Critical Social Justice / Woke-sekoilu

[Pallopääkissa]

Jos olisimme islamilaisessa kalifaatissa, siellä ei varmasti olisi wokea. Talebanin hallitsemassa Afganistanissa ei sitä ole. En nyt kuitenkaan halua kalifaattia sen takia enkä muutenkaan.

Yksi keino vastustaa wokea olisi käynnistää rinnakkaisyhteiskunta jossa pyritään siihen ettei olla riippuvaisia virallisesta yhteiskunnasta. Oma talous, oma ruokahuolto, oma energiahuolto, oma media, oma internet, oma some, omat koulut...jne

Rinnakkaisyhteiskunnan ideaa kehitettiin Tsekkoslovakiassa kommunistiaikana. Kommunistimaissa oli musta pörssi josta sai kaikkea, joten sekin oli eräs rinnakkaisyhteiskunnan ilmenemismuoto.

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

Steve Turley puhuu videoillaan usein tuosta rinnakkaisyhteiskunnasta
https://www.youtube.com/c/DrSteveTurleyTV/videos

Kotikoulujen suosio on kasvanut rajahdysmäisesti USA:ssa. Yksityiskoulujen ja kotikoulujen suosio kasvanee Suomessakin.

[Lalli IsoTalo]

Critical Social Justice. Kolmen sanan megavalhe. Kriittisyys, mitä kohtaan?

Tämä lähti liikkeelle joskus kauan, kauan aikaa sitten, ja kyseessä oli critical theory, joka oli äärikriittinen länsimaista sivistystä, tarvettä järkeä ja markkinataloutta vastaan, sekä ja kaikkea mikä on kaunista ja hyvää. Se sponsoroi hulluutta, mielivaltaa ja terrorismia, sekä kaikkea mikä on pahaa ja rumaa.

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

Tuolta löytyy salakielistä paskapuhetta aiheesta.

[zupi]

(...)

Tämä lähti liikkeelle joskus kauan, kauan aikaa sitten, ja kyseessä oli critical theory, joka oli äärikriittinen länsimaista sivistystä, tarvettä järkeä ja markkinataloutta vastaan, sekä ja kaikkea mikä on kaunista ja hyvää. Se sponsoroi hulluutta, mielivaltaa ja terrorismia, sekä kaikkea mikä on pahaa ja rumaa.

(...)

Vähän tarkempaa kuvausta asiasta Pat Buchananin kirjasta THE DEATH OF THE WEST, vuodelta 2001. Tästäkin oli Hommalla lainaus jo 2009:

https://hommaforum.org/index.php/topic,9616.msg152618.html#msg152618

Kuulostaako nuo kirjassa esitetyt asiat jokseenkin tutuilta nykypäivänä... Pat oli asioiden päällä jo aika varhaisessa vaiheessa. Ei liene yllätys, että Pat oli aikanaan Ronald Reaganin palveluksessa. Mihin pyydettiin myös Thomas Sowellia, joka ei akateemikkona siihen lähtenyt. Enkä ole itse Patin kanssa samaa mieltä luultavasti useammastakin asiasta. Hmm, pitäisiköhän olla, jos se auttaa havaitsemaan tuon vasurikuonan nousun mahdollisimman aikaisessa vaiheessa ja auttaa pitämään heidät kurissa... 

Noissa lainauksissa voi heittää Suomen Amerikan tilalle aika huoletta.

THE FRANKFURT SCHOOL COMES TO AMERICA

In .1923, Lukács and members of the German Communist party set up, at Frankfurt University, an Institute for Marxism modeled on the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow. After some reflection, they settled on a less provocative name, the Institute for Social Research. It would soon come to be known simply as the Frankfurt School.

In 1930, a renegade Marxist and admirer of the Marquis de Sade, Max Horkheimer, became its director. Horkheimer, too, had concluded that Marx had gotten it wrong. The working class was not up to its role as the vanguard of the revolution. Already, Western workers were happily moving into the middle class, the detested bourgeoisie. They had failed the Marxists, who would not have been surprised by events on Wall Street in May 1970, when radicals and students protesting Nixon's Cambodian incursion were beaten up by construction workers of the building trades union of Pete Brennan, whom Nixon would then install as his secretary of labor.

At Horkheimer's direction, the Frankfurt School began to retranslate Marxism into cultural terms. The old battlefield manuals were thrown out, and new manuals were written. To old Marxists, the enemy was capitalism; to new Marxists, the enemy was Western culture. To old Marxists, the path to power was the violent overthrow of the regime, as in Paris in 1789 and in St. Petersburg in 1917. To the new Marxist, the path to power was nonviolent and would require decades of patient labor. Victory would come only after Christian beliefs had died in the soul of Western Man. And that would happen only after the institutions of culture and education had been captured and conscripted by allies and agents of the revolution. Occupy the cultural institutions of the West, its "fortresses and earthworks," and the state, the "outer ditch," would fall without a fight.

For old and new Marxists both, however, the definition of morality remained: what advances the revolution is moral, what obstructs it is not. As Hudson Institute scholar John Fonte writes, Gramsci believed in "absolute historicism," meaning that morals, values, truth, standards and human nature itself are products of different historical epochs. There are no absolute moral standards that are universally true for all human beings outside of a particular historical context; rather, morality is "socially constructed."9

When Ronald Reagan famously blurted that the Soviets "reserve to themselves the right to lie, steal and cheat," he hit on a truth that an honest Marxist would not strenuously contest, though the remark almost caused a collective nervous breakdown at the Department of State.10

About this same time, music critic Theodor Adorno, psychologist Erich Fromm, and sociologist Wilhelm Reich joined the Frankfurt School. But, in 1933, history rudely intruded. Adolf Hitler ascended to power in Berlin, and as the leading lights of the Frankfurt School were Jewish and Marxist, they were not a good fit for the Third Reich. The Frankfurt School packed its ideology and fled to America.

Also departing was a graduate student by the name of Herbert Marcuse. With the assistance of Columbia University, they set up their new Frankfurt School in New York City and redirected their talents and energies to undermining the culture of the country that had given them refuge.

Among the new weapons of cultural conflict the Frankfurt School developed was Critical Theory. The name sounds benign enough, but it stands for a practice that is anything but benign. One student of Critical Theory defined it as the "essentially destructive criticism of all the main elements of Western culture, including Christianity, capitalism, authority, the family, patriarchy, hierarchy, morality, tradition, sexual restraint, loyalty, patriotism, nationalism, heredity, ethnocentrism, convention and conservatism."11

Using Critical Theory, for example, the cultural Marxist repeats and repeats the charge that the West is guilty of genocidal crimes against every civilization and culture it has encountered. Under Critical Theory, one repeats and repeats that Western societies are history's greatest repositories of racism, sexism, nativism, xenophobia, homophobia, anti-Semitism, fascism, and Nazism. Under Critical Theory, the crimes of the West flow from the character of the West, as shaped by Christianity. One modem example is "attack politics," where "surrogates" and "spin doctors" never defend their own candidate, but attack and attack the opposition. Another example of Critical Theory is the relentless assault on Pius XII as complicit in the Holocaust, no matter the volumes of evidence that show that accusation to be a lie.

Critical Theory eventually induces "cultural pessimism," a sense of alienation, of hopelessness, of despair where, even though prosperous and free, a people comes to see its society and country as oppressive, evil, and unworthy of its loyalty and love. The new Marxists considered cultural pessimism a necessary precondition of revolutionary change.

Under the impact of Critical Theory, many of the sixties generation, the most privileged in history, convinced themselves that they were living in an intolerable hell. In The Greening of America, which enthralled Senator McGovern, Justice Douglas, and the Washington Post, Charles Reich spoke of a "total atmosphere of violence" in America's high schools.12 This was thirty years before Columbine, and Reich did not mean guns and knives:

An examination or test is a form of violence. Compulsory gym, to one embarrassed or afraid, is a form of violence. The requirement that a student must get a pass to walk in the hallway is violence. Compulsory attendance in the classroom, compulsory studying in study hall, is violence.13

Erich Fromm's Escape from Freedom and Wilhelm Reich's The Mass Psychology of Fascism and The Sexual Revolution reflect Critical Theory. But the most influential book the Frankfurt School ever published was The Authoritarian Personality. In this altarpiece of the Frankfurt School, Karl Marx's economic determinism is replaced with cultural determinism. If a family is deeply Christian and capitalist, ruled by an authoritarian father, you may expect the children to grow up racist and fascist. Charles Sykes, senior fellow at the Wisconsin Policy Research Center, describes The Authoritarian Personality as "an uncompromising indictment of bourgeois civilization, with the twist that what was considered merely old-fashioned by previous critics was now declared both fascistic and psychologically warped."14

Where Marx criminalized the capitalist class, the Frankfurt School criminalized the middle class. That the middle class had given birth to democracy and that middle-class Britain had been fighting Hitler when the comrades of the Frankfurt School in Moscow were cohabiting with him did not matter. Nor did it matter that middle-class America had given Adorno and his colleagues a sanctuary when they had fled the Nazis. The truth did not matter, for these were Marxist ideologues, and they alone defined truth.

