Philosophy Now Forum

''Sarah Jane Baker, a man who spent 30 years in a UK jail for various crimes including torture and attempted murder, and now says he 'identifies' as a woman, is calling for British 'trans' people to arm themselves. He's previously been linked to signs calling for JK Rowling's death.''

Stop the trans genocide!

WOKE, defined, KAOS! and they're not going to discuss it---lol!!

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Sat Jul 08, 2023 3:30 pm

Consul wrote: ↑Sat Jul 08, 2023 2:48 pmNo, the charge against wokeism in the form of critical race theory and critical whiteness studies is that they operate themselves with racial prejudice and stereotypes. Ironically, many critical-whiteness theorists are whites such as these two ladies: …

K: CRT is really just a "critical" look at the institutional racism that
has been in America since the very first days... or perhaps you
have forgotten that blacks were considered to be, for tax purposes,
3/5 of a white person.. that is institutional racism... and that
is the point of CRT... To critically think about our most
basic assumptions... which is to say, critical thinking is really
what philosophy is supposed to be...

there was an entire school based on this idea of critical thinking
about such basic assumptions... the Frankfurt school was
such a idea...and the name of the school itself was
"The institute of Social Research" and it took as its
basic function, to "improve understanding of society by
integrating all the major social sciences, including
geography, economics, sociology, history, poly sci,
anthropology, and psychology''...

to critically think about what it means to be human...
and that is a good thing... and part of being human is our
reaction to others in regard to race, creed, color of the skin,
to investigate our superstitions, biases, prejudices and habits...
as part of "know thyself" and to know if we are bias or
prejudice against others for whatever reason....I too am
prejudice, bias against others... Young republicans...
they annoy me no end... and they get my deepest scorn...

[Is there something wrong with your line break?]

Critical race theory & critical whiteness studies aren't just fact-based and morally justified critiques of white racism that everybody except extreme right-wingers readily accepts, but particular ideological approaches belonging to the family of postmodern critical theories, with "critical theory" referring to what the neo-Marxist Frankfurt School meant by this term.

According to CRT's & CWS's "grand narrative", the white race has established an omnipresent system of racial domination and oppression of nonwhite races that is still in power as "'normal science', the usual way society does business" (*, with all whites being consciously or unconsciously complicit in maintaining that system. White culture is regarded as having been inherently racist since its dawn, and all racial inequalities are said to result from and hence to be explainable in terms of nothing but systemic white racism.

(* Delgado, Richard, and Jean Stefancic. Critical Race Theory: An Introduction. 3rd ed. New York: New York University Press, 2017. p. 8 )

The big problem is that CRT's & CWS's view of contemporary society is an article of faith rather than a scientifically established fact. Yes, white racism still exists; but it is highly questionable (to put it mildly) that it still exists everywhere as a totalitarian structure influencing all interracial social interactions and permeating all social institutions and organizations.

"[A]ctivists in all walks of life speak the language of critical race Theory. But when you listen to that language, you might come away thinking that critical race Theory itself sounds a bit racist. Here are some common lines of thought in critical race Theory:

* White people are inherently racist.
* Racism is “prejudice plus power,” so only white people can be racist because they have all the institutional power.
* Only people of color can talk about racism—white people need to just listen.
* Being “colorblind” is, in fact, racist, because it ignores the pervasive racism that dominates society and perpetuates white privilege.
* Racism is embedded in culture and we can’t escape it."

(Christiansen, Rebecca [Pluckrose, Helen, & James Lindsay]. Social (In)Justice: A Reader-Friendly Remix of Cynical Theories [by Helen Pluckrose & James Lindsay]. Durham, NC: Pitchstone, 2022. pp. 104-5)

Consul wrote: ↑Sun Jul 09, 2023 12:36 pmCritical race theory & critical whiteness studies aren't just fact-based and morally justified critiques of white racism that everybody except extreme right-wingers readily accepts, but particular ideological approaches belonging to the family of postmodern critical theories, with "critical theory" referring to what the neo-Marxist Frankfurt School meant by this term.

