WOKE and proud of it....

[Alexis Jacobi]

There is education about diversity and multiculturalism BECAUSE we are full of immigrants.

Simply for the sake of some fun let’s turn this around.

Let’s un-condone and un-champion the very tenets of multiculturalism. Instead of believing “diversity is our strength” lets us remodel that (sick, false) assertion into a truer one: “diversity destroys what is singular, distinct and special”.

And let us recommend to the immigrant — especially the one who has opted to abandon his own nation because going through the necessarily laborious historical struggle to recreate that nation in accord with better possibilities and outcomes — let us recommend that he return to his own land and nation and set to work rebuilding it.

I am simply proposing alternatives, grounded in reasonable postulates, to counter those you (seem to have) internalized.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I listened to the first 15+ minutes of the podcast and he was going on and on about how he reviewed another guy's book and how wonderful it was and then he collaborated in a publication with him and some people on Twitter sent him rave reviews over it and read aloud some of their reviews.

You are incorrigible. What you should have paid attention to are the quotes from the book.

You give evidence of how we turn off listening when we have set our will not to hear.

You did the same thing with Renaud Camus as I remember.

[Gary Childress]

I listened to the first 15+ minutes of the podcast and he was going on and on about how he reviewed another guy's book and how wonderful it was and then he collaborated in a publication with him and some people on Twitter sent him rave reviews over it and read aloud some of their reviews.

You are incorrigible. What you should have paid attention to are the quotes from the book.

You give evidence of how we turn off listening when we have set our will not to hear.

You did the same thing with Renaud Camus as I remember.

No. I'm saying he literally spent 15 minutes talking about the critical reception of his book and nothing else. So I skipped ahead and found some of the heart of the matter, I think. I'm listening to it now.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Stop! Turn it off while you still can!!

Oh God Oh God I’ve created a Nazi!

[Gary Childress]

OK. So he read a couple of example excerpts from a couple of books on Queer theory and then interpreted the passages that he read in ways that I would not necessarily jump to his interpretation. Then of course, he goes back into more praise of his book--talking about different letters he got from people who said, "I love your book", "Everyone must read it". (That doesn't really tell me much about the reasons for his position in his book).

I'm not going to buy the book. Do you know of any podcasts off hand where he does a little more direct quoting from Queer books and less filling in blanks of what he believes to be the "real" motives of the passages that he does quote? I'm not incredibly impressed with him so far. But if he has some material where he does a better job of connecting his interpretation with what is written in the book, that would be helpful. However, prima facie, from the sounds of it, he may have some comprehension issues with stuff he does read.

[Gary Childress]

There is education about diversity and multiculturalism BECAUSE we are full of immigrants.

Simply for the sake of some fun let’s turn this around.

Let’s un-condone and un-champion the very tenets of multiculturalism. Instead of believing “diversity is our strength” lets us remodel that (sick, false) assertion into a truer one: “diversity destroys what is singular, distinct and special”.

And let us recommend to the immigrant — especially the one who has opted to abandon his own nation because going through the necessarily laborious historical struggle to recreate that nation in accord with better possibilities and outcomes — let us recommend that he return to his own land and nation and set to work rebuilding it.

I am simply proposing alternatives, grounded in reasonable postulates, to counter those you (seem to have) internalized.

OK. Then I'll give you some postulates counter to those you've internalized.

What should we do if the American Indians tell us ALL to return to our "own lands" and build them the way we want? Then what do we do? Do we accuse them of intolerance toward other cultures? What's the game plan there?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Do you know of any podcasts off hand where he does a little more direct quoting from Queer books and less filling in blanks of what he believes to be the "real" motives of the passages that he does quote? I'm not incredibly impressed with him so far. But if he has some material where he does a better job of connecting his interpretation with what is written in the book, that would be helpful. However, prima facie, from the sounds of it, he may have some comprehension issues with stuff he does read.

Since he was a controbutor to the book he quoted from and commented on, your comment about his words doesn't make much sense.

In any case ...

Once again: what is going on now in our present is that many people, confused, uncertain about how to interpret what is going on socially, in schools, in culture generally -- especially perhaps with all that has gone on around gender issues, surgical interventions, etc. -- begin to cobble together explanatory narratives. What interests me is what people turn to as they seek out platforms on which to construct their own reasons for resisting the trends that I have outlined.

That is the point that I have been working here. There is a resistance movement developing, but it struggles to define a base from which to argue successfully against the very powerful narratives with which we have all been exposed to over the years.

You can very easily visit his website, and you can also review his video presentations on YouTube.

[Alexiev]

So your critique of my comment is meaningless

It really isn’t. The meaning is quite real and apparent.

If you read nothing but newspapers that is your choice. Yet you could easily rectify that. What would result?

Better understanding of the issues of the day.

Good grief! I probably read more than you. I just haven't read much on this subject. If you want to discuss novels or poetry, I'm your man.

The obsession with gender identity and sexual orientation is overblown on both sides of the metaphorical aisle. It's basic good manners to use the name and pronoun a person prefers. I doubt many children are being subjected to sexual mutilation, unless we include circumcision. Adults can do as they please, even if that involves harming themselves.

[Alexis Jacobi]

The obsession with gender identity and sexual orientation is overblown on both sides of the metaphorical aisle.

Based out of my own studies I do not think you have made a sound statement. At the same time the core in “queerness” has less to do with orientation than it appears.

