljillä. Ja kehitys on mennyt juuri kuten Osmo pelkäsi.

http://ihmisluonto.blogspot.com/2015/06/kasvatustiede-ja-feminismi.html?m=0

(...)

Feministinen pedagogiikka on:
1) Itseriittoista relativismia

Aloitetaan kirjan takakannesta. Siinä kysytään: "Millaisia tietoon ja valtaan liittyviä seurauksia on sillä, että kaikkien opiskelijoiden ja opettajien oletetaan olevan heteroja, keskiluokkaisia tai valkoisia?" Kysymys ei lupaa hyvää. Määrittelemättömien yleistysten sijaan kannattaisi kysyä, kuka olettaa keneltäkin heteroseksuaalisuutta tai keskiluokkaisuutta. Sitten pitäisi selvittää – mieluiten kokeellisesti – miksi kyseiset tahot sitä tekevät. Ennen kuin on todennettu seikan olemassaolo ja selvitetty sen luonnetta, on tuskin mieltä arvioida seikan aiheuttamia vaikutuksia. Tartuin aiheeseen kaikesta huolimatta uteliaalla ja avoimella mielellä. Takakannen tarkoituskin on lähinnä herättää kiinnostusta. Akateemisen feminismin on myös täytynyt kehittyä sen jälkeen, kun julkaisin Jussi K. Niemelän kanssa naistutkimusta kritisoivan pamflettimme (Niemelä & Tammisalo 2006). Ainakin nimensä ala on vaihtanut sukupuolentutkimukseksi.

   Paljastui kuitenkin, että relativismi on vallitseva opinkappale myös feministisessä pedagogiikassa. Tämä tuotiin ilmi ensimmäisten lauseiden joukossa: "Kuten tieto itsessään, myöskään tavat käsitellä tätä tietoa – eli opettaa ja oppia – eivät ole neutraaleja" (s. 7, korostus lisätty). Optimismini karisi heti alussa. Missään vaiheessa ei perusteltu väitettä, että tieto ei voi olla neutraalia. Sen sijaan tiedon suhteellisuutta, totuusrelativismia ja objektiivisuuden hyljeksimistä mainosteltiin eri muodoissa pitkin kirjaa. Tiedossa ja opettamisessa on teoksen mukaan kyse vain "diskursseista" ja "subjektiuksien rakentamisesta". Tässä jokunen esimerkki:

    Rationaalinen käsitys tiedosta sulkee ulkopuolelleen kokemuksellisen tiedon ja ylläpitää kahtiajakautunutta ajattelua oikeasta faktatiedosta ja vähemmän oikeasta kokemuksellisesta tiedosta (s. 19). Tavoitteena on auttaa opiskelijoita tunnistamaan 'virallisen' tulkinnan rinnalla olevia muita tulkintoja, ja sitä kautta kysymään, keiden diskurssit ovat saaneet totuuden aseman (s. 30–31). ...tarvitaan pedagogiikkaa, joka aktivoi opiskelijat yhteiskunnan ja kulttuurin muuttamiseen ja raivaa tilaa uudenlaisen subjektiuden rakentamiseen... (s. 42). Koska tieto rakentuu sosiaalisesti, ei tietämistä voi erottaa arvoista ja opettamista poliittisuudesta (s. 59). Juuri objektiivisuuden vaatimus voidaan nähdä tiedeyhteisölle ominaisena sukupuolen piilottamisen lajina, kun universaalitietoa on tuotettu miesten laatimilla pelisäännöillä (s. 82). ...feministisessä tutkimusyhteisössä korostetaan erityisesti, että yksittäinen tutkija ei ole oikeassa tai väärässä, vaan 'oikeassa' tai 'väärässä' on yhteisö sikäli kuin ilmaisuja oikeassa tai väärässä oleminen ylipäätään on järkevä käyttää (s. 97).

Mitä näihin voi sanoa? On epäilemättä kokemuksellista tietoa, joka eroaa faktatiedosta. Ja on totta, että miehiä on ollut huomattavasti enemmän laatimassa tieteen pelisääntöjä. Yksilöllisten kokemusten erilaisuus tai ensimmäisten tieteilijöiden sukupuoli eivät kuitenkaan tarkoita, että kaikki näkemykset olisivat tiedollisessa mielessä yhtä päteviä. Yksi tieteen tehtävistä on nimenomaan tehdä ero todisteisiin nojaavan tiedon ja muunlaisen tietämisen välille.

(...) Yleisemmin periaate voisi kuulua: aineiston tuottamiseen ei tule käyttää oletusta, joka pitäisi todistaa saman aineiston perusteella.

   Tieteessä pyritään kaikin tavoin välttämään tiedollista saastumista. Mittalaitteet tai tutkijoiden omaksumat teoriat eivät saa olla saatujen tutkimustulosten tuottajia. Oikea tutkija ei myöskään sitoudu teoriaan, varsinkaan teoriaan, jota ei voida periaatteessakaan kumota. Tutkijan on siis oltava aina valmis muuttamaan näkemystään uusien todisteiden edessä. Tämä ei ole tilanne feministisessä pedagogiikassa, jossa esimerkiksi "katsotaan yleisesti, ettei sukupuolentutkimusta voi opettaa teknisenä tietona esimerkiksi määrittelemällä käsitteitä irrallaan feministisestä tietokäsityksestä" (s. 49). Ala siis myöntää sitoutuneensa jo etukäteen tiettyyn sukupuoli-ideologiaan/-politiikkaan ja feministiseen tietokäsitykseen. Ja jos et ole näitä omaksunut, et luultavasti myöskään ole pätevä arvioimaan alalla esitettyjä väitteitä.

   Näin feministinen pedagogiikka muistuttaa kumoutumatonta psykoanalyyttista torjuntateoriaa. (...) Objektiivisuuden, testattavuuden ja kumoutuvuuden vaatimushan on vain patriarkaatin ylläpitämä aataminaikainen jäänne.

   Feministisen pedagogiikan itseriittoinen ja relativistinen tietokäsitys näkyy myös käytännön opetustavoissa. Muiden alojen luentosarjojen alussa luennoija usein kertoo, millaisten asiakokonaisuuksien hallintaa opiskelijalta vaaditaan. Feministisessä pedagogiikassa ei menetellä näin:

    Erojen pedagogiikassa onkin lähdetty etsimään konkreettisia keinoja, joilla opetustilanteita yliopistoissa voisi järjestää niin, että ne toimisivat otollisina puitteina toisin tietämisen halun heräämiselle. Keskeistä näissä keskusteluissa on ollut, toisilleen ristiriitaisiltakin kuulostavat, käytännöt: turvallisen ilmapiirin luominen ja etäännytetty tieto sekä hämmennyksen ja epävarmuuden hyväksi käyttäminen (s. 30, kursivointi lisätty).


Tämä muistuttaa aivopesua tai uskonlahkon toimintaa. Opettajan tulee toki käyttää mahdollisimman toimivia konsteja, jotta opiskelijan mielenkiinto aihetta kohtaan herää. Mutta keinot ovat sopimattomia yliopistoon, jos opiskelija vain päätyy hämmentyneenä "tietämään toisin" eli hylkäämään tieteelle olennaisen pyrkimyksen objektiivisuuteen tai testattavuuteen. Kumoutumaton teoria on valmis, kun todetaan, että jos et omaksu hämmennystä, olet torjunnan vallassa: "Kielteisiksi määriteltyjä tunteita, kuten hämmennystä, epävarmuutta ja epäonnistumista ei ole helppo 'myydä' opiskelijoille, jotka ovat oppineet pitämään hyvää itsetuntoa keskeisenä menestystekijänä ja odottavat miellyttävää palautetta ja kiitosta" (s. 56). Opiskelijat saattavat kirjan mukaan myös vastustaa opetusta, "koska he haluavat säästää itseään epäoikeudenmukaisuuden näkemiseltä ja pyrkivät samalla säilyttämään ihanteellisen naiivin käsityksen yhteiskunnallisesta tasa-arvosta" (s. 197). Tällaiset yleistykset ja alentava psykologisointi eivät toki (ainakaan vielä) ole kasvatustieteiden valtavirtaa.

Nykyisin ovat...

2) Sanataidetta ja politiikkaa

Kielellisestä lahjattomuudesta alan harjoittajia ei voida moittia. Harmillista vain on, että se on johtanut tieteellistä ajattelua haittaavaan sanataiteiluun. Sinänsä sujuvan poljennon alta paljastuu joukko selviöitä ja epäselvää päättelyä. Tavoite ei ole tieteellinen selittäminen, vaan jonkinlainen selitteleminen. Esimerkkejä:

(...) Feministisessä pedagogiikassa ajatellaan, ettei suhde tiedon ja tietämättömyyden välillä ole vastakohtainen, vaan jonkin tietäminen on mahdollista jonkin toisen pois sulkemisen avulla... 'Normaaliksi' määritellyt samastumiskohteet – valkoinen, hetero, keskiluokkainen länsimaisuus – asettuvat helposti samuudeksi ja jokapäiväiseksi itsestäänselvyydeksi eivätkä tarjoa samastumiskohteita toiseutetuille subjektiuksille... Queer-pedagogiikka haastaa outouttamaan opetuksen normaalistavat käytännöt paranoidisella ja reparatiivisella lukutavalla (s. 60–61). Koska queer ei viittaa olotilaan saati identiteettiin, se verbinä ilmaisee jatkuvaa edestakaisen prosessia omien tietämisen rajojen tunnistamiseksi ja tunnustamiseksi (s. 64). Naiset eivät ole yliopistoissa perinteisesti toimineet rakenteellisen vallan ytimessä ja heidän ristiriitaisen positionsa voidaan nähdä mahdollistavan sääntöjä rikkovan ja vikuroivan mikropoliittisen toimijuuden (s. 82). Kuinka rikkumaton on se subjektipositio, jota opettajana tarjoamme heijastuspintana opiskelijoille? Millaisilla pedagogisilla valinnoilla tulemme mahdollisesti uusintaneeksi normalisoituja ja stereotyyppisen vakaita oletuksia sukupuolten ja seksuaalisuuksien jatkumoista? Kuinka opettajina voisimme toistaa oletettuja jatkumoja toisin, horjuttaen niiden 'luonnollisuutta', tehden näkyväksi niiden haurautta ja kyseenalaistaen niiden varassa myönnettyjä etuoikeuksia? (s. 127) Etsin koko ajan keinoja ja toimintatapoja ymmärtää ja kuvata toiseuttamisen eläviä mekanismeja itsessäni ja kulttuurissamme sekä jakaa oivaltamaani niin, että se lihallistuisi vuorovaikutuksessa (s. 248).

Oma suosikkini on lausunto kirjan lopusta:

    Parhaimmillaan tunteiden jakaminen helpottaa ja auttaa huomaamaan, että oma riittämättömyys ja jopa häpeä omasta tyhmyydestä eivät olekaan yksittäisiä ominaisuuksia, vaan akateemisen ympäristön ruokkimia yleisesti koettuja tunnetiloja. Henkilökohtainen on poliittista (s. 256).


Tarkistakaa itse: asiayhteydessään ajatukset ovat kenties vielä epämääräisempiä ja hullunkurisempia.

(...)

   Oman määritelmänsä mukaan feministinen pedagogiikka on "feministisen tutkimuksen informoimaa opettamiseen ja ohjaamiseen liittyvää ymmärrystä, opettamisen tapoja ja oppimistilanteiden käytäntöjä" (s. 17). Määritelmä vaikuttaa selvältä, mutta se ei ole sitä. Missään ei esimerkiksi kerrota, mitä feministisellä tutkimuksella tarkoitetaan. Feminismejähän tunnetusti on monenlaisia. Määritelmä jatkuu: "Feministisen pedagogiikan keskiössä ovat kysymykset sukupuolesta ja tiedon poliittisuudesta sekä näkemykset koulutuksen sukupuolistavista ja sukupuolittavista käytännöistä". Alalla myös "vaaditaan tunnistamaan sukupuoli ja seksuaalisuus osana tiedon rakennetta ja pedagogista toimintaa" (s. 63). (...)

   Mukana on siis koko ajan neljä ongelmaa: 1) etukäteen sitoutuminen tietynlaiseen politiikkaan ja toimintaan sekä tietynlaisiin tutkimustuloksiin, 2) ajatus, että ei voi olla objektiivista, epärelativistista, sukupuoletonta tai epäpoliittista tietoa (tai ainakaan niihin ei kannata tai tarvitse pyrkiä), 3) viholliskuva, että jossakin on määrittelemättömiä tahoja, jotka jollakin määrittelemättömällä tavalla jostakin epämääräisestä syystä konstruoivat sukupuolia ja heteroseksuaaleja ja 4) epätarkat ja lennokkaat termit ja käsitteet sekä yleinen epäempiirisyys; alalla ei esitetä havaintojen avulla kumottavissa tai todennettavissa olevia seikkoja. Ylimääräinen ongelma on se, että feministisellä pedagogiikalla ei ole yhteyksiä psykologiaan tai biologiaan, vaikka ne ovat esittäneet perusteltuja vastauksia vaikkapa siihen, miksi naiset ja miehet hakeutuvat eri aloille ja eri tehtäviin. (Yleisemmällä tasolla sukupuolentutkijoiden soisi tuntevan teorioita siitä, miksi ylipäätään on sukupuolia.)

   Osa alan harjoittajista tuntuu näkevän itsensä harvinaisina sankarittarina, jotka uskaltavat vastustaa ja kyseenalaistaa länsimaisen tieteen "yleistäviä käsityksiä" (s. 62). He eivät ota huomioon, että kaikenlainen kyseenalaistaminen on ollut olennainen osa tiedettä alusta alkaen, jo määritelmällisesti. Kriittisyys on osa tiedettä ja tieteenfilosofiaa, eikä ole eikä voi olla erikseen feminististä tieteenfilosofiaa. Miten kiihkeästi tutkija uskookaan teorioihinsa, ne eivät tiedeyhteisön silmissä ole minkään arvoisia ennen kuin teoriat ovat läpäisseet kaikki mahdolliset testit, ei vain feministisiä testejä. Vastaväite voisi kuulua: kuka määrää, mitkä testit ovat oikeita? Valtavirtatiedehän ei ole kelvannut akateemiselle feminismille. Miksi teorioiden ei tarvitsisi läpäistä feministisiä testejä? Syy on yksinkertainen: kyseisen opinkappaleen mukaan testien läpäisy, siis objektiivisuus, testattavuus ja falsifioitavuus eivät ole tärkeitä. Tämänkaltaiset kaksoisstandardit, jossa omalle teorialle annetaan etuajo-oikeus, ovat tyypillistä politiikassa ja uskonnossa. Tieteeseen ne eivät kuulu.

3) Löysiä tutkimus- ja opetusmenetelmiä

Käytännön tutkimuksen tasolla feministisen pedagogiikan ongelma on käytettyjen menetelmien lepsuus. Eräs kirjoittaja esimerkiksi kuvaa "feminististä toimijuutta" koskevaa autoetnografista tutkimustaan, jossa "päähuomion saavat kokemukseni feministisen yliopistopedagogiikan kehittäjänä ja osallistuvana oppija-opettajana" (s. 90). Sama dosentti päättelee kokemuksistaan: "Tutkijan oma sitoutuminen on tärkeää ja ulkopuolisen havainnoijan (tai mestaroijan) sijaan tutkija on kanssatodistaja ja yhdessä tunnistaja" (s. 91). Tuonkaltainen tunnustuksellinen tutkimus ei liene valtavirtaa edes teologisessa tiedekunnassa. [1]

Verratkaapa näitä menetelmiä äskettäin esiteltyyn "rasismi-tutkimukseen":
https://hommaforum.org/index.php/topic,131771.msg3289802.html#msg3289802
https://hommaforum.org/index.php/topic,131771.msg3290402/topicseen.html#msg3290402

   Koulutuspolitiikan lisäksi feministiset pedagogit ottavat kantaa talouspolitiikkaan. Pyrkimys on jälleen hyvä, mutta keinot kehnoja: "Niinpä esimerkiksi uusliberalistisen talouspolitiikan palveleminen on normalisoitunut itsestäänselvyydeksi, ja sen kyseenalaistaminen ja muuttaminen edellyttäisivät tiedon neutraaliuden myytin murtamista" (s. 59, korostus lisätty). Väite on tolkuton. Kaikenlaista talouspolitiikkaa – marxilaista tai uusliberalistista – voidaan kyseenalaistaa ja muuttaa, vaikka käsitys tiedosta olisi mikä tahansa. Tai oikeastaan väite ei edes ole väärin. Tulisi tarkentaa, kenen pitää uskoa, että tieto ei voi olla neutraalia, jotta talousteorioita voidaan kyseenalaistaa. Minäkään en kannata "uusliberalististen" talousarvojen soveltamista yliopistomaailmaan, mutta jos vaihtoehto on feministinen pedagogiikka ja sukupuolentutkimus, kannatan mieluummin markkinavetoisia ja tulosperusteisia malleja. Tämä on paljon sanottu kaltaiseltani sivistysyliopiston kannattajalta.