Having discovered fascism's nesting ground in patriarchal families, Adorno now identified its natural habitat: traditional culture: "It is a well-known hypothesis that susceptibility to fascism is most characteristically a middle-class phenomenon, that 'it is in the culture' and, hence, that those who conform the most to this culture will be the most prejudiced."15

Edmund Burke once wrote, "I would not know how to draw up an indictment against a whole people."16 Adorno and the Frankfurt School, however, had just done exactly that. They flatly asserted that individuals raised in families dominated by the father, who are flag-waving patriots and follow the old-time religion, are incipient fascists and potential Nazis. As a conservative Christian culture breeds fascism, those deeply immersed in such a culture must be closely watched for fascist tendencies.

These ideas have been internalized by the Left. As early as the mid- 1960s, conservatives and authority figures who denounced or opposed the campus revolution were routinely branded "fascists." Baby boomers were unknowingly following a script that ran parallel to the party line laid down by the Moscow Central Committee in 1943:

Members and front organizations must continually embarrass, discredit and degrade our critics. When obstructionists become too irritating, label them as fascist, or Nazi or anti-Semitic.... The association will, after enough repetition, become "fact" in the public mind.17

(...)

Another of the insights of Horkheimer and Adorno was to realize that the road to cultural hegemony was through psychological conditioning, not philosophical argument. America's children could be conditioned at school to reject their parents' social and moral beliefs as racist, sexist, and homophobic, and conditioned to embrace a new morality. Though the Frankfurt School remains unfamiliar to most Americans, its ideas were well-known at the teachers' colleges back in the 1940s and 1950s.

The school openly stated that whether children learned facts or skills at school was less important than that they graduate conditioned to display the correct attitudes. When Allan Bloom wrote in The Closing of the American Mind that "American high school graduates are among the most sensitive illiterates in the world," with some of the lowest test scores on earth in comparative exams, but the highest scores for sensitivity to issues like the environment, Bloom was testifying to the success of the Frankfurt School.20 Parents may consider today's public schools costly failures where children no lunger learn. To the Frankfurt School, they are a success; for the children coming out of them exhibit all the right attitudes. On entering college, these students now go through orientation sessions, where they are instructed in the new values that obtain on college campuses—to get their minds right, as the warden said in Cool Hand Luke.

(...)

But the importance of schools in conditioning the minds of the young was soon surpassed by that of the new media: TV and movies. (...)

During the fifties, the Frankfurt School lacked a personality to popularize the ideas buried in the glutinous prose of Horkheimer and Adorno. Enter Herbert Marcuse, ex-OSS officer and Brandeis professor, whose ambition was to be not only a man of words but a revolutionary man of action. Marcuse provided the answer to Hork- heimer's question: Who will play the role of the proletariat in the coming cultural revolution?

Marcuse's candidates: radical youth, feminists, black militants, homosexuals, the alienated, the asocial, Third World revolutionaries, all the angry voices of the persecuted "victims" of the West. This was the new proletariat that would overthrow Western culture. Among the "oppressed," the potential recruits for his revolution, Gramsci himself had included all the "marginalized groups of history . . . not only economically oppressed, but also women, racial minorities, and many 'criminals.' "22 Charles Reich was the echo of Marcuse and Gramsci: "One of the ways the new generation struggles to feel itself as outsiders is to identify with the blacks, with the poor, with Bonnie and Clyde, and with the losers of this world."23 Coincidentally, in 1968, the year Bonnie and Clyde, a film romanticizing two perverted killers, was nominated for an Academy Award, two of Reich's "losers," Sirhan Sirhan and James Earl Ray, achieved immortality with the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and Dr. King.

Past societies had been subverted by words and books, but Marcuse believed that sex and drugs were superior weapons. In Eros and Civilization, Marcuse urged a universal embrace of the Pleasure Principle. Reject the cultural order entirely, said Marcuse (this was his "Great Refusal"), and we can create a world of "polymorphous perversity."24 As millions of baby boomers flooded the campuses, his moment came.

Marcuse's books were consumed. He became a cult figure. When students revolted in Paris in 1968, they carried banners proclaiming "Marx, Mao, and Marcuse."

"Make love, not war" was Marcuse's own inspired slogan. In One Dimensional Man, he advocated an educational dictatorship. In "Repressive Tolerance," he called for a new "liberating tolerance" that entails "intolerance against movements from the right, and toleration of movements from the left."25 Full of Marcusian conviction, sixties students shouted down defenders of the U.S. war effort in Vietnam and welcomed radicals waving Vietcong flags. On some campuses, paroled killers can today find more receptive audiences than can conservatives. The double standard against which the Right rages, and which permits conservatives to be pilloried for sins that are forgiven the Left, is "repressive tolerance" in action. Marcuse did not disguise what he was about. In Carnivorous Society, he wrote:

One can rightfully speak of a cultural revolution, since the protest is directed toward the whole cultural establishment... there is one thing we can say with complete assurance. The traditional idea of revolution and the traditional strategy of revolution have ended. These ideas are old-fashioned ... what we must undertake is a type of diffuse and dispersed disintegration of the system.26

The "diffuse and dispersed disintegration of the system" means nothing less than the abolition of America. Like Gramsci, Marcuse had transcended Marx. The old Marxist vision of workers rising up to overthrow their capitalist rulers was yesterday. Today, Herbert Marcuse and his cohorts would put an end to a corrupt Western civilization by occupying its cultural institutions and converting them into agencies of reeducation and of revolution. As Roger Kimball, author and editor at the New Criterion, writes:

In the context of Western societies, the "long march through the institutions" signified—in the words of Herbert Marcuse—"working against the established institutions while working in them." It was primarily by this means—by insinuation and infiltration rather than confrontation—that the countercultural dreams of radicals like Marcuse have triumphed.27

For cultural Marxists, no cause ranked higher than the abolition of the family, which they despised as a dictatorship and the incubator of sexism and social injustice.

Hostility to the traditional family was not new to Marxists. In The German Ideology, Marx himself wrote that patriarchal males consider wives and children first as property. In The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, Engels popularized the feminist conviction that all discrimination against women proceeds from the patriarchal family. Erich Fromm argued that differences between the sexes were not inherent, but a fiction of Western culture. Fromm became a founding father of feminism. To Wilhelm Reich, "The authoritarian family is the authoritarian state in miniature.... Familial imperialism is ... reproduced in national imperialism." To Adorno, the patriarchal family was the cradle of fascism.

(...)

Like Lukaes, Wilhelm Reich believed the way to destroy the family was through revolutionary sexual politics and early sex education. The appearance of sex education in elementary schools in America owes a debt to Lukaes, Reich, and the Frankfurt School.

In the death of the West, the Frankfurt School must be held as a prime suspect and principal accomplice. The propaganda assault on the family it advocated has contributed to the collapse of the family. (...)

No such "mood change" is remotely visible on the Old Continent, where birthrates continue to fall. In helping to undermine the family and induce cultural pessimism, the Frankfurt School can claim a share of the credit for having assisted in the suicide of the West.

(...)

In a third of a century, what was denounced as the counterculture has become the dominant culture, and what was the dominant culture has become, in Gertrude Himmelfarb's phrase, a "dissident culture."30 America has become an ideological state, a "soft tyranny," where the new orthodoxy is enforced, not by police agents, but by inquisitors of the popular culture. We see it in the mandatory requirement for "sensitivity training" in the military, in business, and in government. Turn on the TV and observe. The values of the revolution dominate the medium. Political correctness rules. Defiance of our new orthodoxy qualifies as "hate speech," disrespect for its dogmas as a sign of mental sickness. "Get John Rocker to a psychiatrist!" A few years back, a wag described America's universities as "islands of totalitarianism in a sea of freedom." Now even the sea has become inhospitable. (...)