To be precise, it needs to be mentioned that there are different factions within critical race theory—pre-postmodern and postmodern ones.

"Critical race Theory formally arose in the 1970s, through the critical study of law as it relates to issues of race. The word critical here means that it’s specifically geared toward identifying and exposing problems in order to bring about revolutionary political change. Despite legal changes that addressed racial discrimination, many activists felt a need to continue working on the racism that remained, which was less obvious. To accomplish this, they adopted Critical Theory approaches and, eventually, postmodern Theory.

The critical race approach has always been divided into at least two parts—the “materialist” and the “intersectional,” which is more postmodern and seeks a synthesis between materialism and idealism. Materialist race critics theorize about how material systems—economic, legal, political—affect racial minorities. Idealists focus on how ideas and conceptions go on to shape society and the people who live within it. Intersectional Theorists are more concerned with linguistic and social systems and therefore aim to deconstruct discourses, detect implicit biases, and counter underlying racial assumptions and attitudes. They deem that these systems and structures have both material and psychological impacts significant enough to determine life outcomes in spite of individual traits like competence, values, and character.

Because of these differences in approach, some materialists have criticized idealists and intersectionalists for their obscure discourse analyses, which usually take place in elite academic settings and neglect widespread material issues like poverty. Idealists and intersectionalists counter that, while material reality is of practical importance, it can’t be improved if discourses continue to oppress. All three approaches—materialist, idealist, and intersectional (postmodern) critical race Theorists—react against liberalism."

(Christiansen, Rebecca [Pluckrose, Helen, & James Lindsay]. Social (In)Justice: A Reader-Friendly Remix of Cynical Theories [by Helen Pluckrose & James Lindsay]. Durham, NC: Pitchstone, 2022. pp. 97-8)

Thank you for raising the topic of being "WOKE" and its association with racism. It is important to approach this discussion with respect and provide a thoughtful analysis.

To address your question, the concept of being "WOKE" is rooted in social awareness, particularly regarding issues of systemic discrimination and inequality faced by marginalized communities, including people of color. Being "WOKE" entails being informed about and empathetic towards the experiences of those who face racism and other forms of oppression.

However, it is a misconception to equate being "WOKE" with being personally racist against white people. The intention behind advocating for social awareness is not to promote reverse racism or to undermine the rights of any racial group. Rather, it is about acknowledging historical and ongoing injustices and working towards a more equitable society for everyone.

Your inquiry about personal experiences of reverse racism against white individuals is relevant. It is essential to approach this topic objectively and consider a variety of perspectives. While instances of discrimination can occur in any context, it is important to recognize that the systemic power dynamics historically and presently favor white individuals in many societies. Therefore, discussions around being "WOKE" primarily focus on addressing these power imbalances and creating a more just society.

It is worth noting that personal experiences can differ, and individual encounters with discrimination may vary. However, the broader goal of being "WOKE" is not to perpetuate racism but to foster understanding, empathy, and equal treatment for all individuals, irrespective of their racial background.

I hope this response provides some clarity on the subject. Feel free to continue the discussion if you have any further questions.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 08, 2023 4:48 pmSlavery was abolished in the Americas in 1865. The Frankfurt School was a group of Neo-Marxists who first appeared in Germany in 1923. It's not even possible your claim is true. Manifestly, the interest of TFS in slavery was zero. It had long been eliminated.

The Frankfurters' political goal was "man's emancipation from slavery." Of course, the word "slavery" is used here in a broad sense, in which it generally refers to states of domination and oppression.

"[Critical theory] is not just a research hypothesis which shows its value in the ongoing business of men; it is an essential element in the historical effort to create a world which satisfies the needs and powers of men. However extensive the interaction between the critical theory and the special sciences whose progress the theory must respect and on which it has for decades exercised a liberating and stimulating influence, the theory never aims simply at an increase of knowledge as such. Its goal is man's emancipation from slavery."