   Eroja ja vaarallisia suhteita -kirjassa kerrotaan myös eräästä kurssista, jonka läpäisyyn vaadittiin lopputentin sijasta oppimispäiväkirjan pitämistä. "Näissä puolentoista liuskan kirjallisissa tehtävissä opiskelijat sekä saavat että joutuvat vielä kerran palaamaan opetettuihin asioihin niitä omien oppimiskokemustensa ja -intressiensä kautta reflektoiden" (s. 128). Opettajan lainaamat otteet luentopäiväkirjoista ovat kiinnostavia. Mieleen tulee lähinnä lapsi, joka sanoo, mitä aikuiset haluavat kuulla. (...)

   Sama opettaja kirjoittaa: "Toisinaan oppimistehtävään ryhtyminen saattaa tuoda myös yllättäviä oivalluksia, jotka osoittavat, että paranoidisuus ei sekään välttämättä ole aina tuulesta temmattua" (s. 129, korostus lisätty). Kyse oli siitä, että luennoija "oli pyytänyt oppilaitaan etsimään mediasta lesbo-aiheisen uutisen ja pohtimaan sitä, millaiseksi asiaksi lesbous siinä määrittyy". Opiskelijan oppimispäiväkirjassa sanottiin: "Joko valitsin mediani täysin väärin tai sitten oikeasti mediassa ei esiinny seksuaalisiin suuntauksiin liittyvää uutisointia kovinkaan paljon". Luennoijan mielestä tämä opiskelijan havaitsema homouutisten vähäisyys on siis pätevä syy vainoharhaisuuteen. Ja itse asiassa jos olet hetero, samalla taidat opettajan mukaan automaattisesti normalisoida heteroutta: "En tunne tekstejä, joissa hetero-opettajat olisivat pohtineet kriittisesti oman sukupuoli-ilmaisunsa tai heteroseksuaalisuutensa normalisoivaa merkitystä osana pedagogiikkaansa" (s. 124, korostus lisätty).

   Joku voisi kertoa, missä heteronormatiiviset salaliitot piileksivät niin voisimme yhdessä käydä puhumassa heille järkeä. Ja mitä tulee homouutisoinnin määrään, se lienee ainakin ajoittain paljon yleisempää kuin erilaisten suuntautumisten määrä tai homoseksuaalien prosenttiosuus antaisivat ymmärtää. (Tässä ei tietysti ole mitään pahaa; vähemmistöjen tasa-arvoinen kohtelu saattaa lisääntyä heistä kertovien uutisten myötä.)
(...)

Feministisen pedagogiikan asema akatemiassa

(...)

   Lukija saattaa ihmetellä, miksi olen laatinut näin myrkyllisen kirjoituksen näin marginaalisesta ilmiöstä. Pääsyy on se, että kannan huolta tulevista tutkijapolvista sekä tieteen, opetuksen ja tutkimuksen tasosta. Poliittiset ideologiat kun eivät aina ymmärrä pysytellä tiedekentän laitamilla. Ja kuten Eroja ja vaarallisia suhteita -kirjakin kertoo, feministinen yliopistopedagogiikka on jo "saanut opetusministeriön (nyk. OKM) ja yliopistojen rahoitusta, ja se on hyväksytty omaksi kokonaisuudekseen useiden yliopistojen opetusohjelmissa" (s. 92). Tiettyihin tutkimustuloksiin jo etukäteen sitoutunut ala on siis nauttinut yhteiskunnan tukea, vieläpä runsaalla kädellä: "...feministinen tutkimus ei esimerkiksi saadun tutkimusrahoituksen perusteella ole tätä nykyä erityisen marginaalista" (s. 99).

   Lisäsyy tekstiini on se, että politisoitunut ala hakee aktiivisesti tieteen auktoriteettia: "Feministisestä näkökulmasta pedagogista toimintaa voisi myös kutsua tilan valtaamiseksi tai 'omaksi huoneeksi', mutta samalla hävitettäisiin se puoli toiminnasta, jolla haetaan koulutuksen yleistä hyväksyvyyttä ja noteerausta" (s. 92). Ja pisteenä i:n päälle löysät menetelmät ovat paikoin jo muuttuneet osaksi opintovaatimuksia (s. 115). Siksi vetoan tieteen ystäviin: tulkaa kaapista, pelastetaan kasvatustiede epätieteellisen relativismin ja sanamanipulaation houkutuksilta.

   Akateemisen feminismin käsitys tiedosta ja todellisuudesta eroaa jo niin paljon luonnontieteiden ja itse asiassa kaikille tieteille yhteisen tieto-opin näkemyksistä, että puheyhteys tuntuu mahdottomalta. Luonnostelen siksi tähän loppuun jonkinlaista teesien sarjaa, joka sopisi keskustelun pohjaksi. Vähitellen mielipiteenvaihdon tulee ulottua täsmällisempiin ja yksityiskohtaisempiin tosiasiaväitteisiin. Vain siten voidaan edistää tiedettä ja paljastaa saloja ihmisenä olemisesta.

(...)

Valitettavasti sekä biologian että tieteellisen metodin vähättely voi erilaisten sosiaalisten prosessien kautta jatkua vielä pitkään. Näin käy ainakin, jos kukaan ei taistele paremman tieteen puolesta.

(...)

Jätin tuosta ne keskustelun pohjat pois, kun ei tuolla poppoolla ole mitään tarkoitusta alkaa keskustelemaan vihakulttinsa "tieteellisyydestä" ja perusteista. Kun siinä on vaara, että ne perusteet oikeasti tulisivat julki. Muutenkin, kuten James Lindsay on kirjoittanut, ja kuten tässäkin kirjoituksessa tuotiin tavallaan esiin, nuo wokeistit näkevät "normaalit ihmiset" valkoisen patriarkaatin valheiden sokaisemina pseudotodellisuuden olentoina, joiden kanssa oikean tiedon omaksuneet eivät kerta kaikkiaan voi keskustella. Tämä kun vaatisi sen, että oikean tiedon omaksujien pitäisi asettaa itsensä alttiiksi valheellisen tietokäsityksen vääristyksille.

Pistetään loppuun vielä pätkä jo aiemmin linkkaamastani Osmon kirjoituksesta vuodelta 2019, nimeltään "Akateeminen feminismi ja etenkin feministinen pedagogiikka on pettänyt tieteen ja tasa-arvon. Yliopistossa toimii puoluetoimisto tiedekunnan statuksella."

    S. 138: Feministinen pedagogiikka on sekä feministisen liikkeen että akateemisen feministisen tutkimuksen yhteistä tonttia.


Tulkitsen lausunnon myöntävän, että feministinen pedagogia on poliittista. Siksi on erikoista, että feministisen pedagogiikan kurssien opetuksesta vastaavat yliopistomme (Helsinki, Lappi, Tampere, Jyväskylä ja Turku). Miten tämä on mahdollista? Yliopistolaki toteaa, että "yliopistojen tulee järjestää toimintansa hyvää tieteellistä käytäntöä noudattaen". Hyvästä tieteellisestä käytännöstä ei luonnollisesti vallitse täyttä yksimielisyyttä, mutta jokunen yleisperiaate on silti ilmeinen; esimerkiksi se, että tieteen on oltava riippumatonta ulkopuolisista tekijöistä, jotka saattavat vääristää tutkimustuloksia. Toteutuuko tämä feministisessä tutkimuksessa tai feministisessä pedagogiikassa?

    s. 139: Aktivismin ja akatemian välit ovat monella tapaa yhteen kietoutuneet. Yliopistoissa sukupuolentutkimusta opiskelevat ovat usein feministisen liikkeen tai politiikan aktivisteja.


Opiskelijan ei tarvitse olla poliittisesti sitoutumaton, mutta tieteen tulee sitä olla. Tieteenalan sitoutuminen poliittiseen aatteeseen tarkoittaa tutkimustulosten tai niistä raportoinnin määräytymistä jo etukäteen. Jos sukupuolentutkimuksessa siis on jotakin tieteellistä, se on se osa, joka jää jäljelle, kun toiminnasta poistetaan feminismi.

http://ihmisluonto.blogspot.com/2019/01/opas-feministiseen-propagandaan.html

Jälleen, ei kannata tarrautua tuohon feminismi sanaan. Nykyisin käytännössä kaikki rasismia, sukupuolta, identiteettiä, ... , kuten myös maahanmuuttoa ja etenevissä määrin ilmastonmuutosta käsittelevät suomalaiset tutkimukset, ainakin sellaiset joita hallitus käyttää perusteluinaan ja mitkä nostetaan julkisuudessa esiin, pohjautuvat yllä esitettyihin feministisen pedagogiikan / CSJ-liikkeen "tietotodellisuuksiin". Ja sen tunkeminen ns. koville aloille on jo alkanut.

[zupi]

Näinhän se on. Ettei vaan leimautuisi "oikeistolaiseksi" (tai rasistiksi, natsiksi, naisvihaajaksi, homovihaajaksi, transvihaajaksi, äärikansalliseksi, siirtomaaherraksi, ilmastonmuutoksen kieltäjäksi, jne. jne.)

[tweet]1375251729361539075[/tweet]

[tweet]1375262141981278210[/tweet]

Is there a non-Woke left anymore? Yes. Can we go back to it? No, not really. Wokeness evolved to exploit left-liberalism, so left-liberalism has no defenses to Wokeness. It literally has none. It doesn't create Wokeness; it just can't do anything to stop it. Not a single thing.

The liberal left isn't dead. It's castrated.
    — James Lindsay, Donald Trump of intellectuals (@ConceptualJames) March 26, 2021

Super-natsit!

[tweet]1375284602688860168[/tweet]

The Woke are technically not Nazis. This is a frequent and forgiveable mistake. The Nazis were National Socialists. The Woke are Supranational Socialists, which makes them Super-Nazis.
    — James Lindsay, Donald Trump of intellectuals (@ConceptualJames) March 26, 2021

Ja tällaista ne super-natsit tekee.

[tweet]1375048128093679616[/tweet]

City of Oakland Mayor is branded racist for giving families of color $500 a month if they earn under $59,000 with no rules on how they spend it - but offering poor white families nothing

The program, funded by wealthy private donors, explicitly excludes poor white families

An estimated 10,000 of Oakland's 435,000 population are white residents who live in poverty, defined by earning less than $12,880

A program to give $500 monthly checks to low-income families of color in Oakland, California, has been criticized for explicitly excluding the 10,000 white residents living in poverty in the city.

The DailyMail.com contacted the City of Oakland director of communications and Oakland's citywide communications director to ask how the eligibility rules had been decided.

Neither had responded by Wednesday afternoon.

Oakland's homeless population rose by nearly 50 per cent between 2017 and 2019.

According to the Department of Health and Human Services, any individual earning less than $12,880 is in poverty.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9399137/Oakland-California-exclude-white-families-living-poverty-500-month-checks.html?ito=social-twitter_dailymailus


Edit. Nuo Lindsayn ensimmäiset twiitit luultavasti liittyivät Rod Dreherin kirjaan Live not by Lies – A Manual for Christian Dissidents (2020), kun oli samoihin aikoihin laittanut twiitin myös tuosta. Tuosta kirjasta Osmo Tammisalo sattumoisin kirjoitti juuri jutun. Tähän vain pätkä alusta.

http://ihmisluonto.blogspot.com/2021/03/woke-kristinusko-ja-neuvostoterrori.html

Tämä kirja varoittaa kahdesta asiasta: ylivalppaasta woke-aktivismista ja siitä murskaavasta voimasta, jonka teknologia kyttäyskoneistoille antaa. Teoksen nykyaikaisesta teemasta huolimatta pääosassa ovat 1900-luvun loppupuolen neuvostoterroria vastustaneet ja kansalaisvapauksia ajaneet, lähinnä kristinuskoon nojanneet toisinajattelijat. Näiltä Itä-blokin dissidenteiltä haetaan opastusta, miten harjoittaa vastarintaa ylivoimaisen vastustajan edessä.

Dreher kirjoittaa johdannossa:

    Amerikkalaisille, jotka eivät koskaan ole joutuneet elämään tällaisessa ideologisessa sumussa, on vaikea tunnistaa, mitä on tapahtumassa. Mitä tahansa tämä onkin, se ei ole tarkka kopio elämästä Neuvostoblokin maissa salaisine poliiseineen, rangaistussiirtoloineen, ankarine sensuurivaatimuksineen ja materiaalisine puutteineen. Juuri tämä on ongelma, nämä emigrantit varoittavat. Se tosiseikka, että suhteessa Neuvostoblokin oloihin elämä lännessä on edelleen vapaata ja vaurasta, tekee amerikkalaiset sokeaksi vapauttamme uhkaavien voimien kasvamiselle. Samoin kuin se seikka, että ne, jotka vapauksiamme vievät, puhuvat toiminnastaan sorrettujen uhrien vapauttamisena.

Myöhemmin Dreher jatkaa:

    Harva nykykonservatiivi ymmärtää tämän uhkan vakavuuden, ohittaen sen vain "poliittisena korrektiutena" – aiemman sukupolven väheksyvä termi "wokenessille". On helppo väheksyä entisen neuvostoprofessorin kaltaisia ihmisiä hysteerisinä, jos pidät nykytapahtumia vain 1990-luvun kampusten vasemmistosekoilun uusintana. Tuolloin konservatiivien vakiovastaus oli vähättelevä: Odota, että penskat siirtyvät todelliseen maailmaan ja ovat pakotettuja etsimään töitä.

       No, he siirtyivät – ja ottivat kampuksen mukaansa yritysmaailmaan, laki- ja lääketieteen ammatteihin, mediaan, peruskouluun, lukioihin ja muhin Amerikan instituutioihin. Tässä kulttuurivallankumouksessa, joka voimistui keväällä ja kesällä 2020, he yrittävät muuttaa koko maan "woke" kampukseksi.


Viesti toisin sanoen kuuluu: Se voi tapahtua täälläkin. Dreher ja hänen haastateltavansa näkevät yhtäläisyyksiä Venäjän tapahtumissa ennen vallankumousta ja heikentyvän Yhdysvaltojen nykymenossa. Muutos nykylännessä ei tietenkään tapahdu samalla tavoin kuin aikoinaan Venäjällä tai sodanjälkeisessä Itä-Euroopassa, ovathan ajat muuttuneet. Mutta edelleen kyse on totalitarismin houkutuksesta, tällä kertaa kasvot vain ovat – ainakin toistaiseksi – hieman lempeämmät. Perään Dreher toteaa, että klassinen liberalismi on kuolemassa muuallakin kuin Yhdysvalloissa – ja että sen seuraaja ei ole vielä syntynyt.

Dreher luettelee totalitarismin nousuun liittyviä seikkoja: yksilön eristäytyminen, yksinäisyyden lisääntyminen, instituutioiden arvovallan romahtaminen, halu tuhota yhteiskunnallisia rakenteita, propagandan lisääntyminen, ihmisten halu uskoa hyödyllisiä valheita ja uskollisuuden arvostaminen asiantuntijuutta korkeammalle. Resurssien rajallisuus, joka koskee myös totalitaristisia järjestelmiä, tarkoittaa, että systeemiä on pidettävä kasassa mahdollisimman pienellä vaivalla. Neuvostototalitarismissa tämä käytännössä tarkoitti, että jo pelkkä syytös yksilön tekemästä rikoksesta – yleensä ajatusrikoksesta – muuttuu osoitukseksi rikokseen syyllistymisestä. Nykyaika ei tässä suhteessa ole kovin erilainen: vaikka vihjailu tai syytös olisi esitetty kuinka huolettomasti ja huolimattomasti tahansa, syytöksellä on taipumus tarttua yksilöön ja haitata hänen elämäänsä – jopa perhe-elämää, ulottuuhan ihmisten rankaisuhalu joskus lähisukulaisiin asti.

[zupi]

Selvää lienee, mitä porukkaa tämä twiittiketju koskee.

[tweet]1370212738388041728[/tweet]

1/ One of most important things I've learned:

Severe personality problems find *camouflage.* No one thinks "I'm a sadist" or "I'm a malignant narcissist."

They find a belief system/social group that validates their most hateful, destructive impulses & construes them as virtues.

2/ The most toxic and hateful people in the world are 100% convinced they fight for what is true and right.

3/ They find a way to give free rein to their cruelty, to attack, to treat others cruelly and viciously. *And they find allies to cheer them on* who also believe they are on the side of all that is true and good.

4/ For colleagues looking for more theoretical explanation, the psychological processes are splitting, projection &  projective identification. Splitting means not recognizing one's own capacity for hate, cruelty, and destructiveness. The person is blind to the bad in themselves.

5/ Instead, they project the badness onto some designated other. And this other person, via the defense of projection, is now seen as the repository of all that is bad and evil and necessary to destroy. That's the projection.

The person now feels fully justified in unleashing

6/ their viciousness and hate on the other person, who is now seen (via projection) as someone monstrous who must be destroyed at all cost. If the person who is projected on attempts to protect or defend themselves, this is now seen as further confirmation of how hateful and evil

7/ they are (this is what is called is "projective identification.") The end result is that the person can deny their own sadism, cruelty, and hate—while simultaneously acting it out without restraint. And feel themselves to be 100% on the side of truth and right as they do it.

https://mobile.twitter.com/JonathanShedler/status/1370212738388041728

[zupi]

Alkaako wokeistien lemppari postmodernisti viimeinkin saamaan ansaitsemaansa mainetta ja kunniaa? Tuo pedofiiliraiskaaja kehitteli juuri siis näitä tietoon ja valtaan liittyviä sekopäisyyksiä, joihin nykyinen wokeismi pohjautuu (uusmarxismin ohella).