Political correctness is cultural Marxism, a regime to punish dissent and to stigmatize social heresy as the Inquisition punished religious heresy. Its trademark is intolerance. By classifying its adversaries as haters, or mentally ill, writes journalist Peter Hitchens in his lament for his country, The Abolition of Britain, the new regime imitates the methods of the Soviet Union's Serbsky Institute, which used to classify political dissidents like Natan Sharansky as insane before locking them up in a psychiatric hospital.32 What Americans describe with the "casual phrase... political correctness," says Hitchens, is "the most intolerant system of thought to dominate the British Isles since the Reformation."33 As it is in the United States.

To oppose affirmative action qualifies one as a racist. To insist there are roles in society unfit for women, such as Navy carrier pilot, is to be branded a sexist. If you believe immigration is far too high for our social cohesion, you are a nativist or a xenophobe. (...)

Words are weapons, said Orwell. Traditionalists have yet to discover effective countermeasures. By calling an enemy a racist or fascist, you no longer need answer his arguments. He must defend his character. In a court of law, the accused is innocent until proven guilty. But if the charge is racism, homophobia, or sexism, there is today the presumption of guilt. Innocence must be proven by the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

(...)

That lukacs, gramsci, Adorno, Marcuse, and the Frankfurt School had immense influence on America's cultural and intellectual history is undeniable. But, unlike the Bolsheviks, they did not storm a Winter Palace, they did not seize power, and they did not impose their ideas by force and terror; they were not giants, like Marx, to whom men paid homage. Few Americans even know who they were. Not one, not even Marcuse, was a St. Paul, a Luther, or a Wesley. They were intellectual renegades and moral misfits, yes, but they were also men who thought "outside the box" and put into circulation the ideas of how a successful revolution might be launched in the West, against the West. And their ideas have triumphed. America's elites, who may not even know today who the Frankfurt thinkers were, have taken to their ideas like catnip.

Americans who today accept these ideas cannot know that they were hatched in a Marxist nursery in Weimar Germany or thought out in a fascist prison in Mussolini's Italy, or that their purpose was to subvert our culture and overturn our civilization. But that begs the question: Why was the America of the 1960s, if still a country immersed in its Judeo-Christian heritage, history, traditions, and beliefs, receptive to so revolutionary an agenda?

(...)

Why did they succeed? Four elements came together in the sixties to create the critical mass that exploded like Dr. Oppenheimer's device in the New Mexico desert at Alamogordo.

First was "the message in a bottle," as the men of the Frankfurt School called their ideas. And as their ideas were germinating, other Americans, alienated from a Christian and capitalist culture, were working independently on similar strategies and ideas to undermine the culture and abolish the old America they had come to detest. Nurtured for decades, these ideas began to flower in the 1960s.

Second, there arrived on campus, beginning in 1964, a huge cohort of youth who had known neither hardship nor war. The cultural revolution now had a huge, captive, and receptive audience. Spoiled and affluent, carefree, confident, liberated, and bored, these young people were ready for rebellion. And swallowing goldfish was not what they had in mind.

As conservative scholar Robert Nisbet reminds us, bordeom "is one of the most insistent and universal [of the] forces that have shaped human behavior," and the "range of cures or terminations of boredom is a wide one."41 High among them are sex, narcotics, and revolution. In the 1960s, what Arnold Toynbee called an "internal proletariat" of students, bored with their studies, encountered graduate instructors, bored with their subjects and unexciting lives—a combustible mixture.

Third, 1960s television could convey the tactics and triumphs of campus radicals and urban revolutionaries instantly to their peers. And the medium, now matured, no longer the fifties fiefdom of Howdy Doody and Matt Dillon, could not only transmit the new ideas, it could reinforce them by creating new visual realities.

The fourth indispensable element was Vietnam. If the war meant sacrifice, bloodshed, perhaps death, the Woodstock generation wanted no part of it. What Marcuse offered was intellectual cover for cowardice, a moral argument for malingering, a way to dodge the draft while feeling superior to those who went. The "real heroes" of this war, said Senator Fulbright and New York mayor John Lindsay, are in Canada. The message fell upon receptive ears in the Ivy League and not only there.

Finally, the old American establishment was broken on the wheel of Vietnam—the war that liberalism launched and could not win—and its moral authority was shattered in the eyes of the young. The path to power was thus opened to the political vessel of the counterculture, the McGovern campaign of 1972, among whose most enthusiastic workers was young Bill Clinton, the pride and paragon of the Woodstock generation.

But all this raises a greater question: Is the death of a religious-based culture inevitable once a society reaches general affluence? When a nation has overcome the hardships of its infancy and the struggles of its adolescence and manhood, and begins to produce a life of ease and luxury, does it naturally succumb to a disease of the soul that leads to decadence, decline, and death? (...)

(...)

After the collapse of the Soviet Empire, Time magazine asked, "Can the Right Survive Success?"44 Time quoted a conservative scholar as saying, "It is a sign of enormous triumph that there are no galvanizing issues for conservatives today."45

"Nothing could be further from the truth," responded James Cooper, the editor of American Arts Quarterly. "A major galvanizing issue for conservatives, indeed, for all Americans ... the great unfinished task that President Reagan alluded to in his farewell speech to the nation ... is to recapture the culture from the Left. . . ."46

While most conservatives had been fighting the Cold War, a small band had been holding down the forgotten front, the culture war. Cooper pleaded with conservatives to take up the culture war as their new cause and spoke of the territory already lost:

Seventy years ago, the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci (1891- 1937) wrote the most important mission for Socialism was to "capture the culture." By the end of World War II, the liberal Left had managed to capture not only the arts, theater, literature, music, and ballet, but also motion pictures, photography, education and the media.

Through its control of the culture, the Left dictates not only the answers, but the questions asked. In short, it controls the cosmological apparatus by which most American comprehend the meaning of events.

This cosmology is based on two great axioms: the first is there are no absolute values in the universe, no standards of beauty and ugliness, good and evil. The second axiom is—in a Godless universe—the Left holds moral superiority as the final arbiter of man's activities.47

Conservatives ignored Cooper's cry. Instead, they fought against national health insurance and for NAFTA and the WTO. "The Right voted with their feet," said Samuel Lipman, publisher of the New Criterion,48 Added Cooper: "Conservatives returned to money-making and Cold War strategies, straightened out their George Stubbs engravings of English Thoroughbred horses on their office walls, and forgot about the whole matter. After all, they reasoned, how important is culture anyway?"49

"Where a man's purse is, there his heart will be also." The hearts of many on the Right are in cutting marginal tax rates and eliminating the capital gains tax. Good causes to be sure. But what doth it profit a man if he gain the whole world and suffer the loss of his country? Is whether the GDP rises at 2 or 3 or 4 percent as important as whether or not Western civilization endures and we remain one nation under God and one people? With the collapsing birthrate, open borders, and the triumph of an anti-Western multiculturalism, that is what is at issue today—the survival of America as a nation, separate and unique, and of Western civilization itself—and too many conservatives have gone AWOL in the last great fight of our lives.

So, let us consider what the death march of the West will mean, not just in future centuries, but in this century, and not just to our children's children, but to the generation growing up today.

[zupi]

[tweet]1453115025955037187[/tweet]

Edit.

[tweet]1453203163805372419[/tweet]

[Larva]

^ Williamsin twiitti tuo mieleeni, että on todella vaikeaa olla tyttö/nainen nykypäivänä. Narratiivi on, että jokainen on omanlainen ja että pitää olla rohkeasti oma itsensä, mutta kuitenkin, jos et mahdu siihen ahtaaseen pikku lokeroon, jossa lukee "OIKEANLAINEN tyttö", et ole tyttö lainkaan vaan "sukupuoleton" tai "poika tytön kehossa". OIKEANLAINEN tyttö on pinkkiä ja glitteriä, hymyä ja meikkiä, hihitystä ja kyyneleitä, avuttomuutta ja pehmeyttä. Urheilullinen, poikamainen, nörtti tai ihan vaan tavallinen ei ole mikään "oikea" tyttö. Tämä on ihan järkyttävän surullista ja väärin.