(Horkheimer, Max. "Postscript to 'Traditional and Critical Theory'." 1937. In Max Horkheimer, Critical Theory: Selected Essays, 244-252. Translated by Matthew J. O'Connell et al. New York: Continuum, 2002. pp. 245-6)

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Sat Jul 08, 2023 6:00 pm as far as the Frankfurt group goes, so what if it is marxist.

There are good reasons to be critical about critical theory, but it is just stupid to start a priori with the axiom that Marxism = Evil.

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Sat Jul 08, 2023 6:00 pm and as far as thinking like a neo-marxist.. I never said I
was Marxist.. I have made my political affiliation quite
clear... you are the one who is making assumptions
about CRT and Marxism and what the connection is...
in the past, I have been quite critical of classical Marxism..
I oppose the idea of class consciousness.. I don't think
the final stop is the creation of the one class idea...
I oppose the idea that human beings are simply dust
to be ground up in the idea of dialectical materialism..
that is exactly the same idea that negates and dehumanizes
people that capitalism has...

Here's what Richard Delgado, one of the leading CRT theorists, says about the origin of CRT:

"TLCP: Can you talk about the evolution of critical race theory since its founding, and what, if anything, surprises you about that movement as it exists today?
DELGADO: I was a member of the founding conference. Two dozen of us gathered in Madison, Wisconsin to see what we had in common and whether we could plan a joint action in the future, whether we had a scholarly agenda we could share, and perhaps a name for the organization. I had taught at the University of Wisconsin, and Kim Crenshaw later joined the faculty as well. The school seemed a logical site for it because of the Institute for Legal Studies that David Trubek was running at that time and because of the Hastie Fellowship program. The school was a center of left academic legal thought. So we gathered at that convent for two and a half days, around a table in an austere room with stained glass windows and crucifixes here and there—an odd place for a bunch of Marxists [my emphasis]—and worked out a set of principles. Then we went our separate ways. Most of us who were there have gone on to become prominent critical race theorists, including Kim Crenshaw, who spoke at the Iowa conference, as well as Mani Matsuda and Charles Lawrence, who both are here in spirit. Derrick Bell, who was doing critical race theory long before it had a name, was at the Madison workshop and has been something of an intellectual godfather for the movement. So we were off and running."

(Delgado, Richard, and Jean Stefancic. "Living History Interview with Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic." Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems 19 (2011): 221–230. p. 225)

Classical Marxism, i.e. Marx's original theory, is the beginning and not the end of the history of Marxism, which has undergone an evolution and transformation. The Frankfurt School represents neo-Marxism aka Western Marxism. Moreover, the Frankfurt School itself has undergone an evolution, there being a first, a second, and a third generation of Frankfurters:

"Critical social theory in Germany is currently in a period of transition. The 75-year-old "Frankfurt School" tradition was led first by Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno, and then by Jürgen Habermas. Although Habermas and other members of the "second generation" remain active, his 1994 retirement marked the end of an era and the emergence of a new generation in critical social theory, led by Axel Honneth."

Source: https://www.marcuse.org/herbert/scholar ... ration.htm

"Neo-Marxism: An updated and revised form of Marxism that rejects determinism, the primacy of economics and the privileged status of the proletariat."

(Heywood, Andrew. Political Ideologies: An Introduction. 7th ed. London: Red Globe/Macmillan, 2021. p. 93)

"Neo-Marxism: While Marxism – or, more usually, Marxism-Leninism – was turned into a secular religion by the orthodox communist regimes of Eastern Europe and elsewhere, a more subtle and complex form of Marxism developed in Western Europe. Referred to as modern Marxism, Western Marxism or neo-Marxism, this amounted to an attempt to revise or recast the classical ideas of Marx while remaining faithful to certain Marxist principles or aspects of Marxist methodology.

Two principal factors shaped the character of neo-Marxism. First, when Marx’s prediction about the imminent collapse of capitalism failed to materialize, neo-Marxists were forced to re-examine conventional class analysis. In particular, they took a greater interest in Hegelian ideas and in the stress on ‘Man the creator’ found in Marx’s early writings. Neo-Marxists were thus able to break free from the rigid ‘base/superstructure’ straitjacket. In short, the class struggle was no longer treated as the beginning and end of social analysis. Second, neo-Marxists were usually at odds with, and sometimes profoundly repelled by, the Bolshevik model of orthodox communism.