[tweet]1376213027175956484[/tweet]

[tweet]1376206299935965193[/tweet]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/french-philosopher-michel-foucault-abused-boys-in-tunisia-6t5sj7jvw

French philosopher Michel Foucault 'abused boys in Tunisia'

Michel Foucault was one of the first celebrity intellectuals of the 20th century remembered not only for his controversial analyses of prisons, madness and sexuality but for signing a petition in 1977 to legalise sex with children aged 13

The philosopher Michel Foucault, a beacon of today's "woke" ideology, has become the latest prominent French figure to face a retrospective reckoning for sexually abusing children.

A fellow intellectual, Guy Sorman, has unleashed a storm among Parisian "intellos" with his claim that Foucault, who died in 1984 aged 57, was a paedophile rapist who had sex with Arab children while living in Tunisia in the late 1960s.

Sorman, 77, said he had visited Foucault with a group of friends on an Easter holiday trip to the village of Sidi Bou Said, near Tunis, where the philosopher was living in 1969. "Young children were running after Foucault saying 'what about me? take me, take me'," he recalled last week in an interview with The Sunday Times (...)(...)

(maksumuuri)

[Urban Moving Systems]

Alkaako wokeistien lemppari postmodernisti viimeinkin saamaan ansaitsemaansa mainetta ja kunniaa? Tuo pedofiiliraiskaaja kehitteli juuri siis näitä tietoon ja valtaan liittyviä sekopäisyyksiä, joihin nykyinen wokeismi pohjautuu (uusmarxismin ohella).

Tämä Michel Foucault oli oman aikansa tunnetuin filosofi ja vasemmiston supertähti. Muistan lukeneeni jostain, että Foucault olisi ollut merkittävä tekijä siinä muutoksessa, jossa vasemmisto siirtyi talousvasemmistolaisuudesta kulttuurivasemmistolaisuuteen. Ainakin E. Michael Jones on puhunut tästä. Jones kertoo vuonna 1975 solmitusta ns. Death Valley-sopimuksesta, jossa Foucault teki sopimuksen "oligarkkien" kanssa siitä, että vasemmisto lopettaa taloudellisen kritiikin esittämisen, ja tästä vastineeksi Foucaultista tehtäisiin julkkis ja vasemmiston supertähti. Foucaultin johtama uusi vasemmisto edistäisi seksuaalista vapautumista, identiteettipoliitiikkaa ja homojen oikeuksia.

Pedofilia oli uutta tietoa, mutta herran wiki-sivu kertoo varsin kattavasti miehen taustoista:

Michel Foucault 15 October 1926 – 25 June 1984) was a French philosopher, historian of ideas, writer, political activist, and literary critic.

Foucault's theories primarily address the relationship between power and knowledge, and how they are used as a form of social control through societal institutions. Though often cited as a structuralist and postmodernist, Foucault rejected these labels. His thought has influenced academics, especially those working in communication studies, anthropology, psychology, sociology, criminology, cultural studies, literary theory, feminism, Marxism and critical theory.

Prone to self-harm, in 1948 Foucault allegedly attempted suicide; his father sent him to see the psychiatrist Jean Delay at the Sainte-Anne Hospital Center. Obsessed with the idea of self-mutilation and suicide, Foucault attempted the latter several times in ensuing years, praising suicide in later writings. The ENS's doctor examined Foucault's state of mind, suggesting that his suicidal tendencies emerged from the distress surrounding his homosexuality, because same-sex sexual activity was socially taboo in France. At the time, Foucault engaged in homosexual activity with men whom he encountered in the underground Parisian gay scene, also indulging in drug use; according to biographer James Miller, he enjoyed the thrill and sense of danger that these activities offered him.

Embracing the Parisian avant-garde, Foucault entered into a romantic relationship with the serialist composer Jean Barraqué. Together, they tried to produce their greatest work, heavily used recreational drugs and engaged in sado-masochistic sexual activity.

Like France and Sweden, Poland legally tolerated but socially frowned on homosexual activity, and Foucault undertook relationships with a number of men; one was with a Polish security agent who hoped to trap Foucault in an embarrassing situation, which therefore would reflect badly on the French embassy. Wracked in diplomatic scandal, he was ordered to leave Poland for a new destination. Various positions were available in West Germany, and so Foucault relocated to the Institut français Hamburg (where he served as director in 1958–60), teaching the same courses he had given in Uppsala and Warsaw. Spending much time in the Reeperbahn red light district, he entered into a relationship with a transvestite.

In 1977, Italian newspaper Corriere della sera asked Foucault to write a column for them. In doing so, in 1978 he travelled to Tehran in Iran, days after the Black Friday massacre. Documenting the developing Iranian Revolution, he met with opposition leaders such as Mohammad Kazem Shariatmadari and Mehdi Bazargan, and discovered the popular support for Islamism. Returning to France, he was one of the journalists who visited the Ayatollah Khomeini, before visiting Tehran. His articles expressed awe of Khomeini's Islamist movement, for which he was widely criticised in the French press, including by Iranian expatriates. Foucault's response was that Islamism was to become a major political force in the region, and that the West must treat it with respect rather than hostility.

In October 1980, Foucault became a visiting professor at the University of California, Berkeley, giving the Howison Lectures on "Truth and Subjectivity", while in November he lectured at the Humanities Institute at New York University. His growing popularity in American intellectual circles was noted by Time magazine, while Foucault went on to lecture at UCLA in 1981, the University of Vermont in 1982, and Berkeley again in 1983, where his lectures drew huge crowds. Foucault spent many evenings in the San Francisco gay scene, frequenting sado-masochistic bathhouses, engaging in unprotected sex. He praised sado-masochistic activity in interviews with the gay press, describing it as "the real creation of new possibilities of pleasure, which people had no idea about previously." Foucault contracted HIV and eventually developed AIDS. Little was known of the virus at the time; the first cases had only been identified in 1980. Foucault initially referred to AIDS as a "dreamed-up disease". In summer 1983, he developed a persistent dry cough, which concerned friends in Paris, but Foucault insisted it was just a pulmonary infection.

On 26 June 1984, Libération announced Foucault's death, mentioning the rumour that it had been brought on by AIDS. Soon after his death, Foucault's partner Daniel Defert founded the first national HIV/AIDS organisation in France, AIDES.

Foucault was a vocal proponent of consensual adult-child underage sex and pedophilia, considering them signs of liberation of both actors; he argued young children could give consent. In 1977, along with Jean-Paul Sartre, Jacques Derrida, and other intellectuals, Foucault signed a petition to the French parliament calling for the decriminalization of all "consensual" sexual relations between adults and minors below the age of fifteen, the age of consent in France. He'd also written an open letter in the Le Monde in defense of three convicted pedophiles. Foucault has been described by the Windsor Star as a "pedophile guru".

In France-Amérique, Guy Sorman claimed that while staying in Tunisia, Foucault had practiced pedophilia by "paying for little boys". In a further interview, he claimed Foucault would have sex with children in a graveyard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault

[zupi]

^ Lisää lainauksia Timesin jutusta.

https://www.ruetir.com/2021/03/29/writer-says-philosopher-michel-foucault-abused-children-in-tunisia/

"They were eight, nine, ten years old, I threw money at them and said: 'See you at 10 at night at the usual place.' This, it seemed, was the local cemetery: "There I made love on the tombstones with the boys. The question of consent has not even been raised."

Sorman said that "Foucault would not have dared to do that in France," comparing him to Paul Gauguin, the impressionist who had sex with girls who painted in Tahiti, and Andre Gide, the novelist who persecuted boys in Africa. "There is a colonial dimension to this. White imperialism."

Sorman said he regretted not reporting Foucault to the police at the time or to the press, calling his behavior "ignoble" and "extremely morally ugly."

(...)

Sorman's remarks surprised experts in Britain, where Foucault's latest volume on the history of sexuality in four parts has just been published for the first time in English. For Sorman, Foucault's behavior was symptomatic of a distinctive French malaise dating back to Voltaire. "He believed that there were two moral principles, one for the elite, which was immoral, and one for the people, which should be restrictive."

He continued: "France is not yet a democracy, we had the revolution, we proclaimed a republic, but there is still an aristocracy, it is the intelligentsia, and it has had a special status. Anything will do. "Now, however," the world is suddenly changing, "Sorman added.

The intellectual said, however, that Foucault should not be "canceled."  (...)

Paskapuhetta, rovioon tuli ja cancelointi käyntiin ja heti! Kuuluisa, eliittiin kuuluva valkoinen siirtomaaherra käy kehitysmaissa käyttämässä sikäläisiä, rutiköyhiä värillisiä lapsia törkeästi hyväkseen, koska hän näkee heidät selvästi alempiarvoisiksi! Jos tuo ei ansaitse täydellistä cancelointia, niin mikä sitten? Vai mitä sanoo wokeistit, ai ei vai...

[zupi]

Pätkä Christopher Rufon haastattelusta viime viikolta, aiheena tässä CRT. Ei nyt varsinaisesti mitään uutta, mutta kokonaisuudessaan ihan hyvää settiä.

Haastattelijan kysymykset / kommentit kursivoituna.

https://niccolo.substack.com/p/the-dushanbe-interviews-christopher

(...)(...)

You first landed on my radar when you began releasing documents handed to you by various whistleblowers detailing Critical Race Theory and how it was being instituted in both government and schools.  This led to Trump's Executive Order banning the instruction of CRT in US Government offices.  How much of an influence do you think your work had on this decision?

It was instantaneous. I did the opening monologue on Tucker Carlson sharing my research and then directly asking the President to issue an executive order banning critical race theory from the Federal Government. At seven o'clock the next morning, I got a call from Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, who said the President saw the segment and wanted to take action. I provided my research to the White House and the Executive Order came out less than three weeks later. That's really to the Trump Administration's credit. Jeb Bush wouldn't have had the stones to take on this issue; Trump got it done in a few weeks.

Others have laid out different strategies in fighting CRT.  Some have suggested confronting Corporate HR Trainers either overtly or subtly so that fellow employees would 'see through' its illogic and inherent awfulness.  Why are these approaches either useless or even counterproductive?

You can't persuade zealots with logic, facts, and clever argumentation; they only understand the language of power. That's why the campaign to prove that you're "the real liberal" or "more antiracist than the antiracists" is doomed to failure. Like it or not, Critical Race Theory is the driving force of the modern intellectual Left; they're not going back to the philosophy of FDR, LBJ, or MLK. And they scrupulously follow the old dictum of "no enemies to the left"—they will dispatch the centrist liberals with even more vitriol and brutality than they dispatch the conservatives. This is also the core dilemma of the IDW crowd: many of them cannot imagine aligning with political conservatives; they operate under the delusion that they can "recapture the centre" and convince the planet of the virtue of Enlightenment values. That's not how politics works. We live in a polarized political system—one winner, one loser. You'll remember that the Girondins went to the guillotine. If, metaphorically speaking, the centrist liberals want to avoid the same fate, they will have to make an alliance with Trump-loving, truck-driving, gun-toting Middle Americans. That's reality. We'll see if they heed it.

For the novices out there, what is Critical Race Theory, and why is it so dangerous?

I'm lazy, so I'll paraphrase from a recent paper. Critical Race Theory is an academic discipline that holds that the United States is a nation founded on white supremacy and oppression, and that these forces are still at the root of our society. Critical Race Theorists believe that American institutions (such as the Constitution and legal system), preach freedom and equality, but are mere "camouflages" for naked racial domination. They believe that racism is a constant, universal condition: it simply becomes more subtle, sophisticated, and insidious over the course of history. In simple terms, critical race theory reformulates the old Marxist dichotomy of oppressor and oppressed, replacing the class categories of bourgeoisie and proletariat with the identity categories of White and Black. But the basic conclusions are the same: in order to liberate man, society must be fundamentally transformed through moral, economic, and political revolution.

One of the main faces of CRT right now is academic Ibram X. Kendi.  He famously stated:

"And so what I'm trying to do with my work is to really get Americans to eliminate the concept of "not racist" from their vocabulary, and realize we're either being racist or anti-racist". 

This is rather sinister, as it places everything within the prism of race, and leaves nothing outside of it, while rejecting all subtlety and nuance that is par for the course when it comes to human beings.  To him, 'racism' is America's Original Sin.  This very much comes across as Christianity stripped of Christ, but with the same zeal and intensity of the Early Christians (and some of those that followed centuries later), with 'Wokeness' as the new Catechism.

Ibram X. Kendi is a human fortune cookie. His intellectual output is an endless buffet of word salad and phony wisdom: "Denial is the heartbeat of racism"; "In order to truly be anti-racist, you also have to truly be anti-capitalist"; "Whiteness is literally posing an existential threat to humanity." In my investigative reporting, I've noticed something quite interesting: the core demographic of Kendi readers is liberal, white, middle-aged women who work in public institutions. On one hand, this is a surprise: Kendi embraces a radical vision of Black Power-style revolution. On the other hand, it makes perfect sense: Kendi's politics provides a vicarious thrill, but is completely in line with conventional wisdom. It's revolution without risk; it's liberation without leaving the house. That's really the best way to understand what he's doing. He's not a revolutionary; he's a self-help guru for white liberals and a reputation-laundering mechanism for multinational corporations. He is an apostle of anti-whiteness, but a mouthpiece for elite white opinion. He preaches anti-capitalism, but accepts Visa, Mastercard, and American Express.

His book "How To Be An Antiracist" has been receiving the predictable effusive praise and is also now on the official US Navy Reading List. His ambitions are grand, and in my opinion, megalomaniacal.  He is actively pushing the concept of an "...anti-racist amendment to the US Constitution..." that would create a committee with oversight over the entire US Government, as it would sit in judgment as to whether policies or laws are racist or not (and those deemed racist would have to be eliminated as they would be unconstitutional), and would monitor politicians and public servants to see if they are engaged in the various forms of racism that Kendi has outlined in his book.

This is the question: what do the Critical Race Theorists mean by "equity"? I just published a paper for The Heritage Foundation that lays out the evidence. As it turns out, Critical Race Theory is not about racial sensitivity training or nondiscrimination policies—it's simply reheated, 1960s-style Marxism. The Critical Race Theorists can be coy sometimes, but it's pretty simple to explain what they want. UCLA law professor Cheryl Harris has argued that private property rights should be suspended, the government should seize land and wealth from the rich, and then redistribute it along racial lines—she wants to move away from a system of individual rights and "mere nondiscrimination," towards a system of group identity-based rights and positive discrimination. As you mention, Ibram X. Kendi has argued for the creation of an unaccountable fourth branch of government with the power to abolish any law in the country and censor the speech of politicians and intellectuals who are not deemed "antiracist." Pretty quickly, we're talking about eliminating the rights to private property, freedom of speech, equal protection under the law, and the separation of powers. That's not an agenda for reforming the United States—it's an agenda for ending the United States. They're not advertising it in those terms; but they're not exactly hiding it, either.

(...)(...)

[zupi]

Ihan mielenkiintoinen twiitti-ketju siitä, miten woke-väki tarkoituksellisesti paskoo kaiken olemassaolevan (paikallisen länsimaisen) kulttuurin, tässä tapauksessa erilaisten juhlapäivien päälle. Ihan hyvä lyhyt katsaus myös wokeismin kehittymiseen. Alla lainauksina, varsinaisessa ketjussa on mukana jonkin verran kuvia / videoita.

[tweet]1376848498461569024[/tweet]

1/ Ever wonder why the "woke" try to hijack major holidays? They'll say:

-Father's day is about trans men
-Mothers day is about trans women
-Thanksgiving is about colonialism
-Holiday conversation starters should be about pronouns

Let's talk about holiday hijacking

A thread

2/ While it may seem like they're just being petty, there actually is a reason they do this, and it has to do with how they think about culture.

Their view of culture drives many of their tactics, including holiday hijacking, so understanding that is VERY important.

Let's begin

3/ The first idea we need to understand is "cultural hegemony."

Cultural hegemony is control of the culture via social institutions. The group that's ascendant in the culture (and whose ideas, beliefs, views and values dominate culture and institutions) has "cultural hegemony"

4/ The concept was developed by the Marxist Antonio Gramsci. He thought those who make and control culture determine which beliefs and ideas are spread through society. So the worldview and ideology of the culturally dominant people becomes the dominant worldview in society.

5/ The idea is that you can seize a factory, but unless that power is backed up by a culture that says what you are doing is good, beautiful, and just then any political gains are will be short-lived. In order to take and *KEEP* power long-term you need to have *cultural power*

6/ The idea of cultural hegemony was picked up by Critical Social justice and mixed in with a view of culture that is heavily influenced by postmodernism. Once I explain the postmodern influence, we can then show exactly how it all fits together...