Vielä 90-luvulla oli ihan tavallista, että oli tyttömäisiä tyttöjä, urheilullisia tyttöjä, nörttityttöjä ja poikatyttöjä. Oli myös urheilullisia poikia, poikamaisia poikia ja tyttömäisiä poikia. Ihan normaaleja naisia ja miehiä heistä kasvoi, eikä kukaan tullut kertomaan heille, että he eivät itse asiassa olleet oikeita poikia tai oikeita tyttöjä ja että heidän pitäisi "korjata" sukupuolensa ollakseen onnellisia.

Miksi nyt, kun kaikille on annettu lupa olla rohkeasti omanlaisensa, normit ja raamit ovat vielä ahtaammat kuin 20 vuotta sitten?

Muoks. Meniköhän nyt vähän ohi aiheen 

[Siili]

Hulluwoksteri:

Phoebe A. Cohen is a geosciences professor and department chair at Williams College and one of many who expressed anger on Twitter at M.I.T.'s decision to invite Dr. Abbot to speak, given that he has spoken against affirmative action in the past.

Dr. Cohen agreed that Dr. Abbot's views reflect a broad current in American society. Ideally, she said, a university should not invite speakers who do not share its values on diversity and affirmative action. Nor was she enamored of M.I.T.'s offer to let him speak at a later date to the M.I.T. professors. "Honestly, I don't know that I agree with that choice," she said. "To me, the professional consequences are extremely minimal."

What, she was asked, of the effect on academic debate? Should the academy serve as a bastion of unfettered speech?

"This idea of intellectual debate and rigor as the pinnacle of intellectualism comes from a world in which white men dominated," she replied.

Minding the Campus -järjestö on nyt antanut vastaperustetun Trofim Lysenko -palkinnon edellä mainitulle professori Cohenille:

https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2021/10/28/introducing-the-minding-the-campus-lysenko-award/

Nevertheless, this Williams College department chair helped lead the keyboard warriors demanding that Prof. Abbot be disinvited from giving the Carlson Lecture—not because his science was unsound, or that he was unqualified, or that he had broken the law or committed a tort, but because he believes that individuals in higher education should be evaluated based on their individual merit rather than their membership in an identity group.

Trofim Lysenko would be pleased, although he likely would have formulaically dismissed the need for academic rigor and debate as being the product of fascist-bourgeois-imperialist-capitalist culture, instead of the current wokeism of "straight white men" as the source of the world's problems.

So congratulations, Williams College Professor Phoebe Cohen, you are the first recipient of the Minding the Campus Lysenko Award for the Suppression of Academic Speech.

Minusta tuo palkinto on varsin osuvasti nimitetty.  Jos ei tunnista Lysenkoa ennestään, hänestä löytyy tietoa edellä linkatulla sivulla:

The son of Ukrainian peasant farmers and illiterate until he was 13, Lysenko became an agronomist of initially dubious reputation. His earliest experiments (which involved sowing certain crops in the winter to get yields in the spring—hardly a new idea) were marked by poor design and likely fabricated results. Nevertheless, the young Lysenko loudly proclaimed that they validated his principal theory: that genetics did not exist, and that, instead, plants and animals could simply be trained to develop heritable traits, allowing them to grow and prosper under any conditions.

Foreign scientists regarded him as a bad joke. British biologist S.C. Harland observed that Lysenko was "completely ignorant of the elementary principles of genetics and plant physiology . . . To talk to Lysenko was like trying to explain differential calculus to a man who did not know his 12-times table." When confronted with statistical errors in his results (likely occurring because he either did not understand statistics, or was simply fudging his data), Lysenko famously claimed that mathematics had no place in biology, and denounced his critics as bourgeois imperialists.

Lysenko menestyi yksinomaan siksi, että hänen pseudotieteellinen otteensa miellytti poliittista valtavirtaa (Stalin).  Nimi on varsin sopiva palkinnolle, joka annetaan poliittista hegemoniaa nuoleskeleville akateemisille keskinkertaisuuksille.  Onko kenelläkään ehdotuksia suomalaisista palkittavista? 

[zupi]

Vatun sekopäät.

[tweet]1453816421415219229[/tweet]

SCOOP: AT&T Corporation has created a race reeducation program with materials claiming that "racism is a uniquely white trait" and teaching employees: "White people, you are the problem."

Here's the full story.

I have obtained a cache of internal documents about the company's initiative, called Listen Understand Act, which is based on the core principles of critical race theory, including "intersectionality," "systemic racism," "white privilege," and "white fragility."

AT&T company instructs employees to study a resource claiming that the United States is a "racist society" and telling readers: "White people, you are the problem. Regardless of how much you say you detest racism, you are the sole reason it has flourished for centuries."

The resource claims that "American racism is a uniquely white trait" and that "Black people cannot be racist." White women, in particular, "have been telling lies on black men since they were first brought to America in chains."

In another resource, AT&T teaches that "COVID-19 may have actually helped prepare us to confront in a deeper, more meaningful way the many faces of racism" by giving whites a fear of imminent death and "brooding sense of always feeling vulnerable."

Furthermore, as millions of Americans have lost their jobs, they "have more time" to attend street protests, which provided "a way to feel like one could have an impact." The sense of "shared helplessness," the resource claims, has resulted in positive political activism.

Finally, AT&T encourages employees to participate in a 21-Day Racial Equity Habit Challenge, which teaches that "Whiteness is one of the biggest and most long-running scams ever perpetrated" and that the "weaponization of whiteness" is a "constant barrage of harm" for minorities.

The 21-Day Challenge also directs employees to articles and videos promoting fashionable left-wing causes, including "reparations," "defund police," and "trans activism," with further instruction to "follow, quote, repost, and retweet" left-wing activist organizations.

AT&T is another Fortune 100 company that has succumbed to the latest fad: corporate "diversity and inclusion" programming that traffics in the ugly concepts of race essentialism and collective guilt.

(...)

[nochWunder]

Vatun sekopäät.

Kaikki hyvin! Luota hallintoon. Kohta olet onnellinen. Mitään pahaa ei ole tekeillä. Ei se mitään, että samat ihmiset jotka kannattavat tuota ideologiaa, kehittivät rokotteen, jonka jokaisen pitäisi ottaa.

Kaikki on hyvin, kaikki on hyvin, kaikki on hyvin... luota... luovuta... antaudu...

[zupi]

Erinäköisiä lainauksia, jotka mielestäni kaikki liittyvät jollain tavoin ketjun aiheeseen.

You must understand, the leading Bolsheviks who took over Russia were not Russians. They hated Russians. They hated Christians. Driven by ethnic hatred they tortured and slaughtered millions of Russians without a shred of human remorse. It cannot be overstated. Bolshevism committed the greatest human slaughter of all time. The fact that most of the world is ignorant and uncaring about this enormous crime is proof that the global media is in the hands of the perpetrators.

You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me.

Such as it is, the press has become the greatest power within the Western World, more powerful than the legislature, the executive and judiciary. One would like to ask; by whom has it been elected and to whom is it responsible?

To destroy a people, you must first sever their roots.

To do evil a human being must first of all believe that what he's doing is good... Ideology - that is what gives evildoing its long-sought justification and gives the evildoer the necessary steadfastness and determination. That is the social theory which helps to make his acts seem good instead of bad in his own and others' eyes, so that he won't hear reproaches and curses but will receive praise and honors.

It's an universal law-- intolerance is the first sign of an inadequate education. An ill-educated person behaves with arrogant impatience, whereas truly profound education breeds humility.

If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?

Unlimited power in the hands of limited people always leads to cruelty.

A decline in courage may be the most striking feature that an outside observer notices in the West today. The Western world has lost its civic courage... Such a decline in courage is particularly noticeable among the ruling and intellectual elite, causing an impression of a loss of courage by the entire society.

"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward."

"Human beings are born with different capacities. If they are free, they are not equal. And if they are equal, they are not free."

https://www.azquotes.com/author/13869-Aleksandr_Solzhenitsyn
https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/19771050.Aleksandr_Solzhenitsyn

Seerut K. Chawla@seerutkchawla
If we continue on this trajectory, there may come a time where language & reality have no relationship to each other.
1:33 AM · Oct 19, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

Seerut K. Chawla@seerutkchawla
It's unwise to assume all change is progress.
1:33 AM · Oct 20, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

Seerut K. Chawla@seerutkchawla
If you feel entitled to harass people who disagree with you, you aren't the victim.