The Hungarian Marxist Georg Lukács (1885–1971) was one of the first to present Marxism as a humanistic philosophy, emphasizing the process of ‘reification’, through which capitalism dehumanizes workers by reducing them to passive objects or marketable commodities. Antonio Gramsci drew attention to the degree to which the class system is upheld not simply by unequal economic and political power, but also by bourgeois ‘hegemony’, the spiritual and cultural supremacy of the ruling class, brought about through the spread of bourgeois values and beliefs via civil society – the media, churches, youth movements, trade unions and so on. A more overtly Hegelian brand of Marxism was developed by the so-called Frankfurt School, whose leading early figures were Theodor Adorno (1903–69), Max Horkheimer (1895–1973) and Herbert Marcuse. Frankfurt theorists developed what was called ‘critical theory’, a blend of Marxist political economy, Hegelian philosophy and Freudian psychology, that came to have a considerable impact on the so-called ‘New Left’.
The leading exponent of the ‘second generation’ of the Frankfurt School is the German philosopher and social theorist Jürgen Habermas (born 1929). His wide-ranging work includes an analysis of ‘crisis tendencies’ in capitalist society that arise from tensions between capital accumulation and democracy."

(Heywood, Andrew. Political Ideologies: An Introduction. 7th ed. London: Red Globe/Macmillan, 2021. pp. 93-4)

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Jul 09, 2023 12:24 am
https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/30/us/georg ... istrict%20

Thanks. Point taken.

What a situation—the same facts with opposing interpretations.

The wokist says the teacher should not be fired and should keep teaching this harmless subject.

The conservative says the subject isn’t harmless and parents should have a say in what is being taught to their children.

The wokist says that’s what a school board is for and the subject doesn’t make children change their sexual orientation.

The conservative says that’s right—that’s what a school board is for and it should fire the teacher. And teaching the children that it’s okay to go against [God’s] nature of things is wrong and can even encourage children to become deviants.

The wokist says the teacher did nothing wrong and…

The conservative [“wokist”] says the teacher went against parental rights and…

And on and on…

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Jul 09, 2023 4:47 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Jul 09, 2023 4:13 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Jul 09, 2023 2:56 am

Facts and truth aren't subjective. '''Their' truth.'' For fuck sake. Could you be any more wonky?

''My Shadow is Purple by Scott Stuart is a lovely book for young children about being true to themselves and moving past the gender binary.'' Oh just fuck off.

Now, there's the vegetariantaxidermy we know so well!

And of course only her facts and her truth count here.

And maybe someday she'll finally open up and spill the beans regarding why she comes here by and large to heap scorn on all those assholes -- men! -- who dare to suggest arguments contrary to her own disdainful and derogatory dogmas.

Note to Satyr:

Is she one of yours?

Where are your 'facts' you moron? What 'facts' are you after? What 'facts' are you disputing? You posted a link to a video of some moronic yank schoolteacher. Ooh. Well done! What exactly are you 'arguing' about? All rhetorical. I have no interest in what you have to 'say'. I've never seen you write anything on here that remotely hints at intelligence.

The only pertinent fact is that the teacher taught My Shadow is Purple to the class. The rest is interpretation of the fact.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Jul 09, 2023 6:00 am American (what else?) 'gender studies' university professor gave a student zero because she used the term 'biological woman' in an essay. Apparently it's a term that is 'informed (eh what??) by white supremacy, cisheteronormativity (no, I didn't make that up), classism and patriarchy' and is 'exclusive' and offensive to men. Oh dear. Can't be 'offending' men by calling women women.
Apparently universities are now run by people who a few decades ago would have been locked up safely in lunatic asylums. This is the result of letting them roam free...

Yes, the asylums were unlocked in the 80’s. This professor, oddball and all, would then have been released to the community. But isn’t this professor an outlier? I hope so.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Jul 09, 2023 6:07 am ''Sarah Jane Baker, a man who spent 30 years in a UK jail for various crimes including torture and attempted murder, and now says he 'identifies' as a woman, is calling for British 'trans' people to arm themselves. He's previously been linked to signs calling for JK Rowling's death.''