7/ There is a little history we need to touch on here if we want to get it right.
In 1967 Guy Debord argued in "The Society of the spectacle" that consumer capitalism took every authentic human experience, commodified it, and sold it back to us through advertising and mass media.

8/ He thought *all* social relations are mediated by images created and sold to us by mass media. A collective brainwashing that has taken over everything from Christmas (create the perfect Christmas moment, like on T.V.) to dating (create the perfect date, like in the movies)...

9/ Guy Deboard's student Jean Baudrillard took it a step further. Baudrillard said it isn't just that mass media brainwashes you, it's that the ideas, symbols, signifiers, of culture form an inescapable mental matrix that influences **ALL** of your thinking.

Sound familiar?

10/ For Baudrillard, we are drowning in a sea of signs, symbols, memes, ideas, and information. People are caught up in the play of images, spectacles, and symbols that are becoming disconnected to any external reality.

The only access to reality we have is filtered via culture.

11/ This means the ideas, symbols, signifiers, and ideology of "the system" hold so much sway you can't help but interpret the world through the lens the system gives you. You've literally lost contact with what is actually real and you only see through the lens of the system...

12/ Baudrillard, alongside Jacques Derrida and Michael Foucault formed the backbone of postmodern philosophy, and their philosophies all imply reality is not objectively knowable:

Baudrillard thought society replaced reality via symbols and signs: A human simulation of reality.

13/ Foucault thought power and knowledge were hopelessly intertwined and because of how they're connected getting at objective truth, free from bias, was impossible.

Derrida's philosophy implies that objectively correct final interpretations of anything are simply not possible.

14/ When Critical Social Justice (wokeness) picked up postmodernism (and the postmodern emphasis on culture and language) they shifted away from physical material reality/circumstances and focused more on culture. This fit perfectly with Gramsci's ideas about cultural hegemony...

15/ Postmodernism turned activists toward the culture and provided the tools to do a far more potent analysis of cultural hegemony.

The result was a commitment to taking the culture and building a new hegemony; the goal was to completely own every area of *cultural production*

16/ So now that we understand all that, lets analyze holiday hijacking.

The woke want to take over every area of culture so they can establish their own cultural hegemony, and since holidays are cultural events and cultural celebrations, the woke want to take them over....

17/ You see, when we celebrate Mother's day we celebrate it on *OUR* terms. That means we celebrate Mothers for what we know them to be: biologically Female parents.

Since the woke think people can change genders, and change sex they can't allow that....

18/ Because they want total cultural hegemony, they want to take the holiday over and make it a woke holiday. This means removing the old idea about mothers as female parents who give birth (or adopt) and replacing it with the idea that "mother" is just a social construct...

19/ Which includes trans women and nonbinary and intersex and every other new gender identity you can think of. The way they do this is to insufferably make trans-women the focus of Mother's day and to find ways to performatively make that point throughout the day.

20/ The woke think they need to "center" trans-women on mothers day (and trans men on fathers day, and atheism on Christmas and colonialism on thanksgiving) to drive home the point that the holiday is going to be deconstructed and remade in the image of woke ideology...

21/ Letting us celebrate in peace is not an option. They need to "disrupt" and "interrupt" our celebration of Mother's day so they can establish their view as the dominant view.

It would be like someone showing up at your birthday party and trying to make it about themselves...

22/ Because holidays are part of the culture they need to be taken over, just like every other think in our society that has any cultural value or cultural cache.

That is why they do this:

23/ So the next time someone does this you should treat what they are doing like exactly what it is: a power move which is meant to help them establish total cultural dominance. This means you should completely dismiss it, and do so firmly, not gently.

24/ Don't let them sucker you into letting them win for the sake of peace. Push back, and tell them no.

/fin

Muistuipa tuota lukiessani mieleen "NATO"n raportista tällainen pätkä:

17 May: @vihreat and @MariaOhisalo Vihreät muuttuu päivä päivältä kuvottavampaan suuntaan. Suomalaisuuden päivänä hehkutitti islamia ja Kaatuneiden muistopäivänä homoja sekä transuja. Aivan kertakaikkisen vastenmielinen puolue

Tämä siis lienee "vihapuhetta", koska siinä osoitetaan inhoa ja halveksuntaa wokeistien yritykselle paskoa suomalaisten juhlapäivien päälle. "Kansalaispaneelin" vihapuhe-ehdotuksetkin taitaa olla aika pitkälti suunnattu siihen, että niiden avulla pyritään estämään wokeistien tuhoamisprojektin vastustaminen.

[Mäyräkoira]

Juuri nyt on verkkomedia perussuomalaiset julkaisseet haastattelun, jossa Maria Asunta haastattelee Mikko Pauniota.

https://youtu.be/FbbrRuhCz7A

Aiheena kriittinen rotuteoria, Ja sen pakkovalta. Paunio sanoi että ei enää hetkeen oo saanut demarien puoluelehteen juttujansa.

[zupi]

Tässä on jätetty varmaan yksinkertaisuuden vuoksi postmodernistiset mausteet pois, mutta muuten ihan hyvä lyhyt "tilannekatsaus" aiheeseen.

[tweet]1378899332901056512[/tweet]

[zupi]

Pistetään tähän väliin yksi Helen Pluckrosen kirjoitus. Helen kuuluu niihin jotka uskoo, toisin kuin James Lindsay, että vasemmisto voi vielä itse parantaa itsensä. Jameksella ja Helenillä on tainnut viime aikoina mennä vähän sukset ristiin sen suhteen, mikä on paras tapa vaikuttaa asioihin.

https://areomagazine.com/2017/03/27/how-french-intellectuals-ruined-the-west-postmodernism-and-its-impact-explained/

How French "Intellectuals" Ruined the West: Postmodernism & Its Impact, Explained

Postmodernism presents a threat not only to liberal democracy but to modernity itself. That may sound like a bold or even hyperbolic claim, but the reality is that the cluster of ideas and values at the root of postmodernism have broken the bounds of academia and gained great cultural power in western society. The irrational and identitarian "symptoms" of postmodernism are easily recognizable and much criticized, but the ethos underlying them is not well understood. This is partly because postmodernists rarely explain themselves clearly and partly because of the inherent contradictions and inconsistencies of a way of thought which denies a stable reality or reliable knowledge to exist. However, there are consistent ideas at the root of postmodernism and understanding them is essential if we intend to counter them. They underlie the problems we see today in Social Justice Activism, undermine the credibility of the Left and threaten to return us to an irrational and tribal "pre-modern" culture.

Postmodernism, most simply, is an artistic and philosophical movement which began in France in the 1960s and produced bewildering art and even more bewildering  "theory." It drew on avant-garde and surrealist art and earlier philosophical ideas, particularly those of Nietzsche and Heidegger, for its anti-realism and rejection of the concept of the unified and coherent individual. It reacted against the liberal humanism of the modernist artistic and intellectual movements, which its proponents saw as naïvely universalizing a western, middle-class and male experience.

It rejected philosophy which valued ethics, reason and clarity with the same accusation. Structuralism, a movement which (often over-confidently) attempted to analyze human culture and psychology according to consistent structures of relationships, came under attack. Marxism, with its understanding of society through class and economic structures was regarded as equally rigid and simplistic. Above all, postmodernists attacked science and its goal of attaining objective knowledge about a reality which exists independently of human perceptions which they saw as merely another form of constructed ideology dominated by bourgeois, western assumptions. Decidedly left-wing, postmodernism had both a nihilistic and a revolutionary ethos which resonated with a post-war, post-empire zeitgeist in the West. As postmodernism continued to develop and diversify, its initially stronger nihilistic deconstructive phase became secondary (but still fundamental) to its revolutionary "identity politics" phase.

It has been a matter of contention whether postmodernism is a reaction against modernity. The modern era is the period of history which saw Renaissance Humanism, the Enlightenment, the Scientific Revolution and the development of liberal values and human rights; the period when Western societies gradually came to value reason and science over faith and superstition as routes to knowledge, and developed a concept of the person as an individual member of the human race deserving of rights and freedoms rather than as part of various collectives subject to rigid hierarchical roles in society.

(...) If we see the essence of modernity as the development of science and reason as well as humanism and universal liberalism, postmodernists are opposed to it. If we see modernity as the tearing down of structures of power including feudalism, the Church, patriarchy, and Empire, postmodernists are attempting to continue it, but their targets are now science, reason, humanism and liberalism. Consequently, the roots of postmodernism are inherently political and revolutionary, albeit in a destructive or, as they would term it, deconstructive way.

(...)

JEAN-FRANÇOIS LYOTARD

Michel Foucault's (PEDOFIILIRAISKAAJA) work is also centered on language and relativism although he applied this to history and culture. He called this approach "archeology" because he saw himself as "uncovering" aspects of historical culture through recorded discourses (speech which promotes or assumes a particular view). For Foucault, discourses control what can be "known" and in different periods and places, different systems of institutional power control discourses. Therefore, knowledge is a direct product of power. "In any given culture and at any given moment, there is always only one 'episteme' that defines the conditions of possibility of all knowledge, whether expressed in theory or silently invested in a practice."[1]

Furthermore, people themselves were culturally constructed. (...)

We see in Foucault the most extreme expression of cultural relativism (https://newdiscourses.com/2020/11/why-world-cultural-relativism-descendents/) read through structures of power in which shared humanity and individuality are almost entirely absent. Instead, people are constructed by their position in relation to dominant cultural ideas either as oppressors or oppressed. (...)

(...)

We see in Derrida further relativism, both cultural and epistemic, and further justification for identity politics. There is an explicit denial that differences can be other than oppositional and therefore a rejection of Enlightenment liberalism's values of overcoming differences and focusing on universal human rights and individual freedom and empowerment. We see here the basis of "ironic misandry" and the mantra "reverse racism isn't real" and the idea that identity dictates what can be understood. We see too a rejection of the need for clarity in speech and argument and to understand the other's point of view and avoid misnterpretation. The intention of the speaker is irrelevant. What matters is the impact of speech. This, along with Foucauldian ideas, underlies the current belief in the deeply damaging nature of "microaggressions" and misuse of terminology related to gender, race or sexuality.


JACQUES DERRIDA

Lyotard, Foucault, and Derrida are just three of the "founding fathers" of postmodernism but their ideas share common themes with other influential "theorists" and were taken up by later postmodernists who applied them to an increasingly diverse range of disciplines within the social sciences and humanities. We've seen that this includes an intense sensitivity to language on the level of the word and a feeling that what the speaker means is less important than how it is received, no matter how radical the interpretation (terveisiä Tomi Salinille). Shared humanity and individuality are essentially illusions and people are propagators or victims of discourses depending on their social position; a position which is dependent on identity far more than their individual engagement with society. Morality is culturally relative, as is reality itself. Empirical evidence is suspect and so are any culturally dominant ideas including science, reason, and universal liberalism. These are Enlightenment values which are naïve, totalizing and oppressive, and there is a moral necessity to smash them. Far more important is the lived experience, narratives and beliefs of "marginalized" groups all of which are equally "true" but must now be privileged over Enlightenment values to reverse an oppressive, unjust and entirely arbitrary social construction of reality, morality and knowledge.

(...) Freedom of speech is under threat because speech is now dangerous. So dangerous that people considering themselves liberal can now justify responding to it with violence. The need to argue a case persuasively using reasoned argument is now often replaced with references to identity and pure rage.

Despite all the evidence that racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia and xenophobia are at an all-time low in Western societies, Leftist academics and SocJus activists display a fatalistic pessimism, enabled by postmodern interpretative "reading" practices which valorize confirmation bias. The authoritarian power of the postmodern academics and activists seems to be invisible to them whilst being apparent to everyone else. As Andrew Sullivan says of intersectionality:

"It posits a classic orthodoxy through which all of human experience is explained — and through which all speech must be filtered. ... Like the Puritanism once familiar in New England, intersectionality controls language and the very terms of discourse." [7]

Postmodernism has become a Lyotardian metanarrative, a Foucauldian system of discursive power (tämä liittyy varmaan jotenkin lasten raiskaamiseen), and a Derridean oppressive hierarchy.

(...)

Physicists Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont address the same problem from the perspective of science in Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science:

"Who could now seriously deny the 'grand narrative' of evolution, except someone in the grip of a far less plausible master narrative such as Creationism? And who would wish to deny the truth of basic physics? The answer was, 'some postmodernists.'"

and

"There is something very odd indeed in the belief that in looking, say, for causal laws or a unified theory, or in asking whether atoms really do obey the laws of quantum mechanics, the activities of scientists are somehow inherently 'bourgeois' or 'Eurocentric' or 'masculinist', or even 'militarist.'"

(...)

The social sciences and humanities, however, are in danger of changing out of all recognition. Some disciplines within the social sciences already have. Cultural anthropology, sociology, cultural studies and gender studies, for example, have succumbed almost entirely not only to moral relativism but epistemic relativism. English (literature) too, in my experience, is teaching a thoroughly postmodern orthodoxy. Philosophy, as we have seen, is divided. So is history.

(...)

The dangers of postmodernism are not limited to pockets of society which center around academia and Social Justice, however. Relativist ideas, sensitivity to language and focus on identity over humanity or individuality have gained dominance in wider society. It is much easier to say what you feel than rigorously examine the evidence. The freedom to "interpret" reality according to one's own values feeds into the very human tendency towards confirmation bias and motivated reasoning.

(...)

(oikeistoa koskevat herja-jutut jätetty pois. joka tapauksessa:)

This "set of concepts" threaten to take us back to a time before the Enlightenment, when "reason" was regarded as not only inferior to faith but as a sin.

(...)

Normi-Hemmo voisi ehkä noista todeta, että VMP. Suunta on vaan sellainen, että pelkkä toteaminen ei välttämättä enää kauaa riitä.

[zupi]

Pienenä pohjustuksena lainaus BLM / Pyhä Yrjö ketjusta.

^ Tuleva piikki lento-onnettomuuksissa on sitten rasismin ja naisvihan syytä, tämä näin ennakkovaroituksena.

Näillä wokeisteilla tuntuu todellakin olevan se näkemys, että KAIKKI pahat asiat on miehisen valkoisen ylivallan syytä. Ja tämä pitää alla olevan kirjoituksen mukaisesti sisällään myös sen, kun mustat (wokeistien yllyttäminä ja raivoon ruoskimina) hakkaavat aasialaisia. Jälleen pitää todeta James Lindsayn sanoin, että nuo woke-ihmiset eivät ole "normaaleita", eikä heitä tai heidän höpötyksiään pitäisi kohdella kuten normaalien ihmisten näkemyksiä. Itsekin näen tuon poppoon pseudotodellisuudessa elävinä kulttihulluina.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/white-supremacy-root-race-related-120244625.html

White supremacy is the root of all race-related violence in the US

Amid the disturbing rise in attacks on Asian Americans since March 2020 is a troubling category of these assaults: Black people are also attacking Asian Americans.

White people are the main perpetrators of anti-Asian racism. (...)

Paskaa. Jos tarkastellaan aasialaisiin kohdistuneita väkivaltarikoksia, niin mustat tekevät niitä enemmän kuin mikään muu rotu (liitekuva). Siis vaikka valkoisia on USAssa yli viisinkertaisesti mustiin nähden. Jotain käsitystä asiasta antaa sekin, että valkoisiin kohdistuneesta väkivallasta 2.2 % on aasialaisten suorittamaa, ja aasialaisiin kohdistuneesta väkivallasta 24.1 % on valkoisten suorittamaa. Iso ero, mutta entäpä mustat? Mustiin kohdistuneesta väkivallasta alle 0.1 % on aasialaisten suorittamaa, mutta aasialaisiin kohdistuneesta väkivallasta 27.5 % on mustien suorittamaa. Mutta Jennifer kuitenkin näkee, että valkoiset on tässä se pääroisto... 2019 tilastossa aasialaiset oli muuten jostain kummasta syystä heitetty "muut" kategoriaan, ja näin varmaan on jatkossakin...

(https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv18.pdf)

As the current president of the Association for Asian American Studies and as an ethnic studies and critical race studies professor who specializes in Asian American culture, I wanted to address the climate of anti-Asian racism I was seeing at the start of the pandemic. (...)

The point I've made through all of those experiences is that anti-Asian racism has the same source as anti-Black racism: white supremacy. So when a Black person attacks an Asian person, the encounter is fueled perhaps by racism, but very specifically by white supremacy. White supremacy does not require a white person to perpetuate it.

Varsin mielenkiintoista, että Jenniferin mukaan aasialaisiin kohdistuvalla rasismilla ja mustiin kohdistuvalla rasismilla on täysin samat juuret, eli valkoinen ylivalta. Tämän nyt pitäisi ymmärtääkseni tarkoittaa, että valkoinen ylivalta sortaa aasialaisiakin sillä tavoin, että he eivät voi pärjätä yhteiskunnassa yhtä hyvin kuin valkoiset. Mitenköhän sitten aasialaistaustaiset ansaitsevat USAssa keskimäärin selvästi enemmän kuin valkoiset?

https://quillette.com/2020/12/22/a-peculiar-kind-of-racist-patriarchy/
data.census.gov

A Peculiar Kind of Racist Patriarchy

We are frequently told by commentators and theorists on the progressive and liberal Left that we live in a systemically racist and patriarchal society. The belief that Western societies privilege white men and oppress people of color, women, and LGBT citizens is especially popular within academic institutions, legacy media, the entertainment industry, and even sports. However, newly released statistics from the US Department of Labor for the third quarter of 2020 undermine this narrative. Asian women have now surpassed white men in weekly earnings. That trend has been consistent throughout this past year—an unprecedented outcome. Full-time working Asian women earned $1,224 in median weekly earnings in the third quarter of this year compared to $1,122 earned by their white male counterparts. Furthermore, the income gap between both black and Latino men and Asian women is wider than it has ever been. The income gap between white and black women, meanwhile, is much narrower than the gap between their male counterparts.