You're the aggressor.
9:06 PM · Oct 20, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

Seerut K. Chawla@seerutkchawla
The more labels you use to describe yourself, the less likely it is you know who you are.
3:23 AM · Oct 23, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

Seerut K. Chawla@seerutkchawla
Current day 'activism' has the emotional maturity of infants.

Throw fits & scream till you get what you want- and it works.
7:39 PM · Oct 23, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

Seerut K. Chawla@seerutkchawla
Morality in 2021: To be seen as a 'good' person, you must be intensely hateful towards the appointed 'bad' people.

This proves you're on the right side of history.
2:12 AM · Oct 26, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

Seerut K. Chawla@seerutkchawla
Thread 1/ The trauma trend has popular appeal because:

•You don't have to face that something might actually be wrong.
•You don't have to look at yourself/take responsibility.
•There's an external source of blame/responsibility.
8:39 PM · Oct 28, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

Seerut K. Chawla@seerutkchawla
We've socially engineered ourselves into a corner: where people hesitate to speak common sense truths because they sound 'rude' & 'invalidating'.
10:30 PM · Oct 28, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

Seerut K. Chawla@seerutkchawla
If you can't explain it without a word salad- you don't know what you're talking about.
9:52 PM · Oct 29, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

https://twitter.com/seerutkchawla

[tweet]1453658965674450944[/tweet]
[tweet]1453796339813396485[/tweet]
[tweet]1454156395767599105[/tweet]
[tweet]1454168447030530054[/tweet]

[zupi]

Vasureiden suuri sankari... Säälittävä rotuhuijaripaska.

[tweet]1454231411599282178[/tweet]

[tweet]1454587563512143877[/tweet]

[tweet]1454592491630571533[/tweet]

Edit. Kendillä on vähän pakka sekaisin...

[tweet]1454789625193680898[/tweet]

[tweet]1454791087554498560[/tweet]

[tweet]1454794722241777688[/tweet]

[Siili]

Jenkkien lääkärien kattojärjestö AMA (American Medical Association) on ruvennut tosissaan wokeilemaan.  Se on julkaisut opuksen "Advancing Health Equity: A Guide to Language, Narrative and Concepts", jossa järjestö opastaa lääkäreitä modernimpaan kielenkäyttöön.  Jesse Singal twiittailee tapahtumasta: 

[tweet]1454468272011743239[/tweet]

Ensimmäisessä tweetissä Singal siteeraa taulukkoa, jossa annetaan esimerkkejä, kuinka kieltä voisi muuttaa.  Suosituksena on, etteivät lääkärit puheissaan vain toteaisi faktoja eroista eri ryhmien välisessä kuolleisuudessa, sairastuvuudessa ja terveydenhuollon tasossa, vaan toisivat samanaikaisesti esiin myös niiden (oletetut tai todetut) yhteiskunnalliset syyt.

Singal tuo pitkässä ketjussa esiin muitakin opuksen ehdotuksia uudeksi kielenkäytöksi.  En nyt rupea  litaniaa kääntämään, kielitaitoiset voivat halutessaan perehtyä niihin itse.

Milloin Lääkäriliitto julkaisee suomalaisen version? 

[zupi]

[tweet]1455694406414123021[/tweet]

[tweet]1455696705576390658[/tweet]

[tweet]1455696201932808195[/tweet]

[tweet]1455767551724695553[/tweet]

[tweet]1455703271063134209[/tweet]

[tweet]1455720878096912386[/tweet]

[tweet]1455719940191920130[/tweet]

[tweet]1455728403135582213[/tweet]

[tweet]1455719043407781888[/tweet]

[tweet]1455721355572355072[/tweet]

[tweet]1455703329485430785[/tweet]

[tweet]1455707507276591106[/tweet]

[zupi]

[tweet]1456008971962109955[/tweet]

1/ As soon as the woke start losing we see the very same people who redefined the term "white supremacy" to include everything from standards of professionalism (pic 1) to Dave Chappelle's comedy routines (pic 2), pretend to have a problem with people redefining words.
A thread

2/ The game here is simple:
The woke want to control the terms of the debate, and they use that controle to redefine words like "white supremacy" in order to give themselves the ability to tar people with extremely dangerous labels in order to further woke political goals.

3/ Words like:

-racism
-privilege
-homophobia
-trans-phobia
-white supremacy

are precisely what the woke always insist they are not: verbal weapons.

Those terms are all labels used by the woke to destroy the social standing and reputation of anyone who disagrees with them.

4/ They use those terms to label you and sinking your reputation, and they redefine the terms so you can't get the label off

They'll call you racist and if you deny it the woke will just say "he denies being racist so he must have white fragility, and white fragility is racist."

5/ However, the moment you say "Critical Race Theory is new type of racism, lets call it neo-racism," These very same people will freak out and act shocked that you would dare to label CRT as "neo-racism."

How dare you redefine things....that's their job!!!

6/ when they call you a white supremacist all they need is the vaguest, smallest connection to anything they can interpret as favoring white people in any way...even when there is no proof of the connection, or the connection to "white supremacy" is pure speculation

But...

7/ When you say that Critical Race Theory is connected to postmodernism and marxism...well if you can't quote what Kimberle Crenshaw said about postmodernism in a footnote from 1989 then your just a liar and you don't know what your talking about and shut up.

See the difference?

8/ They have two standards: one for themselves, and one for you.

When they want to define things as they see fit that's fine, when you want to define things as you see fit, then they raise hell about how you can't do that.

This is the game that they are in...

9/ They woke want control of the language so they can redefine words and give themselves the ability to smear people with labels like "racist" and "White Supremacy," while at the same time giving themselves and advantage in the conversation. It is an extremely deceptive tactic

10/ They redefine white supremacy as "anything we disagree with" and then label people who disagree as white supremacists. When a person hears the label they think "he must think white people are better than black people" even though the person who got labelled doesn't think that

11/ Stop letting them do this. We have every right to use language to describe the phenomenon of wokeness accurately.

If they can say "The repressive sublimation is deconstructed within the subjective standpoint epistemology of the marginalized racialized bodies" then I guess...

12/ Our side gets to say "Critical Race Theory is neo-racism because it splits people into groups and makes assumptions about them based on their race."

That's a perfectly fair move. It is also true.

Stop letting woke people control language. Make them define their terms and...

13/ Don't let them tar and feather people with labels they don't deserve and then say "well academically we define this as..." because we all know that the "academic meaning" is not what people think when they call someone "white supremacist" because of 10 year old tweets.

14/ Stop giving the woke the language.

They can use plain language just like the rest of us, and if they don't like that it's too bad, and they can't redefine words in to smear people while demanding that no one else define anything.

That game is over. We have had enough.

/fin

[tweet]1455917809582624769[/tweet]

[migri]

 

Microsoft Ignite's Woke Levels Reach Critical Mass
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBRtucXGeNQ

[Siili]

Toronton yliopistossa on uudenlainen matematiikan kurssi, suomeksi suurin piirtein "vapauttava matematiikka" (Liberating Mathematics).

https://artsci.calendar.utoronto.ca/course/mat192h1

Sitä tarjotaan ensimmäisen vuoden opiskelijoille, ja edellytetty matematiikan tietotaso on "High school level algebra". Kuten esittelystä ilmenee, kurssin sisältö on pääosin muuta kuin klassista matematiikkaa:

Currently, mathematics is at a crossroads between tradition and progress. Progress has been led in large part by women mathematicians, in particular Black women, Indigenous women, and women from visible minorities. Intertwined in their studies of mathematics is a daring critique of traditional mathematics, re-imagining of mathematics culture, and more.

Kurssi on ilmeisen aito, ei siis mikään paikallinen keijotus.  Erikoista, että se on nimen omaan matematiikan ohjelmassa. Esittelyn mukaan tätä uutta matematiikkaa lähestytään pääosin ihmisten kokemusten ja narratiivien kautta: "This course will compare and contrast new forms of accessible mathematics with standard sources that draw dominantly on the experiences and narratives of men."