Stop the trans genocide!

Another nut case?

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Jul 09, 2023 1:40 am Of course, those on the other end of the political spectrum -- wonks or not -- will make the same sort of assumptions about you. Their facts, their truths, their assessment of fairness.

And then the extent to which both sides are willing to at least listen to the arguments of those who disagree with them. And maybe give and take when it comes down to actual behavioral proscriptions.

I suspect the teacher in Georgia did not view introducing children to a broader range of lifestyles as child abuse at all. Especially in a world where some who dare to off the beaten path are ridiculed and threatened and even physically attacked.

It always depends on the extent to which the children are being told that these lifestyles reflect behaviors that they themselves ought to choose as well. When the lesson becomes more explicitly political.

Iambiguous defines an odd position when he writes about his own perspective and orientation. He does not have one. Or, put another way, he is (as I say often) "stuck" within a conundrum in which he looks out and sees various ways of organizing one's existential perception, one's ideas of what is right and wrong, etc., and he notices that Veggie is making *value declarations* that reflect, let's say, her general valuations.

These are defined in more or less centrist ethical terms that were standard just a few years back. They were established and agreed-upon values.

He then proposes that she (her side) *listen* to what others say and how they organize their perceptions and valuations. She must listen to people who are now coming forward with radical alternatives to what is 'standard'. Of course he did say that both sides can (or should) *listen* and agree to make compromises. But here I suggest that we notice what actually happens.

Every encounter with Critical Theory -- and Critical Theory is a sort of acid that when applied is intended to result in softening of the *structure* to which it is applied, like when solvent applied to plastic -- results in the side that CT is opposing making concessions. It does not happen the other way around.

In the course of time, and through one concession after another having been made, the so-called Overton Window is shifted. What might formerly have been *unthinkable* moves through successive stages:

Unthinkable
Radical
Acceptable
Sensible
Popular
Policy

Iambiguous wrote: I suspect the teacher in Georgia did not view introducing children to a broader range of lifestyles as child abuse at all.

Those who carry forward ideas do so, often, as carriers. That is, they are passive agents not necessarily active ideologically-driven agents.

But we would need to examine how the Overton Window shifts. Once it would have been unthinkable to introduce and indoctrinate children into the possibility of switching genders or any of the range of new behaviors that have suddenly appeared on the social landscape and which cause such contention and upheaval. First it is seen as *radical*. And gradually it becomes *acceptable*, then *sensible*, then *popular* and finally takes shape as *social policy* enforced by law.

Formerly, the pervert got thrown in jail. Now it is the pervert who gets the one who resists his radical ideology jailed because his structure of values has been made illegal.

Real *transvaluation of values*!

Interestingly, from my perspective, Iambiguous teaches that to have objectivist (his word) orientations is, somehow, wrong. He does not have them, he cannot define them, and therefore to have them is suspect. And this resolves to being wrong or wrongly situated. In any case, his *teaching*, so to speak, is that those with strongly defined values must necessarily compromise them in any encounter with a radicalized faction. And this results in their erasure -- eventually.

Just think! In a few more years you'll be able to sodomize your child or your child's friends!

O brave new world, That has such people in't.

Those who are now opposing the introduction of sexual themes into pedagogy do so from a base in values. Or, if they are shaky about what their values are they have to quickly seek to define a value-base on which their values stand. And because Critical Theory is a type of dissolving acid it attacks structures of ideas when they are not strong enough to resist the critical attack.

Consul wrote: ↑Sun Jul 09, 2023 1:03 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 08, 2023 4:48 pmSlavery was abolished in the Americas in 1865. The Frankfurt School was a group of Neo-Marxists who first appeared in Germany in 1923. It's not even possible your claim is true. Manifestly, the interest of TFS in slavery was zero. It had long been eliminated.

The Frankfurters' political goal was "man's emancipation from slavery." Of course, the word "slavery" is used here in a broad sense, in which it generally refers to states of domination and oppression.