These outcomes cannot exist in a society suffused with misogyny and racism. As confounding to conventional progressive wisdom as these new figures appear to be, copious research finds that ethnic minorities and women frequently eclipse their white and male counterparts, even when these identities intersect. Several ethnic minority groups consistently out-perform whites in a variety of categories—higher test scores, lower incarceration rates, and longer life expectancies. According to the latest data from the US Census Bureau, over the 12 months covered by the survey, the median household incomes of Syrian Americans ($74,047), Korean Americans ($76,674), Indonesian Americans ($93,501), Taiwanese Americans ($102,405), and Filipino Americans ($100,273) are all significantly higher than that of whites ($69,823).

(...)

A study from the University of Michigan compared the earnings trajectories of African immigrant women and men to their US-born counterparts. The (very left-leaning) researchers went into the study with an intersectional analytic framework, stating: "The double disadvantage would predict that black African women would be disadvantaged by the interaction of their race and gender." But having analyzed the data, the authors concluded: "However, these are not the patterns that we found." While African-born black men had lower earnings than US-born white men, African-born black women had higher earnings than US-born white women. Interestingly, the researchers found that the income growth rate of female African immigrants has outpaced that of both US-born men and women. Black female immigrants from Africa saw a 130 percent rise in their income between 1990 and 2010, eclipsing the earnings of both white and black American women. No variance of the oversimplified "institutionalized racism" or intersectionality framework can adequately explain these complex socioeconomic outcomes, even when the researchers are biased in that direction.

Intersectionality is such a misconceived lens through which to understand the world that often white men fare worse than some of the most "oppressed" victim groups in our society. For example, the latest Census data indicate that the median earnings for full-time, year-round female Palestinian American workers ($52,061), female Iranian American workers ($64,220), and female Turkish American workers ($67,759) were all higher than those of white women ($45,581). Turkish and Iranian women also out-earned white men ($57,003). The vast majority of these women have not two but three "oppression variables" because of their gender, ethnicity, and religion (Islam).

(...)

Liitekuvissa myös noita lukuja. Mustat ansaitsee, kuten kaikki tietänee, sitten keskimäärin selvästi valkoisia vähemmän, mutta Jenniferin mukaan aasialaisiin ja mustiin kohdistuu kuitenkin ihan samanlaista rasismia. Mitenköhän tuo lienee mahdollista? No, tuon rasismi-narratiivin uskominen vaatii tietenkin sen pseudotodellisuuden ja varsin korkean hulluuden asteen. Noita lukuja ei muuten kannata nyt mitenkään liittää Suomen tilanteeseen. Sillä porukalla, mikä pyrkii USAan lienee kuitenkin täysin erilaiset asenteet ja tavoitteet kuin sillä, mikä pyrkii Suomeen (tosin esim. Somali-, Irakilais- ja Afgaani-taustaiset eivät "menestyneet" tuossakaan tilastossa kovin hyvin...).  Mutta ehkäpä ihmemies McBiden kykenee muuttamaan tuonkin. No, takaisin tuohon Jenniferin tilitykseen.

It's not just white people

White supremacy is an ideology, a pattern of values and beliefs that are ingrained in nearly every system and institution in the U.S. It is a belief that to be white is to be human and invested with inalienable universal rights and that to be not-white means you are less than human – a disposable object for others to abuse and misuse.

The dehumanization of Asian people by U.S. society is driven by white supremacy and not by any Black person who may or may not hate Asians.

(...)

Stories of individual harassment and violence perpetrated against Asian Americans by white assailants don't always get the same attention as the viral videos of Black aggression toward Asians.

Unfuckingbelievable... 

But underlying all these incidents is white supremacy, just as white supremacy is responsible for Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin kneeling on George Floyd's neck for over eight minutes: White supremacy made Floyd into a Black male threat rather than a human being.

Tony Timpa?? Ja tietenkin kaikki muut aseettomat valkoiset, jotka poliisi on tappanut? Ja eipä se Chauvinin polvi tainnut edes painaa Pyhän Yrjön niskaa. Valheita valheiden perään.

Understanding the depth and reach of this ideology of racism can be challenging, but doing so brings each person, and the nation as a whole, closer to addressing systemic inequity. It's not Black people whom Asian Americans need to fear. It's white supremacy.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. It was written by: Jennifer Ho, University of Colorado Boulder.

Sanoisinpa mieluummin, että wokeporukan hulluuden ja heidän vallan syvyyden ymmärtäminen voi olla haastavaa. Kuten myös sen vaaran suuruuden ymmärtäminen, minkä nuo mielisairaat aiheuttavat länsimaiselle, demokratiaan pohjautuvalle, valistuneelle ja yksilönvapauksia kunnioittavalle yhteiskunnalle.

[zupi]

Lyhyenä pohjustuksena:

https://journal.fi/kasvatusjaaika/article/view/84816/47404

Miksi meidän kaikkien pitäisi olla feministisiä pedagogeja

Tietokirjoituksissa käydään läpi feministisen pedagogiikan taustaa: teoreettisen perustan
nähdään nivoutuvan Paulo Freiren ajatteluun ja sosiaalista oikeudenmukaisuutta tavoittelevaan
kriittiseen pedagogiikkaan. (...)

Pistetään loppuun vielä pätkä jo aiemmin linkkaamastani Osmon kirjoituksesta vuodelta 2019, nimeltään "Akateeminen feminismi ja etenkin feministinen pedagogiikka on pettänyt tieteen ja tasa-arvon. Yliopistossa toimii puoluetoimisto tiedekunnan statuksella."

    S. 138: Feministinen pedagogiikka on sekä feministisen liikkeen että akateemisen feministisen tutkimuksen yhteistä tonttia.

Tulkitsen lausunnon myöntävän, että feministinen pedagogia on poliittista. Siksi on erikoista, että feministisen pedagogiikan kurssien opetuksesta vastaavat yliopistomme (Helsinki, Lappi, Tampere, Jyväskylä ja Turku). Miten tämä on mahdollista? Yliopistolaki toteaa, että "yliopistojen tulee järjestää toimintansa hyvää tieteellistä käytäntöä noudattaen". Hyvästä tieteellisestä käytännöstä ei luonnollisesti vallitse täyttä yksimielisyyttä, mutta jokunen yleisperiaate on silti ilmeinen; esimerkiksi se, että tieteen on oltava riippumatonta ulkopuolisista tekijöistä, jotka saattavat vääristää tutkimustuloksia. Toteutuuko tämä feministisessä tutkimuksessa tai feministisessä pedagogiikassa?

Noissa vastauksissa siis käsiteltiin feminististä pedagogiikkaa, joka on käytännössä lähes sama asia kuin kriittinen pedagogiikka, joillakin painotuseroilla. Wokal Distancen twitter tililtä löytyi hyvä ketju asiaan liittyen. Tässä nyt vain lainauksina, ketjussa on mukana paljon havainnollistavia kuvia.

[tweet]1282910518345252865[/tweet]

1/ Woke teachers are ruining education. This elementary teacher, who doesn't know when America was founded, says she teaches her students about leftist protesting and activism but refuses to teach the actual curriculum. a thread about how we got here:

2/ Here's another elementary school teacher saying she sees teaching as a political act and that social justice (AKA: wokeness) is the foundation of ALL learning

3/ Why do teachers like her think this? It's because professors of education in the universities and colleges of education (where teachers are trained) think what goes on in the classroom is all about politics, and have been claiming that teaching is a political act:

4/ In "The Critical Turn in Education"  Isaac gottesman, explains how leftist brought marxism into universities and radicalized the field of education in the 70's (pic 1) and then brought in Postmodern feminist ideas and critical race theory in the 80's and 90's. (pic 2)

5/ Teachers who should be teaching kids to read, write, and count, are being told to teach children Marxism, Postmodern feminism, and Critical Race Theory.

which is why teaching resources constantly talk about diversity, race, and whiteness...even for teaching MATH

6/ This all started with Paulo Freire, a Brazilian Marxist who said the purpose of education is to teach people how they are being oppressed using Marxist political theory. Having politically awareness inline with Marxist theory was what he called "critical consciousness."

7/ When Freire first wrote in the 60's and 70's his work was ignored, but in the early 80's radical scholars began to use it and Henry Giroux brought Freire's work into mainstream education colleges, particularly Freire's theory of pedagogy (method and practice of teaching)...

8/ Giroux Took Freire's ideas and in his 1985 wrote a book which he dedicated to Freire and in which he said that the central theme underlying his book was that pedagogy (teaching methods) ought to become more political. Giroux was set to politicize the classroom...

9/ But in doing so Giroux added something to the mix. When Giroux started out he was a neo-Marxist who thought the Marxist theory of teaching (that all teachers should teach according to Marxist ideology) was correct. So he says in his book "teachers as Intellectuals:

10/ Eventually Giroux makes his big move and brings postmodernism into the mix. Postmodernism said science and reason weren't objectively true, and the idea that science gives us knowledge is a thinly veiled power move meant to give power to white, western ways of thinking.

11/ Now, just in case you think that these guys are just a coupe of fringe lunatics, let me show you this: One way to measure academic influence is with citations (the number of times your work gets mentioned by other academics). The more citations, the greater the influence.

12/ So, lets compare Giroux and Freire to other famous Scholars for context
Jordan Peterson has 13,381
Isaac Newton has 27,143
Albert Einstein has 131,459
Richard Dawkins has 88,079
Charles Darwin Has 184,507

Meanwhile Paulo Freire has....𝟜𝟙𝟙,𝟡𝟠𝟘

13/ You are reading that correctly: The Marxist who said the primary goal of teaching is to bring radical left wing politics into elementary school classrooms has more citations then Albert Einstein and Charles Darwin COMBINED. Don't worry it gets worse.

14/ Once it became acceptable to bring radical politics into the classroom professors who brought wanted to bring radical politics into classrooms began to get hired all over the place.
Rochelle Gutierrez' entire career is built on bringing radical identity politics into...MATH:

15/ Not only is Rochelle Gutierrez bringing radical politics into math class, she (like Henry Giroux) doesn't think Math is objective. That means she isn't even trying to get to absolute truth and she thinks the idea that math can solve problems is a fallacy.

See for yourself:

16/ And that is how you get the creation of a college textbook that has as it's goal teaching Social justice (AKA, wokeness) during Math class.

Don't worry, it gets even worse then that

17/ Christopher Dubbs wrote a paper where he suggests, and I'm not kidding, teaching grade 5 kids to challenge the structure of marriage by appealing to race, gender, and sexuality. He also thinks "queering" math (making math queer) can provide kids with an alternative reality.

18/ That's the environment our elementary school teachers are being trained in. This is why we have teachers who won't teach the proper curriculum, instead substituting their own curriculum and teach children to be left wing activists rather then the date of America's founding

19/ Want to fight back?

Go to school board meetings, that's where policy and curriculum choices get made.
Vote/run in school board elections so you can make those choices.
ORGANIZE the other parents to help you, so there's strength in numbers

it's hard work, and it takes time

20/ Politics in the classroom is nonsense. Time to put a stop to it.

/fin

Ihan v...n uskomatonta, että tuo paska on päässyt Suomessakin leviämään näin laajalle. Nuo kulttiajatukset toistuvat kerta toisensa jälkeen niin vihavasemmistolaisten poliitikkojen, "tutkijoiden", kuin myös valtamedian toimittelijoiden kommenteissa ja kirjoituksissa. Ja kaikki perustuu PELKKÄÄN PASKAAN. Kuten Osmo Tammisalo tuossa kirjoitti: "Miten tämä on mahdollista? Yliopistolaki toteaa, että "yliopistojen tulee järjestää toimintansa hyvää tieteellistä käytäntöä noudattaen". Hyvästä tieteellisestä käytännöstä ei luonnollisesti vallitse täyttä yksimielisyyttä, mutta jokunen yleisperiaate on silti ilmeinen; esimerkiksi se, että tieteen on oltava riippumatonta ulkopuolisista tekijöistä, jotka saattavat vääristää tutkimustuloksia. Toteutuuko tämä feministisessä tutkimuksessa tai feministisessä pedagogiikassa?"

Jokaikinen järkevä henkilö ymmärtää, että ei helvetissä toteudu. Miten tuo woke-porukka sitten voi kuitenkin yliopistoissa edelleen aivopestä porukkaa mukaan tuohon hullukulttiin? No, yksi syy on tietenkin se, että Suomessa ei ole mitään tahoa, joka valvoisi sitä, että yliopistot noudattavat lakia opetuksessaan. OKV ja EOA on tässä(kin) suhteessa ihan täysiä pellevirastoja, jotka eivät sekaannu asiaan, koska kyse on "tieteestä". Olisikohan tilanne samanlainen, jos yliopistoissa kaikki opetus järjestettäisiin Mein Kampfissa esitettyjen ajatusten pohjalta? Ihan yhtä sairaasta ja vahingollisesta ideologiasta on kuitenkin kyse.

Vinkkinä muuten, että tuolta sivulta löytyy useita hyviä ketjuja CSJ-liikkeeseen liittyen:

https://twitter.com/wokal_distance/status/1304008265135611904

[zupi]

Taas yksi vähän vanhempi New Discoursin (29.9.) kirjoitus.

https://newdiscourses.com/2020/09/great-silencing-america-hallmarks-woke-totalitarianism/

The Great Silencing of America and the Hallmarks of Woke Totalitarianism

Introduction

When Francis Fukuyama wrote his seminal article, "The End of History" in 1989, in which he stated that liberal democracy would be the world's final form of governance, he was proclaiming the end of the era of competing alternative ideologies, even the end of ideology itself. Other forms of rule, especially those totalitarian forms of the left and right, had been discredited by becoming the losers of history itself, leaving liberal democracy to stand alone as the default, uncontested form. He could not have anticipated (...)

In the years following the publication of Fukuyama's article, as globalization took hold and liberal democracy transmorphed into neoliberal oligarchy (...) Thus was the way paved for the return of contending ideologies of all forms, not merely in the world but in our own country. The fall of the ideology of freedom, at the core of liberal democracy, allowed for an interpretation of American history in which representative government had failed to survive its own regressive decay and devolution into a semi-liberal, semi-authoritarian oligarchy. This, in turn, paved the way for avowedly illiberal, even more regressive ideologies antithetical to freedom, and explicitly embracing unfreedom, to rebound with great force, even in the United States.

(...) Liberal democratic America saw both communists and fascists, and many cult-like enterprises large and small, but never did any of them become so powerful as to so completely strangle the public discourse, or to so credibly demand absolute obedience to its core tenets from the entire mass populace, with such totality, as the ideology today known as Wokeness.

We argue that Wokeness is a totalitarian ideology and movement analogous to old-style Communism and Fascism, totalizing mid-century cults such as Scientology, and the present-day totalitarian Islamism of ISIS. If we are to preclude the rise of this new totalitarian form of governance in our country as the successor to the failed neoliberal oligarchical state we have now, it is necessary that we act resolutely while it is still possible to divert it from taking up the central position in our long-term individual and collective futures.

(...) While healthy, functioning democracies will automatically repel and reject them outright as preposterous and immediately relegate them to the fringes of the political discourse, in those spaces where Wokeness has taken hold, not only in the United States but throughout the Western world, we no longer have healthy, functioning democracies.

Wokeness is deep into the process of filling the void with objectives and methodologies that bear the classic hallmarks of totalitarianism. (...)

Hallmark #1: Legitimacy and Authority Based on the Arbitrary Dichotomization of the Subject Populace

Wokeness is nothing less than a project to unilaterally tear down, and to re-structure, the entirety of our human environment—this includes all society, culture, customs, ethics, and politics in the United States and across the Western world—to fall into alignment with whatever arbitrary contours it desires. What it desires is to get rid of all of Western civilization, past, present, and future, which it re-names "Whiteness"—the original sin of Woke doctrine, and to which it attaches its own re-defined adjective "racist"—and replace it with "Wokeness," characterized first and foremost by its own re-defined attribute of "anti-racist," hence, "anti-Whiteness."

These desiderata are admittedly subjective and whimsical, avowedly based on feelings and desires, placing Wokeness in alignment with a philosophically postmodern, pre-Enlightenment mindset. The Woke legions explicitly disclaim the philosophy of rational objectivity, which is denounced as a Woke-defined "racist," therefore "white" philosophy. Its linguistic architecture, lack of an individualistic leadership structure, and determination to tear down of enemy (Western civilizational and older) dichotomies (e.g., men and women) and ethical systems rely heavily on and trace back to postmodernism. As a form of poststructuralism, postmodernism abhors all fixed dichotomies and structures generally. Despite its postmodern origins, Wokeness's construction of its own rigid dichotomies and other structures contains a distinct, but borrowed, 20th-century modernist component. At the same time, its endeavor to establish its arbitrary, rigidly-structured form of governance without trying to cover up the latter's arbitrary character by asserting some basis for itself in objective rationality, as 20th-century communism, fascism, and even Scientology tried to do, is more akin to the pre-modern totalitarianism of ISIS.