Hacker newsin kirjoittaja (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29063371) on selvittänyt opettajan (Piper Harron) ja linkannut hänen CV:nsä: https://archive.md/OK3KZ. 
Tässä Piper kuvailee väitöskirjaansa: https://archive.md/RpmvQ. 
Muuta Piperin kirjallista tuotantoa: https://archive.md/tXEaI

Hacker newsin kirjoittaja määritteli hänet "ammattiuhriksi": "She has a "liberated" résumé, and looking at that, I'd say it is fair to characterize her as a professional victim".  Veikkaanpa, että matikan laitoksen varsinaiset alan asiantuntijat eivät ole kovin ylpeitä tästä laitoksensa tarjonnasta, mutta ehkäpä yliopistolla on jokin kaiken kattava woke-projekti, johon jokasien laitoksen on pakko osallistua.   Mitäs veikkaatte:  mikä suomalainen matematiikan laitos aloittaa ensimmäisenö woke-matematiikan opetuksen? Åbo Akademi?

Tiedoksi: Peter Boghossian on noteerannut kurssin tweetillä, muttei ole sitä vielä itse kommentoinut.  Seuraajat kylläkin.
https://twitter.com/peterboghossian/status/1455312927125245955

[Radio]

Voihan V, Critical Social Justice on absuria paskaa ja WOKE samaa.
Eikö mikään enää ole turvassa tältä paskamyrskyltä.
Aikanani  matematiikan approssani ei olllut mielestäni mitään turhaa.
Tämä meno on kohti eurokommunismia, mutta minkäs teet.
Pakko sanoa, että ainoa toivo saada Suomi jaloilleen on PS.

[Siili]

Tässä linkki oppaaseen, jossa kerrotaan amerikkalaisille yläasteen opettajille, miten opettaa matematiikkaa tasa-arvoisesti

https://equitablemath.org/

A Pathway to Equitable Math Instruction is an integrated approach to mathematics that centers Black, Latinx, and Multilingual students in grades 6-8, addresses barriers to math equity, and aligns instruction to grade-level priority standards. The Pathway offers guidance and resources for educators to use now as they plan their curriculum, while also offering opportunities for ongoing self-reflection as they seek to develop an anti-racist math practice. The toolkit "strides" serve as multiple on-ramps for educators as they navigate the individual and collective journey from equity to anti-racism.

Ihan mielenkiintoinen lähtösivu, jos haluaa tutustua woke-matikan lähetyssaarnaajien mielenmaisemaan (oikean ylälaidan linkit).

[P]

Tässä linkki oppaaseen, jossa kerrotaan amerikkalaisille yläasteen opettajille, miten opettaa matematiikkaa tasa-arvoisesti

https://equitablemath.org/

A Pathway to Equitable Math Instruction is an integrated approach to mathematics that centers Black, Latinx, and Multilingual students in grades 6-8, addresses barriers to math equity, and aligns instruction to grade-level priority standards. The Pathway offers guidance and resources for educators to use now as they plan their curriculum, while also offering opportunities for ongoing self-reflection as they seek to develop an anti-racist math practice. The toolkit "strides" serve as multiple on-ramps for educators as they navigate the individual and collective journey from equity to anti-racism.

Ihan mielenkiintoinen lähtösivu, jos haluaa tutustua woke-matikan lähetyssaarnaajien mielenmaisemaan (oikean ylälaidan linkit).

Oli kyllä aika tavaraa. "Syvällistä ymmärrystä ei tarvita" oliko se kohta 2?

Kuka haluaa nousta noilla teeseillä koulutettujen insinöörien suunnittelemaan lentokoneeseen?

Alkaa vaikuttamaan siltä, että tässä taustalla on oltava joku CCP:n tai Venäjän subversio USA:n ja lännen teknisen osaamisen / ylipäätään osaamisen romauttamiseksi?

Muuta järkeä tuossa ei ole. Ja pitää todeta, että olen koulutukseltani aineenopettaja.

[zupi]

Tässä linkki oppaaseen, jossa kerrotaan amerikkalaisille yläasteen opettajille, miten opettaa matematiikkaa tasa-arvoisesti

(...)

Katson ja korotan...

[tweet]1456775924116967425[/tweet]

[tweet]1456855208860930054[/tweet]

Just read this NYT piece on proposed California state education standards that demand that teachers change curriculums to bring racial identity politics into everyday math lessons. So I click the draft standards and the first section cited this CRT paper.

If you say anything about CRT, you get a gazillion scolds claiming there's no CRT in schools, nothing inspired by this ideology. When you take literally 2 minutes to look into recent curriculum changes you find it everywhere.

There are so many extreme voices in the CA curriculum. The standards cite Prof. D. B. Martin to claim a colorblind approach to math promotes inequality. If you look up Martin, he believes math education is a project of "violent white supremacy and racial capitalism."

Prof. Martin argues that math is so fundamentally violent and white supremacist that there should be a nationwide movement for Black students to "feel empowered to refuse oppressive conditions in their mathematics education" and engage in mass boycotts and walk-outs of math class

https://mobile.twitter.com/lhfang/status/1456775490212040710

Sinänsä olen kyllä Martinin kanssa samaa mieltä ratkaisusta ongelmaan: Kaikkien wokstereiden pitäisi painua v...n kuuseen matikan tunneilta. Ja yleensäkin kaikkialta, missä on täysjärkisiä ihmisiä paikalla.

[Larva]

Siis anteeksi nyt, mutta vaikka kuinka tavaan noita twiittejä ja artikkeleita, en kerta kaikkiaan käsitä millä tavalla matematiikka (ja varmaan myös fysiikka, kemia ja biologia) olisi rasistista. Voisiko joku vääntää sen rautalangasta? 

Vai... onko se rasistista siksi, koska sen ovat keksineet *gasp* valkoiset heteroseksuaaliset miehet (vaikka eivät edes ole, matematiikan perusteethan kirjattiin jo muinaisessa Egyptissä)? Vai siksi, koska opiskelijoista suurin osa on (ainakin tähän saakka ollut) valkoisia (mikä sekin on väärin, kaukoaasialaisia taitaa olla yhtä paljon ellei enemmänkin)? Vai siksi, ettei mustilla ole kompetenssia opiskella korkean tason matematiikkaa? (Viimeisimpään en usko, lähinnä lienee kyse rodullisesta kulttuurista, joka ei rohkaise pitkäjänteisyyteen ja asioiden syvälliseen tutkimiseen.)

Muoks: Nyt keksin. Matematiikka on tietysti rasistista siksi, koska se tukeutuu silkkaan raakaan faktaan, eikä ota huomioon rodullistettujen (tai kenenkään muunkaan) tunteita! Jos joku kysyy, miksi 1 + 3 = 4, niin se nyt vaan ON näin, vaikka kuinka pahalta tuntuisi; get over it.

[F1nka]

Matematiikassa täytyy olla piilotettua rasismia ja naisvihaa, sillä siitä ei löydy näkyvää rasismia tai naisvihaa.

Naisista matematiikassa: tapaus Emmy Noether. Toiset matemaatikot tukivat Noetherin työtä, vastustus tuli humanistiselta puolelta. Humanistinen puoli näyttää aina menevän ajan hengen mukaan, ei tulosten:

In the spring of 1915, Noether was invited to return to the University of Göttingen by David Hilbert and Felix Klein. Their effort to recruit her, however, was blocked by the philologists and historians among the philosophical faculty: Women, they insisted, should not become privatdozenten. One faculty member protested: "What will our soldiers think when they return to the university and find that they are required to learn at the feet of a woman?"[23][24][25] Hilbert responded with indignation, stating, "I do not see that the sex of the candidate is an argument against her admission as privatdozent. After all, we are a university, not a bath house."[23][24][25]

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

POC-ihmiset matematiikassa: tapaus Srinivasa Ramanujan. Vaikka hänellä ei ollut liiemmin rahaa, hän siltikin nousi matematiikan suuriksi nimiksi.

[Radio]

KOMMUNISMI on täällä ja nyt! Eikö ole ymmärretty, että tämä Karl Marxin työn jatkaja Max Hortheimer on länsimarxismin johtohenkilö ja guru. Pyöriköön montussaan.
Adolfin aikaan julkaisi teoriansa 1937, hullu professori, nazi, kommunisti vai molempia?

Max Horkheimer first defined critical theory (German: Kritische Theorie) in his 1937 essay "Traditional and Critical Theory", as a social theory oriented toward critiquing and changing society as a whole, in contrast to traditional theory oriented only toward understanding or explaining it.

Critical social theory constitutes an effort to rethink and reform Marxist social criticism; it characteristically rejects mainstream political and intellectual views, criticizes capitalism, promotes human liberation, and consequently attempts to expose domination and oppression in their many forms.