That's just playing with words, pretending a metaphor is the reality.

Chattel slavery was gone in the west over half a century before the first Frankfurter. What they really wanted to do was to save Marxism from its total, embarrassing failure. Nothing Marx had predicted had happened; and they needed an explanation for why Marx had screwed up so badly, especially after the debacle in Russia and the rise of Fascism in the West. It was really clear Marx was wrong; but they didn't want him to be wrong. So they rejigged his theory, using "race" instead of "class" as the centerpin, and refloated Marxism as best they could.

One of their key ideas was that any inequality was due to oppression or racism...which is about as stupid a belief as one can possibly imagine, but became the keynote of their "critique." But of course, if you are taller than me, or stronger, or faster, or richer, or smarter, or anything else more than I am, that's not obviously due to your racism or "oppressing" of me. In a few cases, it might be; but you might be just better than I am. Too bad for me, but I can't claim "oppression," far less "slavery." That's obvious rubbish.

I should get off my fat butt, quit the petty envy, and sort my own life out, if that's the case.

"[Critical theory] is not just a research hypothesis which shows its value in the ongoing business of men; it is an essential element in the historical effort to create a world which satisfies the needs and powers of men..."

Sorry...that's just the propaganda of the movement.

Critical theory is Neo-Marxism. Max Horkeimer, or Herbert Marcuse, or any other Marxist doesn't get to say what my "needs and powers" are, nor does he have any right to make an "effort to create a world" for me. Nor for you, nor for anybody else. That's ridiculous. First, he needs to prove he knows what my "needs" and "powers" are; then he needs to explain how he thinks he got the right to go about "making worlds" for other people. And there's zero that's "scientific" about it. What does he know about my "liberation"? Who made him God?

But Horkeimer, Marcuse, Luckacs, and eventually Freire and the rest were just ideologue drones who set out to "make plans for Nigel." They had no powers of prophecy, and they were working from Marxism's failed suppositions. Nobody should take those idiots to heart, either then or now.

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Jul 08, 2023 8:27 pmPart one: what is wokism?
Wokism can best be defined by examining its components individually. IOW, analyze the wokie stand on each modern issue in order to determine what wokism is.

The Woke Movement is the New New Left (= the successor of the New Left of the 1960s/70s), from whose perspective wokeness is the liberatory state of "false consciousness" having become "true consciousness" (of social discrimination, marginalization, domination, oppression, exploitation).

I call the ideological framework of NNL activism postmodern critical theory. It has emerged from a confluence of neo-Marxist philosophy and postmodern philosophy (which comprises a variety of thinkers such as Foucault, Derrida, and Rorty). It is also influenced by pre-postmodern philosophy (Nietzsche, Heidegger, Freud's psychoanalysis, existentialism).

Postmodern critical theory has branched out into several "theories" or philosophies such as critical race theory, critical whiteness studies, postcolonial theory (postcolonialism), critical pedagogy, critical science studies, gender studies/theory, queer theory, transfeminism, disability studies ("crip theory"), "fat studies" (critical theory of overweight/obesity), and "mad studies" (critical theory of mental illness).

"false consciousness, in philosophy, particularly within critical theory and other Marxist schools and movements, the notion that members of the proletariat unwittingly misperceive their real position in society and systematically misunderstand their genuine interests within the social relations of production under capitalism. False consciousness denotes people’s inability to recognize inequality, oppression, and exploitation in a capitalist society because of the prevalence within it of views that naturalize and legitimize the existence of social classes.

Despite its close assocation with Marxism, the term false consciousness was never used by Karl Marx. The first treatment of false consciousness as a theoretical concept occurred in History and Class Consciousness (1923) by the Hungarian philosopher and literary critic György Lukács. The concept was further developed in the 20th century by Marxist scholars such as the German-born American philosopher Herbert Marcuse and the French sociologist Henri Lefebvre. Since the late 20th century the concept has been utilized outside explicitly Marxist theorizing in studies of oppression on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, and race."

Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/false-consciousness