Wokeness, in its arrogance and attitude of unchallengeable self-righteousness, instead of molding itself to fit the needs of Western civilization as it finds it, claims, and then exercises, the right and authority to systematically re-design it and every individual in it in whatever manner it wishes. It does not negotiate its demands of us; it simply executes them, and it does so with both a singular sense of urgency and a peculiar intensity of focus.

(...)

Historical communism, an ideology organized around a class-based dichotomy relating to the ownership of the economic means of production, placed workers in the honored group category, and the bourgeoisie, that is, capitalists and the owners of capital, in the dishonored group. Historical fascism grounded itself in race- and ethnicity-based dichotomies: Aryans constituted the honored group, Jews constituted the dishonored group, while non-Aryan foreigners were cast as inferior out-group members. ISIS, constituted on a religious dichotomy, has Sunni Muslims as its honored group, with Shi'ite Muslims, who are considered heretics, and all other disbelievers as members of dishonored groups, collectively denounced as kufar (infidels). The cult of Scientology, basing itself on a non-religious, complex, abstract belief system, holds those who accept that architecture as their own to be in the honored group and those who refuse in the dishonored group; it also explicitly requires the members of its in-group to cut all ties, even family ties, with the disbelievers beyond its invisible walls. Today, the Woke claim to authority is being constituted on the grounds of race-, color-, ethnicity-, and sex-based dichotomies, with its honored and dishonored groups constructed explicitly around them.

Therefore, whereas the classification of the populace, and the denial of equal status under the law based on ascribed categories (i.e., attributes given at birth) were in the latter stages of being phased out in the United States and the other liberal democracies as the 20th century pressed on, Wokeness, as a 21st century successor ideology, has set out to deeply re-instill them in accordance with its own self-avowedly subjective priorities. As an ideology and as a movement, it fully adheres to the totalitarian pattern of basing its core claim to authority on the coercive re-classification of the entire subject populace into its own friend/enemy compartments. We now move to a discussion of who and what are in these different compartments.

(...)

As between the racial and sexual self-identity categories, the former holds predominance (i.e., a black man will have a higher status in Wokeness than a white male-by-birth transsexual, though the latter will still enjoy the higher status within the transsexual subcategory, whereas a black man or woman will not lose any status points as compared to a similarly-pigmented transsexual). In other words, "white privilege" trumps what Wokeness terms "cis" privilege where both are at play, and as long as one has the right skin color, the sexual attribute doesn't add anything; therefore, the Woke claim to authority is ultimately based on racial classification—indeed, this is unsurprising as it mostly arose from black liberationist feminism. Wokeness also incorporates a page from Communism into its racially-based ideology: it advocates a kind of racial socialism ("racial equity"), in which wealth would be massively re-distributed along racial lines.

Where Wokeness differs from its totalitarian predecessors is in the fact that its in-groups and out-groups are not entirely synonymous with or identical to its honored and dishonored groups. The difference is as follows: honored/dishonored group membership determines the social ranking and relative status of acceptable individuals, whereas in-group/out-group membership determines the acceptability or unacceptability of the individual person in the first place, and his right to have any status at all.

Fundamentally, then, an individual's membership in the in-group, his acceptability as a human person with a right to exist, is determined not by his race or sexual self-identity but by his acceptance of the new Woke social contract. An acceptable person is defined as someone who agrees to accept, respect, cherish, and prioritize, over and above any other values he may have had before, the Woke honored group and dishonored group classifications, and to agree to re-structure all of society, and all facets of his day-to-day life, around them. In return, these individuals are granted the right to live normal lives, or what we would call "the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." This right does not exist in Wokeness by default, not even for honored group members, and consequently, individuals Wokeness deems unacceptable are not entitled to it.

(...)

Hallmark #2: An Intense Focus on Domestic Enemies

Unlike liberal democracies, totalitarian entities are characterized by an intense, unwavering focus on their declared internal (domestic) enemies, which they require in order to survive, thrive, and expand their powers. Specifically, the domestic enemies of Wokeness include, at the collective level, all dishonored group populations across the board, except those individuals among them whom Wokeness deems to be acceptable. Its highest-level enemies are those dishonored group individuals who actively and openly dissent from Woke authority, deliberately ignore or mock the mandated Woke party line, state their belief in the principles of color-blindness, free speech and association, or equal treatment under the law, or are otherwise audacious enough to proclaim these blasphemous thoughts from the rooftops, unapologetically and proudly so. Most of these people have no issue with the members of the honored groups of Wokeness per se, they just ardently disbelieve in the concept of honored and dishonored groups on its face, which for Wokeness is the highest form of crimethink.

People who express these opinions publicly with the intent to influence the views of others constitute the open dissenters from Wokeness, its dissident opposition. (...) This overt, public Unwokeness threatens Wokeness's hold on the remainder of the populace, and as such, it has to be forbidden completely: in order for Wokeness to complete its rise to power, Unwokeness, as a phenomenon, has to die.

Along these same lines, members of honored groups who publicly count themselves among the proudly Unwoke, which Wokeness would consider malicious out-group behavior—are considered traitors to Wokeness, and therefore, if the transgression is serious enough, will suffer consequences every bit as great as would any disbelieving honored group member. This makes it clear that the Woke care more about enforcing their authority than they do about honoring the individual members of honored group categories: intentional Unwoke speech or action ultimately trumps a person's honored group status. A black man in Milwaukee was executed by Woke activists for brandishing political signs supporting the wrong presidential candidate; the head of Goya Foods, of Latin American ancestry, found his company targeted by the Internet's Woke mobs for having shown up at the White House.

(...)

Neutrals from members of dishonored groups, for all intents and purposes, are placed into the enemy camp: Wokeness does not recognize, acknowledge, respect, or accept any claim of neutrality on the part of any person or group. (...) Anyone who wishes to be treated as neutral, to stay out of the fray, will find that the expectations Wokeness has of him are no different than for any other person. The would-be neutral is placed squarely into the out-group category; and if he also displays white skin coloring, he is doubly guilty, because he is also a member of a dishonored group.

(...)

Hallmark #3: Proclamation of a Complex, Ever-Changing, Mandatory Party Line

Having divided the populace into immutable honored and dishonored groups, Wokeness builds the compulsion for compliance with its preferred social hierarchies and friend/enemy classifications into everyday speech by constructing its mandatory party line script around them. This is done to force the population to speak and even think in ways that recognize, comply with, enforce, and reinforce the Woke-defined relative status, or lack thereof, of each group. Composed of myriad sets of rules, rituals, customs, and beliefs, the Woke party line stands as a grand ideological sociocultural superstructure through which Wokeness seeks to pre-determine all permissible modes of thought, speech, and interaction.

Proclaimed onto us from outside our existing political and sociocultural order, from an illegitimate, unrecognized, self-anointed authority, the party line is arbitrary, ever-intensifying, and ever-changing. It evolves in ways that allow the Woke legions to adapt, seize newly available opportunities, tighten their grip, and increase the efficiency of their enforcement mechanisms through their ongoing collective learning process. (...)

(...) Sometimes we don't even know about these revisions until they are enforced; thus we are motivated out of fear to keep ourselves constantly up to date. And since they are alien to our longstanding modes of thought, and avowedly not based in any objective rationality, there is no way for us to logically predict or infer what new absurdity will be demanded of us next.

Hallmark #4: Re-forming the Individual Based on the "New Man" Principle

In order to create conditions for the population to interact, both with one another and with the state, in accordance with Wokeness's new arbitrary human group categories, deep re-structuring of the society's self-perception is required. This starts, as it does in all totalitarian enterprises, with the deconstruction of the individual as he was and his reconstruction according to what would, in any other context, be described as the "new man" principle, thus priming him for assimilation into the Party's collective consciousness.

The "new man" approach to societal engineering starts with the presumption that the individual is unacceptable as he is and has to be reformed (that is, re-formed, which means "to form again"). The approach is then scaled up to the entire population. The compulsory re-molding of people to fit someone else's pre-determined script is illiberal on its face, incompatible with any kind of freedom or democracy. This holds doubly true for Wokeness, because its particular doctrine explicitly denounces the principle of individualism as a "racist" (enemy) form of thought. Wokeness does not want to merely break down and re-create the individual in its own image, but to explicitly de-create the individual's notion of individuality itself.

This tearing down of the individual as he was is accomplished by climbing inside the human mind and using each person's emotions and morality, together with various forms of coercion, to convince him that he needs to be re-molded. The ultimate aim is the erasure of any previously-held beliefs and the inscription into the mind of the approved script in their place. Once the slate of the mind has been cleared, indoctrination is pumped in, and the person is re-educated into the Woke self-concept, using propaganda and brainwashing, backed by a self-declared claim of moral authority and a credible threat of existential consequences for non-compliance. The subsequent carrying out by the "new man" of whatever approved script applies to his group classification represents the real-world enactment of the re-ordered set of priorities imposed from outside.

Wokeness shares with other totalitarian movements a propensity to focus sharply on the indoctrination of young people, especially the very young: children and young people are blank slates, and hence, the hard work of erasing longstanding modes of thought is not required. Consequently, Wokeness is being deeply and aggressively injected into the educational curriculum at all levels. Having escaped the university, it made a beeline directly into the K-12 school system, to the point where a great deal of the standard curriculum for all schoolchildren in the United States is now completely structured around and endowed with substance in accordance with the absurdities contained within the indoctrination protocol. The movement even has its own youth groups for honored group children, which are strictly dedicated to the inculcation of Woke ideology and include participation in Woke-sanctioned marches and demonstrations.

In adult communities, Woke re-education, which comes in the form of seminars and "training" sessions in the workplace, includes mental abuse and gaslighting of members of dishonored groups. (...)

Hallmark #5: The Emergence of the Atmospheric Fear Layer

Anyone who has ever been in a totalitarian country, including this author, who has spent considerable time in a number of them, will keenly remember the existence of a layer of tension that is always present, not in the background, but in the foreground. The vibe of baseline tension permeates to the core atmosphere of the interhuman environment, not just in certain kinds of interactions, but in all of them, on a collective, societywide basis. It is created by the background existence of the totalitarian authority, its ever-watchful eyes, the pervasiveness of its enforcements, and the severity of its punishments. It forces every person, every time he steps out of his house, and sometimes even within it, i.e., around his own children, and especially around his computer, to mind the integrity of the compartment between his free internal thoughts that live inside his head and his unfree external behavior out in the world. It requires every person, as he conducts his normal daily interactions with others, to always take great care with every word or silence, every action or non-action, to hew correctly and with sufficient enthusiasm to the mandated party line.

(...)

When everyone is walking eggshells not some of the time, but all of the time, when everyone is afraid of making a mistake, of speaking the wrong word or not speaking the right one, of forgetting to say something when it is required, or of inadvertently doing or saying anything that could be interpreted, correctly or incorrectly, as a "microaggression" against a Woke disciple or any member of an honored group, this is the sort of material out of which the totalitarian fear layer is brought into existence. Every active dissenter from Wokeness feels its tensile force already, whether consciously or subconsciously, in the rapidly increasing tightness of the demands this alien doctrine is now imposing on us, and the life-altering consequences of non-compliance with or ignorance of Woke expectations. There will come a time when its presence will be undeniable, when the entire population, even the most naive and politically inexperienced, will come to experience it for the first time. At that point, as Wokeness enters the mature phase of its development, it will fast be approaching the peak of its powers, and all but impossible to oppose or defeat.

The emergence of the fear layer, concurrently with the sudden irruption of Woke doctrines and enforcement protocols into the mainstream of public life, confirms beyond any doubt that Wokeness as a movement is not consent-based, it is power-based. Its authority is not requested, demanded, or solicited; it is imposed. Submission to its rules and repetitive declarations of allegiance and adherence to it are absolutely compulsory and are a part of the movement's ritual. Power is exclusive to the Woke, but that power may be rescinded from any person at any moment, on any arbitrary basis, especially from members of dishonored groups.

Hallmark #6: The Cancellation of Public Discourse and Conscientious Objection

Those who are sufficiently Awake to the fact of Woke power in the here and now can see that at the level of both people and ideas, it's purge night in America. Purging is purification: Wokeness is collectivist, and Wokeness itself represents the new Collective its in-groups are building. The right to dissent, in contrast, belongs to an individualist value system (...)

To achieve full power, and to signify the passing and death of the country slated for cancellation, Wokeness would have to become capable of officially retiring the American flag and national anthem from all public institutions, buildings, venues, and events, just as it has already retired American history and Western civilization from the greater part of our children's classrooms. It is already trying to re-structure America's founding date around its own categories (i.e., through its 1619 Project), and weaken our national holidays (e.g., Columbus Day, Fourth of July) with a view to ultimately replacing them, and so forth, in order to artificially place their honored/dishonored group classifications at the center of our national memory. A country emptied of its established history is not a country; such a country will find that its once-cherished monuments celebrating that history will automatically take on the features of zombie symbols and become even easier to pull down than they are already.

(...)

The purge extends from the realm of American values, symbols, and laws to actual living people who do not wish to live under the Woke value system or be subject to its social contract. Central to Wokeness's totalitarian form, even prior to having taken official power of the country itself, is its conduct of active human purges, that is, search and destroy missions against the lives of individuals it deems unacceptable, and against the basic rights of people it has assigned to dishonored group categories.

Today, instead of the unacceptable individual being condemned to a lifetime of forced labor in a gulag or a re-education camp, or forever disappeared by the secret police, he is handed a life sentence of "cancellation." (...)

Wokeness purges disobedience not only from the national discourse, but from any participation in social, cultural, economic, and political life at all. In most cases, it doesn't resort to the crude tools of direct physical violence, but instead wields the power of the torch-bearing mob—combined with the silencing levers of the Woke Silicon Valley technology elite—against its victims individually. No single person acting alone could hope to defend himself from the oncoming tidal wave populated by the small contributions of so many people to his demise. Thus is the energy of the Woke Internet mob actively mobilized and leveraged to deny the unacceptable person not only the right to participate in the public discourse, but also the permission to earn a living, by also targeting his employer with accusations of guilt by association. Cancelled individuals and their associates are not entitled, in the judgement of Wokeness, to the right to live a normal and peaceful life free from threats or acts of economic sanction, bodily injury, or death.

(...)

Cancellation may not be physically painful or terminal, but its finality is just as great and its objective is the same as it was for the totalitarians of times past; it is simply more refined and requires fewer resources, while being just as effective in accomplishing its goal. The objective in all cases is to silence and excommunicate unacceptable individuals from society and the economy so they cannot enjoy the legitimacy of their own existence, the credibility of their views, or the ability to influence others. This has the effect of appearing to make the speaking of unacceptable thought realistically impossible, and of effectively deterring others from adopting a position of dissent. However, in a number of European countries, Wokeness has also gained a level of influence over the state such that people are being sent to jail for exhibiting Unwokeness in public. Because the First Amendment to the US Constitution is already in its crosshairs, similar penal outcomes for unacceptable speech would clearly be forthcoming in a future United States of Woke.

(...)

Tämä on vedetty nimimerkillä / salanimellä, mutta artikkelin mukaan kirjoittaja on

formerly a professor at a major Western university, holds a Ph.D. in Philosophy, and as an intellectual generalist, is peer-review published in several separate fields of study that would fall within both the humanities and the hard sciences. The author is also world-travelled and multilingual, having spent time in more than two dozen countries; this includes both democratic countries and others that are universally recognized as authoritarian or totalitarian.

Paikoitellen ehkä vähän sakeaa, mutta suurimmasta osasta olen kyllä täysin samaa mieltä. Tuo on mielestäni erityisen "hauska" pointti, että woken kaltaisten totalitarististen ideologioiden leviämisen on mahdollistanut länsimaissa yleistynyt superrikkaiden globalistien harvainvalta. Ja sitten wokeliikkeen aallonharjalla ratsastaa juuri tämä sama poppoo, go figure...

[zupi]

Kovasti peukkua tällaisille ihmisille.

https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/i-refuse-to-stand-by-while-my-students

I Refuse to Stand By While My Students Are Indoctrinated
Children are afraid to challenge the repressive ideology that rules our school. That's why I am.
   
I am a teacher at Grace Church High School in Manhattan. Ten years ago, I changed careers when I discovered how rewarding it is to help young people explore the truth and beauty of mathematics. I love my work.

As a teacher, my first obligation is to my students. But right now, my school is asking me to embrace "antiracism" training and pedagogy that I believe is deeply harmful to them and to any person who seeks to nurture the virtues of curiosity, empathy and understanding.   

"Antiracist" training sounds righteous, but it is the opposite of truth in advertising. (...)

I know that by attaching my name to this I'm risking not only my current job but my career as an educator, since most schools, both public and private, are now captive to this backward ideology. But witnessing the harmful impact it has on children, I can't stay silent.