Olen kyllä käynyt käytännön filofian peruskurssin, seuraavaa juputusta ei jaksa. Jos joku sen lukisi ja avaisi, olisin kiitollinen.

https://books.google.fi/books?id=a7fJCEOhvIQC&pg=PA27&lpg=PA27&dq=critical+social+theory+suomessa&source=bl&ots=gYbWl_Zjxn&sig=ACfU3U2xgbkTWseJ4T38LK0Yl31rk5utfQ&hl=fi&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi6m-vx44X0AhXllIsKHSTRDC4Q6AF6BAgREAM#v=onepage&q=critical%20social%20theory%20suomessa&f=false

Googelista lainattu.

[Pergolaattori]

Tässä linkki oppaaseen, jossa kerrotaan amerikkalaisille yläasteen opettajille, miten opettaa matematiikkaa tasa-arvoisesti

(...)

Opas vaikuttaa pinnallisesti skimmaillen apurahan toivossa trendikkäämmin teemoitetulta 'Miten matematiikka saadaan uppoamaan tähän nykyiseen oppilasmateriaaliin?' -oppaalta.

Perusajatuksena näyttää olevan lista 'valkoiselle ylivallalle ominaisista piirteistä' ja esimerkeistä miten ne ilmenevät opetuksessa. Joka kääntäen kertoo omaa tarinaansa oppaan laatineiden henkilöiden asenteista.

Veikkaan että jos opasta toteutetaan siltänään, oppilaat tekevät töitä edellytystensä mukaisesti eikä oppitunnilla puhuta roduista mitään, lopputulos on täsmälleen sama kuin aiemmin.

Aivan sama tilanne kuin eri ihmisryhmille yksilöllisesti laadituissa älykkyystesteissä jotka antavat varmasti haluttuja lopputuloksia kohdeyleisössä mutta 'ongelma' on se että ne perinteisissä testeissä menestyvät ovat kärjessä myös kulttuuri tms. -sensitiivisissä testeissä.

Edelleen kysymykseksi siis jää miten tavoitellun lopputuloksen edellyttämä tasapäistäminen saadaan aikaan.

Asia ratkeaa vaikuttamalla kulttuuriin joka arvojensa ja ideaaliensa kautta vaikuttaa parinmuodostukseen ja edelleen nostaa esiin sellaisia piirteitä joilla ko. kulttuurissa menestyy.


-

[Nuivettunut Han-nenetsi]

Tässä linkki oppaaseen, jossa kerrotaan amerikkalaisille yläasteen opettajille, miten opettaa matematiikkaa tasa-arvoisesti
(...)

En lähde perehtymään tuohon ansiokkaan kuuloiseen brosyyriin, mutta voisiko joku tiivistetysti kertoa miten opus selittää:

1) mitkä ovat ne mekanismit ja rakenteet matematiikan opetuksessa jotka sortavat valkoisia ja suosivat aasialaistaustaisia opiskelijoita? CRT:n pyhistä opinkappaleistahan tiedämme että epätasa-arvoiset oppimistulokset johtuvat yksinomaan sortaja-sorrettu rakenteista.

2) miten matematiikkaa voi opettaa rasismivapaasti niin että valkoisten amerikkalaisten oppimistulokset saavuttavat tasa-arvon aasialais-amerikkalaisten matematiikan osaamisen kanssa?

[Ludicrous]

Siis anteeksi nyt, mutta vaikka kuinka tavaan noita twiittejä ja artikkeleita, en kerta kaikkiaan käsitä millä tavalla matematiikka (ja varmaan myös fysiikka, kemia ja biologia) olisi rasistista. Voisiko joku vääntää sen rautalangasta? 

Woke on erittäin rasistinen maallinen uskonto, jonka seuraajat ovat katkeroituneita epäonnistujia. Esimerkiksi reilu vuosi sitten arvostetun Smithsonian museon sivuilta löytyi kaavio, mikä kaikki on leimallisesti valkoista kulttuuria ja siten tietenkin pitäisi hävittää. Joukossa oli muun muassa sellaisia arvoja kuin rationaalinen ajattelu, kova työskentely, aikataulujen noudattaminen ja kohteliaisuus. Woken mukaan näihin luonnostaan kykenee ainoastaan oikeat ihmiset eli valkoihoiset. Näiden lisäksi on olemassa ties mitä neekeriä, hiekkaneekeriä, vinosilmää ja vinkuintiaania, miltä kaikilta on aivan turha odottaa "valkoisiin" ihanteisiin ylettämistä. Naiskysymys tuntuu olevan vaikea wokeilussa, mutta viime aikoina valkoihoiset naiset tuntuvat useammin kuuluvan valkoihoiset-kategoriaan (lue: syylliset) kuin naiset-kategoriaan (lue: uhrit).

Matematiikka on tieteistä yksinkertaisin. Matematiikka perustuu aksioomiin, perusoletuksiin joidenka olemme sopineet pitävän ilmiselvästi paikkaansa, kuten vaikkapa 1+1=2. Matematiikan vaikeus tulee siinä, että riittävän pitkälle mentäessä näitä aksioomia on paljon muistettavaksi ja yritettäessä ratkoa reaalimaailman ongelmia, on monesti vaikea jäsentää ongelma niin, että se on ratkaistavissa näihin yksinkertaisiin sopimuksiin nojaten. Woken ongelma matematiikan kanssa tulee jo ihan perustasolla. Matematiikka perustuu sopimuksiin. Ainoastaan ihmiset (=valkoihoiset) ovat kykeneviä noudattamaan sopimuksia. Saman odottaminen woke-uskonnon kategorisoimilta ali-ihmisiltä on woke-käsityksen mukaan rasismia. Lisäksi toisin kuin luonnontieteissä, matematiikassa voit olla absoluuttisen oikeassa tai väärässä. Tämä on erittäin ongelmallista uskonnolle, joka tukeutuu vahvasti subjektiiviseen totuuteen (nk. my truth). Siksi on tärkeää, ettei 2+2 ole aina välttämättä 4, vaan joskus se voi olla myös 5 tai vaikkapa kirahvi.

Fysiikka, kemia ja biologia ovatkin jo puolestaan oikeasti vaikeita, siitä johtuen woken mukaan muiden kuin valkoihoisten saavuttamattomissa ja täten ehdottomasti rasistisia.

[Totti]

Tässä linkki oppaaseen, jossa kerrotaan amerikkalaisille yläasteen opettajille, miten opettaa matematiikkaa tasa-arvoisesti
(...)

En lähde perehtymään tuohon ansiokkaan kuuloiseen brosyyriin, mutta voisiko joku tiivistetysti kertoa miten opus selittää:

1) mitkä ovat ne mekanismit ja rakenteet matematiikan opetuksessa jotka sortavat valkoisia ja suosivat aasialaistaustaisia opiskelijoita? CRT:n pyhistä opinkappaleistahan tiedämme että epätasa-arvoiset oppimistulokset johtuvat yksinomaan sortaja-sorrettu rakenteista.

2) miten matematiikkaa voi opettaa rasismivapaasti niin että valkoisten amerikkalaisten oppimistulokset saavuttavat tasa-arvon aasialais-amerikkalaisten matematiikan osaamisen kanssa?

Tuo pumaska(t) on niin absurdi, että luulisi koko jutun olevan parodiaa.

"Valkoinen ylivalta" on keskeinen teema rasistisessa matematiikassa. Ensin se määritellään eri sanoin kuten täydellisyys (siihen pyrkiminen), individualismi, objektivisuus, "kirjoitetun sanan palvominen" jne. Eli nämä ovat rasistisia ominaisuuksia, jotka väitetysti löytyvät valkoisilla.

Pumaska sisältää erinäisiä kursseja, joissa opetellaan mm. miten matematiikassa ei pidä pyrkiä oikeaan vastaukseen vaan painottaa "järkeilyä". Sanatehtävät tulisi korvaa opiskelijan omilla kokemuksilla ja oppiminen tulisi tapahtua ryhmässä ei yksilötasolla, tuloksia ei pitäisi esittää standardi formaatissa jne. jne. Erinäisiä teesejä on kymmeniä.