Queerness is actually a strange form of ideological activism.

I do not think you will believe me. But the case can be made. It has many sound points.

It's basic good manners to use the name and pronoun a person prefers.

It could be. But at the same time it is also a way to manipulate those around you. To play on their sense of decency and hook them into something neurotic at best.

I doubt many children are being subjected to sexual mutilation, unless we include circumcision.

You are definitely not paying attention.

Adults can do as they please, even if that involves harming themselves.

According to a strange and I think perverse set of ideological a priories, yes.

You have defined a bizarre — an unhealthy — abuse of liberty.

A case could be made — I agree it could be seen as radical in its way — that you do not have any such •right• …

… but I’d have to establish a case for the set of presuppositions I’d have to refer to to do so.

As much as you (or I) would like to believe we are our own property the truth may be that we are not.

True, I would here begin to put forth an ultra-unpopular theological argument … and you would likely not go for it.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Ever read Chekhov’s A Boring Story?

How about Hjalmar Soderberg’s Dr. Glas?

How about any of Roberto Bolaños’ stories?

If we strike out here What’s to be done?

[Systematic]

Being woke is futile. It's like being nailed to a cross and trying to survive longer. The anti-woke are determined to f*** up the world. They get their way sometimes. Eventually we will perish.

[Gary Childress]

Do you know of any podcasts off hand where he does a little more direct quoting from Queer books and less filling in blanks of what he believes to be the "real" motives of the passages that he does quote? I'm not incredibly impressed with him so far. But if he has some material where he does a better job of connecting his interpretation with what is written in the book, that would be helpful. However, prima facie, from the sounds of it, he may have some comprehension issues with stuff he does read.

Since he was a controbutor to the book he quoted from and commented on, your comment about his words doesn't make much sense.

I was hoping for some more details on why he thought queer theory was a bad thing but he spent most of the video reading praise of his book and when he did read a couple of quotes from queer theory as evidence his interpretations were probably disputable, I think there's an argument to be made that he read more into them than what was present in the quotes he used. Does that help you better or am I talking over your head?

[Alexis Jacobi]

I was hoping for some more details on why he thought queer theory was a bad thing but he spent most of the video reading praise of his book and when he did read a couple of quotes from queer theory as evidence his interpretations were probably disputable, I think there's an argument to be made that he read more into them than what was present in the quotes he used. Does that help you better or am I talking over your head?

My view? The materials, the ideas expressed and outlined, are on one hand unfamiliar, and on another (to use a typical expression) threatening to your established order of thinking.

If you actually are “looking for more details on why he thought queer theory was a bad thing“ you have, at least, asked the pertinent question. Whatever does he mean? What could he be trying to present?

Having spent years now examining dissident and contrary discourses, I have, obviously, come to my own assessments.

What I notice about you is your rigidity within that structure so common, so determinant in our present. You simply cannot be budged or influenced.

Myself, I try to understand this.

If I had to say it I think Lindsay has some flaws. Remember: he attempts to defend the American Liberal tradition and ideology. He rejects, vehemently, the tenets of radical Critical Theories (they are a web) but in defense of classics Liberalism.

It is not the strongest position upon which to construct the barricadas that he believes necessary.

I think there's an argument to be made that he read more into them than what was present in the quotes he used.

As I am halfway through the book I understand what it is attempting. And I cannot agree with your assessment.

Pray to Hitler, Eva and one of their ascended German Shepherd’s (Blondi is the most compassionate) for guidance! Metaphysical aid is always near! But you have to ask!

… or am I talking over your head?

When you talk out of your ass I am unsure if prepositions get to the heart of your issue.

[Alexiev]

Ever read Chekhov’s A Boring Story?

How about Hjalmar Soderberg’s Dr. Glas?

How about any of Roberto Bolaños’ stories?

If we strike out here What’s to be done?

I read "A Boring Story" many years ago. More recently, I just read George Saunders' brilliant book "A Swim in a Pond in the Rain". In it he reprints famous Russian stories and then analyzes them from the perspective of technique (he's a superb short story writer himself, as well as the author of "Lincoln in the Bardo").

Included are Chekov's "The Darling", "Gooseberries" and one other Chekov story which might be called "The Cart". He also analyzes "Master and Man", Alyosha the Pot" (Tolstoy), "The Singers" (Turgenev), and "The Nose" (Gogol). He discusses at length the techniques by which Chekov makes stories about ordinary people who live commonplace lives interesting. As I vaguely remember, "A Boring Story" does the same.

I actually prefer Chekov's plays to his stories. but that may be a matter of taste.

I looked up stats on gender affirming surgeries. During a recent 5 year period there were 45,000 in the U.S (rounding out the numbers from memory). 3500 were children under 18 (12-18). These included facial plastic surgery (perhaps people concerned about others trying to look more youthful can be in an uproar about them), breast reconstruction, and genital surgery (35%, about 15,000) I didn't see stats on which of these surgeries were performed on 12-18 year olds. I'll admit I didn't think there were so many cuttings but I'd guess it's a small percentage of cosmetic surgeries. Why would gender affirming surgeries (especially those non-genital ones) be so different from other cosmetic surgeries? Is anyone complaining about children getting nose jobs?

[Gary Childress]

or am I talking over your head?

When you talk out of your ass I am unsure if prepositions get to the heart of your issue.

Speak for yourself.