My school, like so many others, induces students via shame and sophistry to identify primarily with their race before their individual identities are fully formed. Students are pressured to conform their opinions to those broadly associated with their race and gender and to minimize or dismiss individual experiences that don't match those assumptions. The morally compromised status of "oppressor" is assigned to one group of students based on their immutable characteristics. In the meantime, dependency, resentment and moral superiority are cultivated in students considered "oppressed."

All of this is done in the name of "equity," but it is the opposite of fair. In reality, all of this reinforces the worst impulses we have as human beings: our tendency toward tribalism and sectarianism that a truly liberal education is meant to transcend.

(...) I was informed by the head of the high school that my philosophical challenges had caused "harm" to students, given that these topics were "life and death matters, about people's flesh and blood and bone." I was reprimanded for "acting like an independent agent of a set of principles or ideas or beliefs." And I was told that by doing so, I failed to serve the "greater good and the higher truth."

He further informed me that I had created "dissonance for vulnerable and unformed thinkers" and "neurological disturbance in students' beings and systems." The school's director of studies added that my remarks could even constitute harassment.

(...)

They report that, in their classes and other discussions, they must never challenge any of the premises of our "antiracist" teachings, which are deeply informed by Critical Race Theory. (...)

Every student at the school must also sign a "Student Life Agreement," which requires them to aver that "the world as we understand it can be hard and extremely biased," that they commit to "recognize and acknowledge their biases when we come to school, and interrupt those biases," and accept that they will be "held accountable should they fall short of the agreement." A recent faculty email chain received enthusiastic support for recommending that we "'officially' flag students" who appear "resistant" to the "culture we are trying to establish."

When I questioned what form this resistance takes, examples presented by a colleague included "persisting with a colorblind ideology," "suggesting that we treat everyone with respect," "a belief in meritocracy," and "just silence." In a special assembly in February 2019, our head of school said that the impact of words and images perceived as racist — regardless of intent — is akin to "using a gun or a knife to kill or injure someone."

Imagine being a young person in this environment. Would you risk voicing your doubts, especially if you had never heard a single teacher question it?

(...)

The head of school responded to me that "people like (Glenn) Loury's lived experience—and therefore his derived social philosophy" made him an exception to the rule that black thinkers acknowledge structural racism as the paramount impediment in society. He added that "the moment we are in institutionally and culturally, does not lend itself to dispassionate discussion and debate," and discussing Loury's ideas would "only confuse and/or enflame students, both those in the class and others that hear about it outside of the class." He preferred I assign "mainstream white conservatives," effectively denying black students the opportunity to hear from a black professor who holds views that diverge from the orthodoxy pushed on them.

(...)

My administration says that these constraints on discourse are necessary to shield students from harm. But it is clear to me that these constraints serve primarily to shield their ideology from harm — at the cost of students' psychological and intellectual development.

(...)

I am extremely proud to publish this piece by Paul Rossi. If you are a teacher who finds yourself in a similar situation; if you want to speak out but are afraid to risk your job; if you believe that political indoctrination has no place in schools, Paul would love to hear from you.

Write to him at: [email protected]

Jotenkin jäi mieleen tämä kohta:

our head of school said that the impact of words and images perceived as racist — regardless of intent — is akin to "using a gun or a knife to kill or injure someone.

Verratkaa Vantaan Persujen puheenjohtajan kommenttiin:

On täysin yhdentekevää mitä kirjoittaja on tarkoittanut tai ajaa takaa kirjoituksellaan, jos kirjoituksen kohteeksi joutunut/joutuneet kokevat itsensä loukatuiksi!

https://hommaforum.org/index.php/topic,131828.msg3293475.html#msg3293475

Missä harja?

[zupi]

Jälleen tämä lyhyenä pohjustuksena:

https://journal.fi/kasvatusjaaika/article/view/84816/47404

Miksi meidän kaikkien pitäisi olla feministisiä pedagogeja

Tietokirjoituksissa käydään läpi feministisen pedagogiikan taustaa: teoreettisen perustan
nähdään nivoutuvan Paulo Freiren ajatteluun ja sosiaalista oikeudenmukaisuutta tavoittelevaan
kriittiseen pedagogiikkaan. (...)

Alla Rufon uusin kirjoitus, josta käy hyvin ilmi se, mistä tuossa Freiren ajattelussa ja kriittisessä / feministisessä pedagogiikassa on pohjimmiltaan kyse. Ja tätä ihan samaa nämä hihhulit tunkevat siis yliopistoihin ja kouluihin myös täällä Suomessa.

Merchants of Revolution
California's ethnic studies initiatives train children in Marxist theory—and opposition to the American system.

California public schools are embarking on a new experiment: education as social justice. (...)

This will likely come as a surprise to most California residents, who may be familiar with the movement's euphemisms—"ethnic studies," "educational equity," "culturally responsive teaching"—but do not understand the philosophical and political premises of these programs. As the state and many school districts begin to implement the state ethnic studies curriculum, however, details are emerging.

(...) The leaders, including district staff, an advisor for the state Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum, and a professor from San Jose State University, encouraged teachers to inject left-wing politics into the classroom and to hide controversial materials from parents.

(...)

Next, Jorge Pacheco, president of the California Latino School Boards Association and advisor for the state Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum, presented the movement's conceptual framework. Pacheco explained that the ethnic studies curriculum is based on the work of Brazilian Marxist Paulo Freire, who invented the concept of the "pedagogy of the oppressed," which holds that students must be educated to understand their oppression and develop the practical skills, or "praxis," to challenge and eventually overthrow their oppressors. Pacheco acknowledged that the Marxist underpinnings to ethnic studies "scare people away" but insisted that teachers must be "grounded in the correct politics to educate students."

(...)

What is the solution? Pacheco argues that teachers must "awaken [students] to the oppression" and lead them to "decodify" and eventually "destroy" the dominant political regime. (...) Pacheco describes this process as transforming students into "activist intellectuals" who "decodify systems of oppression" into their component parts, including "white supremacy, patriarchy, classism, genocide, private property, and God."

Teachers must be careful, though: Pacheco and the other panelists suggested that local educators hide this revolutionary pedagogy from administrators and families. "District guidelines and expectations are barriers," said one panelist. "[We] have to be extra careful about what is being said, since we can't just say something controversial now that we're in people's homes [because of remote learning]." (...)

The goal, according to the presenters, is to "develop, pilot, and refine an adaptable and scalable Ethnic Studies program design plan and curriculum that can serve as standalone courses or be integrated into core content areas." This is already happening. Last month, the California Department of Education approved the statewide curriculum, which will bring the "pedagogy of the oppressed" to schools throughout the state. But for the movement's leaders, the goal is to go further. At the end of the presentation in Santa Clara, Pacheco argued that schools should start transforming children into "activist intellectuals," beginning in first grade. "[It's] never too young," he said, arguing that educators should be "cashing in on kids' inherent empathy" in order to reshape their ideological foundations.

This is a dystopian project. As these pedagogical theories make their way into the classroom, California schools will be teaching millions of children to hate their own country. They will be oriented toward the work of "decolonizing," "deconstructing," and "dismantling" their own society. The ethnic studies activists grasp the destabilizing nature of their project—and believe that it provides them leverage for their broader political ends. During the Santa Clara presentation, Pacheco and the other instructors provided the audience with a handout quoting Freire: "Critical consciousness, they say, is anarchic. Others add that critical consciousness may lead to disorder. Some, however, confess: Why deny it? I was afraid of freedom. I am no longer afraid!" Though they are coy about their ultimate intention, the ethnic studies activists seek, at a minimum, a moral revolution—and, out of such tumults, political revolutions often follow.

California voters may not realize it, but they have installed a radical movement in the state educational bureaucracy.

https://www.city-journal.org/california-ethnic-studies-programs-merchants-of-revolution

Samoja asioita twiittiketjussa:

[tweet]1382090908284297219[/tweet]

[zupi]

Greenwald laskettelee siitä tosiasta, että kunhan nykyisin julkisesti vain julistaa woke-uskontoa, niin muuten voi sitten puuhastella ihan mitä tahansa. Kukaan ei välitä. Ja myös siitä, miten valtaeliitti käyttää tällä tavoin woke-kulttia demokratian tuhoamiseen. Mitä nyt woke-kulttikin luonnollisesti myös tavoittelee. Demokratiakin kun on jokin valkoisen patriarkaatin kehittelemä juoni vähemmistöjen sortamiseksi...

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/big-corporations-now-deploying-woke

Big Corporations Now Deploying Woke Ideology the Way Intelligence Agencies Do: As a Disguise
      
(...)

The British spy agency GCHQ is so aggressive, extreme and unconstrained by law or ethics that the NSA — not exactly world renowned for its restraint — often farms out spying activities too scandalous or illegal for the NSA to their eager British counterparts. (...)

But they want you to know that they absolutely adore gay people. In fact, they love the cause of LGBT equality so very much that, beginning on May 17, 2015 — International Day against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia — they started draping their creepy, UFO-style headquarters in the colors of the rainbow flag. The prior year, in 2014, they had merely raised the rainbow flag in front of their headquarters, but in 2015, they announced, "we wanted to make a bold statement to show the nation we serve how strongly we believe in this."

Who could possibly be opposed to an institution that offers such noble gestures and works behind such a pretty facade? How bad could the GCHQ really be if they are so deeply committed to the rights of gay men, lesbians, bisexuals and trans people? (...)

Again, this does not make the CIA perfect — sure, they make some mistakes and engage in some actions that are worthy of criticism — but to combat real evil, you do not go protest at Langley. They are engaged in important work combating homophobia, racism and misogyny. Thus, real warriors against evil look not to them but instead go searching online for the Boogaloo Boys and boomers on Facebook who post Q-Anon and other problematic memes. That is where your focus should remain if you want to root out the real threats.

Large corporations have obviously witnessed the success of this tactic — to prettify the face of militarism and imperialism with the costumes of social justice — and are now weaponizing it for themselves. As a result, they are becoming increasingly aggressive in their involvement in partisan and highly politicized debates, always on the side of the same causes of social justice which entities of imperialism and militarism have so effectively co-opted.

Corporations have always sought to control the legislative process and executive branch, usually with much success. (...)

But they are now going far beyond clandestine corporatist control of the government for their own interests. They are now becoming increasingly powerful participants in highly polarizing and democratic debates. In the wake of the George Floyd killing last summer, it became virtually obligatory for every large corporation to proclaim support for the #BlackLivesMatter agenda even though many, if not most, had never previously evinced the slightest interest in questions of racial justice or policing.

One of the very few companies that refused to do so was the Silicon Valley-based cryptocurrency exchange platform called Coinbase (...) And exactly two months after, the notoriously censorious and politicized "tech reporters" of The New York Times punished the company for its heresy of neutrality with a lengthy article depicting Coinbase as a bastion of racism and toxic bigotry (...)

Ever since, large corporations are diving into numerous other political debates with great vigor and force (...) The Wall Street Journal on Sunday reported that "dozens of chief executives and other senior leaders gathered on Zoom this weekend to plot what several said big businesses should do next about new voting laws under way in Texas and other states." The campaign against these laws includes not just corporate giants but also the nation's largest and richest corporate law firms.

(...) "Wall Street is putting its money behind Democrat Barack Obama for president," reported Reuters in 2008, while they did the same overwhelmingly in 2020 to support Biden over Trump (just as Democrats have increasingly become the party of affluent suburbanites, they are also increasingly supported by the wealthiest corporate and tech power centers).

The farcical nature of all of this is obvious. Just as it is laughable that the CIA and GCHQ care about social justice, feminism, and racial diversity as they bomb and subvert the rest of the world in ways that contradict all of those professed values, the idea that corporate giants who use sweatshops, slave labor, mass layoffs and abuse of their workforce care about any of these causes would make any rational person suffocate on the stench of their insincerity.

(...) when giant corporations use their unparalleled economic power to override that process — by forcing state and local governments to rescind or reject laws they would otherwise support due to fear of corporate punishment — then the system, by definition, far more resembles an oligarchy than a democracy. Rod Dreher, writing on Monday in The American Conservative, advanced arguments and concerns that were once the province of the left:

    This is progressive oligarchy. Woke Capitalism is a threat to democracy. As I write about in Live Not By Lies, these same people are eventually going to eagerly collaborate with government to create the Social Credit System necessary to make this country controllable.

    When is it going to occur to people on the Left that Big Business is doing all this because it knows that if it makes the right moves on cultural issues that matter to the Woke, it will be able to do whatever it wants to workers? (...)

(...)

[Urban Moving Systems]

Sopinee tähän ketjuun parhaiten.
[tweet]1382728921905459201[/tweet]

[migri]

Ehkä sopii tähän ketjuun miten Papa Johns CEO yritettiin leimata rasistiksi.

Papa John's founder claims he was framed
Forme Papa John's CEO John Schnatter on the conspiracy to oust him from the company, PR firm allegedly 'framed' him, the inclusion of notable figures and more - via Newsmax TV's 'American Agenda'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sR8MWAemO8k

[Larva]

Eihän tämä wokeismi ole mikään uusi asia. Mietin aikani ja keksin lopulta miksi se kuulostaa niin tutulta.

Kun olin lapsi ja ala-asteella, meidän luokalla oli muutama rikkaan perheen pissistyttö, jotka käytännössä määrittelivät sen mitä mieltä muut luokan tytöt saivat mistäkin asiasta olla ja mistä he saivat tykätä. Jos ei totellut heidän oikkujaan, joutui hyvin nopeasti paitsioon ja luokan hylkiöksi mm. ilkeilyn ja selän takana paskan puhumisen avulla.

Tämähän siis toteutui seuraavasti:

Vuoden alussa "Sanna" tykkäsi Backstreet Boysista, inhosi makaronilaatikkoa ja rakasti Leviksiä ja vihasi violettia väriä. Silloin sun oli myös parasta tykätä Backstreet Boysista, paitsi siitä Nickistä, jota "Sanna" rakasti, koska jos tykkäsit siitä niin yritit viedä sen "Sannalta". Sun piti myös inhota makaronilaatikkoa ja violettia väriä. Sait pitää Leviksiä, jos olit "Sannan" bestis, muuten jos pidit Leviksiä yritit matkia "Sannan" tyyliä, ja siis sehän on ala-asteikäisten tyttöjen mielestä suunnilleen kuolemansynti.

Maaliskuussa sitten "Sanna" inhosi Backstreet Boysia ja rakasti nyt vihreää väriä ja oli alkanutkin pitää Adidaksen nappiverkkareita Levisten sijaan. Jos pidit yhä Leviksiä, et voinut enää olla "Sannan" kaveri, koska Levikset oli out. Jos et ollut hänen kaverinsa ja sulla oli nappiverkkarit, olit taas matkija, ja sut piti haukkua kaikille. Vihreästä väristä toki sait pitää, kaikkihan rakastaa vihreää väriä kuten "Sanna". Paitsi touokuussa, kun "Sanna" yhtäkkiä vihasi vihreää ja rakasti keltaista. Mutta et silloinkaan saanut tykätä keltaisesta väristä jos et ollut oikeissa piireissä eli "Sannan" bestis. Makaronilaatikostakin oli yhtäkkiä tullut herkkua, paitsi jos joku väärä tyttö sanoi että heillä oli eilen makaronilaatikkoa, "Sanna" haukkui heti kyseisen ruokalajin maan rakoon.

Toukokuussa "Sanna" sanoi että pitsa oli maailman parasta ruokaa ja XL5 oli ihan paras bändi ja vaan ääliöt tykkää Backstreet Boysista. Ja taas sininen väri oli ihanin. Ja luokan tytöt huusivat kuorossa hallelujaa, paitsi minä, jonka mielipiteet olivat pysyneet suht samoina koko vuoden ja joka ei nähnyt mitään järkeä muutella niitä sen mukaan mitä mieltä "Sanna" oli. Niinpä "Sanna" kavereineen alkoi levitellä juoruja ja kääntää muita tyttöjä minua ja muutamaa muuta päänsä pitänyttä tyttöä vastaan. Pian kukaan ei uskaltanut edes puhua meille, koska "Sannan" kosto olisi ollut kauhea.

Elämä tällaisessa ympäristössä oli todella stressaavaa, kun ikinä ei tiennyt, mistä sai kuulla kunniansa. Ne sosiaaliset säännöt, mitkä pätivät viime viikolla, eivät olleetkaan enää kuukauden päästä voimassa, tai olivat peräti kiepsahtaneet ympäri. Jos oli itse aina käyttänyt farkkuja siinä missä muut tytöt vaikka verkkareita, niin kun suosittu tyttö ihastui yhtäkkiä Leviksiin, sai kuulla olevansa säälittävä matkija. Jos tykkäsit bändistä X tänään ja se oli muiden tyttöjen mielestä kivaa tai ihan ok, niin huomenna bändi X olikin ihan jäätävää roskaa, samoin sinäkin koska tykkäsit siitä. Elämä oli kuin pesukone joka linkoaa viiden minuutin välein.