Nyt kun luin tämän sotkun niin vaikuttaa siltä, että tätä rasistista matikkaa ei edes ole kovin helppo määritellä. Teoria on täynnä sanasalaattia ja kaikki vaikuttaa pakotetulta yritykseltä keksiä ongelma, jota ei ole olemassa ja leipoa se tieteelliseltä kuulostavaan pakettiin. Ratkaisuehdotukset matikan rasismiin ovat myös kovin epämääräisiä eikä niitä edes konkreettisesti esitetä vaan jätetään opettajan itse keksittäväksi.

Esimerkiksi oikeista tuloksista sanotaan:

Upholding the idea that there are always right and wrong answers perpetuate objectivity as well as fear of open con-flict. Some math problems may have more than one right answer and some may not have a solution at all, depend-ing on the content and the context. And when the focus is only on getting the right answer, the complexity of the mathematical concepts and reasoning may be underdeveloped, missing opportunities for deep learning.

Eli se tosiasia, että jotkut matikkatehtävät saattavat olla ilman eksaktia vastausta tarkoittaa, että ei pitäisi pyrkimään laskemaan oikeaa vastausta lainkaan. Tämä on klassista derridalaista dekonstruktionismiä, jossa vedetään pitkälle meneviä yleistäviä johtopäätöksiä poikkeustapauksista.

Ainakin peruskoulumatikka on kuitenkin käytännössä aina eksaktia laskemista eikä abstrakteja konsepteja, vailla tarkkaa vastausta. Rasistisen matikan teoria vetoaa siis korkeampaan abstraktimpaan matikkaan perustellakseen, että peruskouluissa ei pitäisi oppia laskemaan oikein.

Ratkaisuja tähän rasistiseen ongelmaan ovat mm.:

Come up with at least two answers that might solve this problem.

Deconstructed Multiple Choice - given a set of multiple choice answers, students discuss why these answers may have been included (can also be used to highlight common mistakes).

Study the purpose of math education, and re-envision it. Schooling as we know it began during the industrial revolution, when precision and accuracy were highly valued. What are the myriad ways we can conceptualize mathematics in today's world and beyond?

Laskutehtävien tuloksista, joita siis ei pitäisi esittää "standardoidusti" sanotaan:

Math teachers ask students to show work so that teachers know what students are thinking, but that can center the teacher's need to understand rather than student learning. Teachers should seek to understand individual student perspectives and focus on students showing their work in ways that help students learn how to process information.

Matemaattisen tehtävän tulokset (laskelman) voisi siis esittää muilla tavoin kun kirjoittamalla se matemaattisin termein.

Ratkaisuja tähän rasistiseen ongelmaan ovat:

As a department, solve complex problems without writing and share with each other about that process.

Show your thinking with words, pictures, symbols.

Have students create TikTok videos, silent films, or cartoons about mathematical concepts or procedures.

Practice with math colleagues how to answer mathematical problems without using words or numbers.

Rasistinen matikkan ratkaisut näyttäisi kauttaaltaan olevan leikkikoulutasolle siirtymistä. TikTok videoita, sannallisia vastauksia, leikkiryhmiä, mielipiteisiin perustuvia vastauksia ja kivat keskustelut opettajan kanssa on ilmeisesti se tie, joka visioidaan murtavan valkoisten rasismin ja nostavan neekerit menestyviksi arkkitehdeiksi, insinööreiksi ja kemisteiksi.

[Radio]

Matematiikka yliopistoll ei ole helppoa, ainakaan laudaturtasollla. Ei ollut päaine, appro riitti. Työkaverini pääsi jostain karmeasti laudaturkurssin tentistä monen yrityksen jälkeen läpi. Kurssin kovuudesta kertoo legendaarinen tarina sitkeästä yrittäjästä. Mies  ilmestyi säännöllisesti tenttiin. Koetehtävät jaettiin. Tenttijät tutkivat tehtäviä aikansa, kunnes miehemme lasketui polvilleen ja alkoi rukoilla. Sen verran äänekkäästi, että vahtimestari poisti herran salista.
Juttu voi olla jopa tosi, kuka tuommpisen keksisi.

[Radio]

Mitä enemmän tätä woketusta ja muka kriittistä CSJ-tunkiota pöyhii, sitä pahemmaksi käy paskan käry. Pahempaa tai samaa lajia kommunisminn kanssa. Täytyy pureskella pienin annoksin ettei tukehdu ja ala pitkäsylki lentää.
Miten saisimme nämä kriittiset wokeltajat käymään tätä toista hulluutta i.e. muhamettilaisuutta höykyttämään oikein urakalla. Miten sitten sopivat kristilliset normit yhteen tämän hapatuksen kanssa. Valitetettavan hyvin, leipäpait ovat sairaita ekumaanikkoja.
Onko sitten ihme, että nuorisolla on lisääntyvässä määrin mielenteveysongelmia. Luottamus yhteiskuntaame on mennyt, kun joukkotiedotusvälineet ja some (sosialistinen media?) syytävät karkeaa ja läpinäkyvää propaganda, puolitotuuksia ja valheita.
Kiihkolijoiden kohteena on suomalainen kulttuuri ja sen piiriin lukeutuvat tavalliset kansalaiset. Mulkeroiden mukaan skurutsainen metsässä insestiä harjoittava kansa pelastuu mulattien tekemiisen avulla. 

[zupi]

Peter Boghossianin lyhyt osuva kuvaus wokeismista:

[tweet]1457613987151966209[/tweet]

Woke is a derangement syndrome that parasitizes the moral mind. Symptoms include: unfettered urges to destroy western civilization; perpetual offense; perceiving reality exclusively via oppression; viewing oneself as a victim; an inability to defend ideas.

https://twitter.com/peterboghossian/status/1457613987151966209

Alla James Lindsayn kuvaus wokeismin ja CSJ:n yhteydestä:

In brief, "woke" means having awakened to having a particular type of "critical consciousness," as these are understood within Critical Social Justice. To first approximation, being woke means viewing society through various critical lenses, as defined by various critical theories bent in service of an ideology most people currently call "Social Justice." That is, being woke means having taken on the worldview of Critical Social Justice, which sees the world only in terms of unjust power dynamics and the need to dismantle problematic systems. That is, it means having adopted Theory and the worldview it conceptualizes.

Under "wokeness," this awakened consciousness is set particularly with regard to issues of identity, like race, sex, gender, sexuality, and others. The terminology derives from the idea of having been awakened (or, "woke up") to an awareness of the allegedly systemic nature of racism, sexism, and other oppressive power dynamics and the true nature of privilege, domination, and marginalization in society and understanding the role in dominant discourses in producing and maintaining these structural forces. Furthermore, being woke carries the imperative to become a social activist with regard to these issues and problems, again, on the terms set by Critical Social Justice. This—especially for white people—is to include a lifelong commitment to an ongoing process of self-reflection, self-criticism, and (progressive) social activism in the name of Theory and Social Justice (see also, antiracism).

https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-woke-wokeness/

Ja käytännön esimerkki:

[tweet]1457787234694823936[/tweet]

Ja vielä yksi twiitti käsitteisiin liittyen:

[tweet]1457708519193387010[/tweet]

[Pöhisijä]

Eukko alkoi opiskelemaan uutta alaa ja siellä on queer-arkeologiaa, feminismi sitä ja tätä, ensimmäisenä opetettiin sukupuolia olevan lukuisia. Surullista nähdä omin silmin miten tämä syöpä on vallannut koko koululaitoksemme.

Nyt on tullut jo tehtäviksi kymmeniä sivuja kirjoitettavaa rasismista, kulttuurin omimisesta ym. hömpästä. Luentoja kuinka pahaa isänmaallisuus on ja kuinka pahoja "vahvat miehet" ovat. Suomalaisten vertausta fasistisiin natseihin koska venäläisiä kuoli vankileireillä.

Ei ihme kun noista laitoksista tulee ulos niin sekopäistä porukkaa. Jännityksellä odotan mitä seuraava viikko tuo tullessaan.

Hullummaksi vain menee nuo luennot, vasta pääaiheena oli demokratia, sisältö perustui Jean-Paul Sartren ajatuksiin ja lopulta luento kulminoitui ongelmalasisen kiihkofeministin kommunismin ihannointiin. Ovat ilmeisesti tiedostaneet kommunismin ikävän maineen kun sitä kutsuttiin jollain uudella hienolla termillä. Tuolla yliopistossa saa ilmeisesti käyttää vain marxilaisia lähteinä, muita kun ei ole vielä tullut vastaan.