Luulin tällaisen ajattelu- ja toimintatavan jääneen taakse, kun tytöt täyttivät 12 ja pääsivät pois ala-asteelta. Mutta huomaan, että se ei suinkaan ole jäänyt sinne ala-asteelle, vaan se on tehnyt paluun nimenomaan nykyisten parikymppisten naisten kohdalla. Tänään saat olla tätä mieltä, paitsi jos olet tällainen ja tuollainen. Huomenna sun pitää ola ihan eri mieltä, paitsi jos olet tuollainen ja tällainen. Ja jos olet XYZ niin sun pitää olla hiljaa, paitsi että anteeksi saat pyytää, siis olemassaoloasi. Säännöt muuttuvat koko ajan ja mistään ei voi olla varma mitä saa sanoa ja mitä mieltä olla seuraavana päivänä, seuraavalla viikolla.

Wokeismi ei ole mitään muuta kuin pikkutyttöjen oikuttelevaa mielivaltaa.

[akez]

The farcical nature of all of this is obvious. Just as it is laughable that the CIA and GCHQ care about social justice, feminism, and racial diversity as they bomb and subvert the rest of the world in ways that contradict all of those professed values, the idea that corporate giants who use sweatshops, slave labor, mass layoffs and abuse of their workforce care about any of these causes would make any rational person suffocate on the stench of their insincerity.

Tuosta tulee mieleen Tiktokissa taannoin näkemäni videopätkä, jonka tekstit menivät jotenkin seuraavasti.

We kill muslims in Afganistan.
We kill muslims in Irak.
We kill muslims in Syria.

Then, why are we now so concerned about human rights of muslims in Xinjiang, China?

Tuohon kun miettii vastausta, niin oivaltanee paljon tämän maailman todellisesta menosta ja erinäisten motiivien luonteesta.

[zupi]

Kovasti peukkua tällaisille ihmisille.

https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/i-refuse-to-stand-by-while-my-students

I Refuse to Stand By While My Students Are Indoctrinated
Children are afraid to challenge the repressive ideology that rules our school. That's why I am.
   
(...)

My administration says that these constraints on discourse are necessary to shield students from harm. But it is clear to me that these constraints serve primarily to shield their ideology from harm — at the cost of students' psychological and intellectual development.

(...)

(...)

Ja niinhän siinä sitten kävi... Woke hallitsee pelolla, vaikka tietenkin ovat hyviä ihmisiä kaikki.

[tweet]1384198983443095553[/tweet]

Re: An Update and a Parent Communication
From:
Paul Rossi
Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 10:54 AM
To:
George P. Davison

Dear George,

I am writing in response to the letter that you sent over the weekend to my colleagues. Grace's public story — the story it is telling to the press and to its own community — has been very different from what you have told me. In light of your statement that my essay "contains glaring omissions and inaccuracies," and in support of those who will inevitably be scared into silence by seeing the price I am now paying for speaking up, I am compelled to share what you have told me in our previous conversations.

In the letter, you reaffirm that Grace's "commitment to antiracism is consistent with our identity and mission" and that "it has been at the heart of our work for years."

I believe that you share my desire to ensure that racism does not mar the experience of students at Grace. But, like me, you also expressed "grave doubts about some of the doctrinaire stuff that gets spouted at us, in the name of antiracism." When I told you "they're fighting a revolution" and "will hollow out Grace and move on to the next institution," you acknowledged that "they've hollowed out a bunch of other ones ahead of us."

You write that you "find it regrettable that Paul Rossi chose to air his grievances with the school in the press."

But as you well know, speaking publicly about this was hardly my first choice. Over the course of several years, I have made my specific concerns clear, not only to you, but to the Head of High School, and the Assistant Head. These concerns centered on the impact of this doctrinaire ideology on our students. Even when I have simply tried to expose our students to alternative points of view in the classroom, I have been repeatedly shut down. The school's response to my efforts to raise these concerns internally left me no choice but to speak about them publicly.

In the letter, you say that "the wellbeing of our community is our first priority," and that Grace cares "deeply about human dignity."

And yet you admitted to me that Grace Church is, in fact, "demonizing white people for being born," and that the school is making white students "feel less than, for nothing that they are personally responsible for."

While I cannot know for certain, I suspect that the reason you have not shared these concerns with the broader Grace community is because you know exactly what happens to people who do — it is what is happening to me right now. I understand that. It is because of the fear I see in so many people, including so many of our students, that I felt compelled to speak out even though I knew I would pay a steep price for it.

I love this school and its students, and I want to see it thrive. I want to see a renewed commitment to free expression, viewpoint diversity, and true education. And I think the public and, in particular, the Grace community deserve to know that these concerns are not mine alone.

Sincerely,
Paul

https://www.fairforall.org/content/grace-church-whistleblower/dear-george-letter.pdf

Tämä menee vähän samaan sarjaan. Woke-väki canceloi Richard Dawkinsia.

[tweet]1384356882551353346[/tweet]

Kun kehtasikin mennä arvostelemaan wokea, esim. näin.

[tweet]1362060874199035904[/tweet]

Richard Dawkins FRS FRSL (born 26 March 1941)[24] is a British ethologist, evolutionary biologist, atheist thinker, and author. He is an emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford, and was the University of Oxford's Professor for Public Understanding of Science from 1995 until 2008.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins

[akez]

https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/i-refuse-to-stand-by-while-my-students

I Refuse to Stand By While My Students Are Indoctrinated
Children are afraid to challenge the repressive ideology that rules our school. That's why I am.
   
(...)

My administration says that these constraints on discourse are necessary to shield students from harm. But it is clear to me that these constraints serve primarily to shield their ideology from harm — at the cost of students' psychological and intellectual development.

(...)

Tiktokissa, tuossa verrattomassa tietolähteessä, taannoin eräs jenkki kertoi, että heillä alkaa olla jo koko maailman paskin koulujärjestelmä. Kukaan ei opi enää mitään. Ilman aivoimporttia Aasiasta koko talous ja yhteiskunta alkaisi kellahtaa nurin.

Tuohon kun lisää vielä koululaitoksen politisoimisen Maon malliin, niin siinä ei kohta kunnian kukko laula enää kenellekään.

Jos tuo "paskin koulujärjestelmä" pitää kutinsa, niin se on silloin yksi indikaatio lisää siitä, että Länsi on parhaillaan romahtamassa omiin typeryyksiinsä. Jenkkien tulevaisuuskin on pian kiinni pakistanilaisista insinööreistä ja vastaavista. Kohta eivät enää lentele kuuhun.

[qwerty]

Sopinee ketjun jatkoksi.
[tweet]1384498334157705220[/tweet]

2021-04-19 United Nations Human Rights Council

Stunningly, the Report also claims that, while there might be overt acts of racism in the UK, there is no institutional racism. The Report offers no evidence for this claim

We urge the British government to categorically reject the findings of the Report

Kenen antamilla valtaoikeuksilla nuo määräilevät miten itsenäisen valtion tulisi toimia?

Johnsonina erottaisin Britannian lähipäivinä jostain YK:n vähemmän tunnetusta hillotolppatehtaasta

[zupi]

(...)
Tiktokissa, tuossa verrattomassa tietolähteessä, taannoin eräs jenkki kertoi, että heillä alkaa olla jo koko maailman paskin koulujärjestelmä. Kukaan ei opi enää mitään. (...)

Oppiihan ne sen, MITÄ pitää ajatella. Thomas Sowell 11 vuotta sitten:

Artificial Stupidity

(...)

People are all born ignorant but they are not born stupid. Much of the stupidity we see today is induced by our educational system, from the elementary schools to the universities. In a high-tech age that has seen the creation of artificial intelligence by computers, we are also seeing the creation of artificial stupidity by people who call themselves educators.

Educational institutions created to pass on to the next generation the knowledge, experience and culture of the generations that went before them have instead been turned into indoctrination centers to promote whatever notions, fashions or ideologies happen to be in vogue among today's intelligentsia.

(...)

It was once the proud declaration of many educators that "We are here to teach you how to think, not what to think." But far too many of our teachers and professors today are teaching their students what to think, about everything from global warming to the new trinity of "race, class and gender."

Even if all the conclusions with which they indoctrinate their students were 100 percent correct, that would still not be equipping students with the mental skills to weigh opposing views for themselves, in order to be prepared for new and unforeseeable issues that will arise over their lifetimes, after they leave the schools and colleges.

Many of today's "educators" not only supply students with conclusions, they promote the idea that students should spring into action because of these prepackaged conclusions-- in other words, vent their feelings and go galloping off on crusades, without either a knowledge of what is said by those on the other side or the intellectual discipline to know how to analyze opposing arguments.

When we see children in elementary schools out carrying signs in demonstrations, we are seeing the kind of mindless groupthink that causes adults to sign petitions they don't understand or-- worse yet-- follow leaders they don't understand, whether to the White House, the Kremlin or Jonestown.

A philosopher once said that the most important knowledge is knowledge of one's own ignorance. That is the knowledge that too many of our schools and colleges are failing to teach our young people.

(...) our classroom indoctrinators are getting students to think that they know after hearing only one side of an issue. It is artificial stupidity.

https://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2010/03/10/artificial-stupidity-n1362269

[Lalli IsoTalo]

Oppiihan ne sen, MITÄ pitää ajatella. Thomas Sowell 11 vuotta sitten:

Artificial Stupidity
Much of the stupidity we see today is induced by our educational system, from the elementary schools to the universities. In a high-tech age that has seen the creation of artificial intelligence by computers, we are also seeing the creation of artificial stupidity by people who call themselves educators.

Tästä on oma ketjunsa Hommassa 10 vuoden takaa. Ketjussa 153 poistausta, mutta ekalta sivulta ilmenee suuri osa oleellisuuksista.

Miksi kouluista on tullut haitallisten mokuarvojen tyrkyttäjiä?
28.08.2011
https://hommaforum.org/index.php/topic,56819.msg767128.html#msg767128

Hyvin pitkä postaus, sisältö:

I.   Miksi valtio haluaa kontrolloida koulutusta?
II.  Institutionalisointia kehdosta hautaan
III. Kollektiivinen yhteiskunta tarvitsee kollektiivisti koulutetut kansalaiset
IV.  Koulutus on tehokkaampi ase kuin inkvisitio
V.   Vastuuhenkilöt ja heidän motivaationsa
VI.  Toimenpidesuositukset
VII. Johtopäätös
...
Lyhyt vastaus: Eliitti edistää etujaan tuottamalla yhteiskuntaan ideologista harmoniaa valtion koulutusmonopolin avulla. Niinpä opetusohjelmiin lisätään arvojen opettamista, ja niistä vähennetään sekä itsenäisen ajattelun että hyödyllisten taitojen (matematiikka, kielioppi jne) opettamista.
...
Tehtävä on yksinkertainen: tyhmennä massat sellaiselle tasolle, että ne eivät kyseenalaista epäinhimillistä työtään korporaatioissa, eivätkä etenkään aloita omia bisneksiä, joista olisi uhkaa tai haittaa eliitille.
...
    A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude. To make them love it is the task assigned, in present-day totalitarian states, to ministries of propaganda, newspaper editors and schoolteachers.... The greatest triumphs of propaganda have been accomplished, not by doing something, but by refraining from doing. Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth.

– Aldous Huxley, forward to "Brave New World," 1946 edition

Kuinka koulut tyrkyttävät haitallisia mokuarvoja?

Opetusohjelman mukaisesti.

Voimassa olevassa opetusohjelmassa puolestaan todetaan, että "perusopetuksen arvopohjana ovat ihmisoikeudet, tasa-arvo, demokratia, luonnon monimuotoisuuden ja ympäristön elinkelpoisuuden säilyttäminen sekä monikulttuurisuuden hyväksyminen."

-- http://www.kaleva.fi/uutiset/rasismi-kitketaan-tyvesta/907524

[zupi]

[tweet]1385285353372803073[/tweet]

Surviving Communism - A conversation with Lily Tang Williams
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2scuzUTh9o

"The typical tactic of communist marxists, is they want to install hate into your brain."

Mistä pienellä projektoinnilla päädytäänkin esim. "vihapuheen torjuntaan".

[zupi]

Woke-väki on niiiin väsyneitä... Tuo "do the work" sanontakin on aika vahvasti esillä tällä hetkellä (https://hommaforum.org/index.php/topic,130391.msg3300198.html#msg3300198).

[tweet]1385416352320483329[/tweet]

The phrase "I'M SO EXHAUSTED" in upper class intellectual professions comes from Social Justice activism and belongs to the same constellation of concepts as:

-emotional labor
-do the work
-triggered
-trauma
-self-care
-white fragility

So, "I'm so exhausted":

A Thread

When upper-class professionals performatively say "I'm so exhausted" they aren't saying "I did lot of physical labor today and now I'm tired"

The "exhausted" in the phrase "I'm so exhausted" is  exhaustion in terms of what woke Social Justice activists call *EMOTIONAL LABOR*

Once we know what "emotional labor" is explaining why people say "I'm so exhausted" will be simple

"Emotional labor" originally referred to having to manage one's emotions in a particular way as a part of one's work requirements

IE: being required to be polite to customers

This idea was pulled from it's original context and the meaning was expanded to include every day social interactions. Thus "emotional labor" was used to analyze the effort required to manage emotions, both others and your own, in every day relationships and social situations.

The term "emotional labor" was then co-opted by Social Justice Activists who claimed that since society was fundamentally oppressive, oppressed minorities had to do emotional and social labor just to cope with the unjust and unfair social expectations of an oppressive society.

The idea is that society places social and emotional expectations on people which force them to engage in certain social and emotional behavior whether they want to or not. According to Social Justice Activism, keeping up with these expectations is a type of emotional labor.

IE: feminists often claim patriarchy expects women to adopt the role of home-maker; a role requiring them to be sweet and happy while managing the behavior of both themselves and children, and this is a form of emotional labor women are unjustly expected to do, uncompensated

According to woke Social Justice, the White Male Cisgendered Patriarchy has placed its emotional and social norms on everyone. This means that unless you're a White Straight Cisgendered Male you're (allegedly) doing constant emotional labor just to cope with all the oppression

This is why:
-Being black is exhausting (pic 1)
-Being a Woman is exhausting (Pic 2)
-Being a non-binary sports fan is exhausting (Pic 3)
-Being trans is exhausting (Pic 4)

And also why:
-Being fat is exhausting (pic 1)
-Being a lesbian is exhausting (Pic 2)
-Being latinx is exhausting (Pic 3)
-Being pansexual is exhausting (Pic 4)

The idea is once you "wake up" to the fact society is forcing you into white cisgendered straight male ways of emotional and social engagement, then managing the expectations society is trying to force on you while you're trying to resist them takes a lot of emotional labor.

The thing to remember is that in the woke Social Justice worldview it isn't just the expectations which are exhausting. Being "woke" to the systems of social forces that oppress you and managing the expectations of those systems adds another layer of emotional labor...

that the woke person has to do as they dismantle the systems of oppression in society. They are "saving the world" and fixing society while managing all the toxic, patriarchal emotional responses society programmed into us...and they aren't even getting paid!!!

This is why upper-class professionals claim to be "exhausted."
When an upper-class professional says "I'M SO EXHAUSTED" they are claiming to be emotionally depleted from all the work they do managing all the toxic social and emotional behavior going on around them....

Both activists and upper-class professionals claim the mantle of both the victim ("I do this for free while not being compensated and I'm being oppressed") and the hero ("I'm managing all these people's emotions while fixing society and bringing about Social Justice")

Thus being exhausted is a sign someone is:
1. aware of how society *really* works and are resisting the system unlike all you sheeple.
2. Managing the toxicity of everyone around them while fixing the oppression.

Not all heroes wear capes, but all of them are exhausted.

As such "I'M SO EXHAUSTED" serves as a signal that someone is both aware of the systemic oppression, understands it, feels the weight of it, and is resisting it while managing all the toxic not-woke people who are unconsciously spewing their non-woke toxicity everywhere...

This is why it is becoming common. If you aren't exhausted, then either you don't know whats going on (you're not woke to the system, you're asleep) or you're not resisting the oppression and fixing it... if you were, you would be exhausted....just like them.

I realize there are exceptions (IE, if someone says "I just lifted weights for three hours and I'm so exhausted" they are likely just tired) but in activist and media circles this is what is going on, and this is what it means.

Thank you for reading.

/fin

[tweet]1385465761330720771[/tweet]

Kannattaa käydä lukaisemassa tuokin. Esiin tuodaan mm. kriittinen pedagogiikka, mikä on lähes sama kuin ketjussa aiemmin käsitelty feministinen pedagogiikka, pienillä mauste-eroilla.

https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-emotional-labor/

Edit. Pakko laittaa tämä tähän mukaan. Nykyisin P-P taitaa tosiaan olla "niin väsynyt tähän jaksamiseen"...

Pulttibois Tommy Ekblom (kaikki sketsit)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceu5sJKeTfA

Ja siis vaikka tuo edellä mainittu voi tuntua toisaalta aika hauskalta, niin ei se todellakaan ole sitä. Kun tuo pähkähullu kultti-poppoo ei kaikesta "jaksamisestaan" huolimatta saa ihmisiä "herätettyä", niin he käyvät väkivaltaisiksi. Tuosta ei ole omasta mielestäni mitään epäselvyyttä. Kannattaa varautua.