Category Archives: Egalitarianism / Culture Wars

How postmodernists use language as a weapon

(Facebook is blocking it as spam.)

—“For the postmodernist, language cannot be cognitive because it does not connect to reality, whether to an external nature or an underlying self. Language is not about being aware of the world, or about distinguishing the true from the false, or even about argument in the traditional sense of validity, soundness, and probability. Accordingly, postmodernism recasts the nature of rhetoric: Rhetoric is persuasion in the absence of cognition. . . .

To the modernist, the “mask” metaphor is a recognition of the fact that words are not always to be taken literally or as directly stating a fact—that people can use language elliptically, metaphorically, or to state falsehoods, that language can be textured with layers of meaning, and that it can be used to cover hypocrisies or to rationalize. Accordingly, unmasking means interpreting or investigating to get to a literal meaning or fact of the matter. The process of unmasking is cognitive, guided by objective standards, with the purpose of coming to an awareness of reality.

For the postmodernist, by contrast, interpretation and investigation never terminate with reality. Language connects only with more language, never with a non-linguistic reality. In Jacques Derrida’s words, “[t]he fact of language is probably the only fact ultimately to resist all parenthization.”[288] That is to say, we cannot get outside of language. Language is an “internal,” self-referential system, and there is no way to get “external” to it—although even to speak of “internal” and “external” is also meaningless on postmodern grounds. There is no non-linguistic standard to which to relate language, so there can be no standard by which to distinguish between the literal and the metaphorical, the true and the false. Deconstruction is therefore in principle an unending process. Unmasking does not even terminate in “subjective” beliefs and interests, for “subjective” contrasts to “objective,” and that too is a distinction that postmodernism denies. A “subject’s beliefs and interests” are themselves socio-linguistic constructions, so unmasking one piece of language to reveal an underlying subjective interest is only to reveal more language. And that language in turn can be unmasked to reveal more language, and so on. Language is masks all the way down.”—

“Christians must understand that for Jews the cross is a symbol of oppression”

Jesus wasn’t a Christian – that word exists for his followers and came later. He was Jewish. His mother was Jewish. He was circumcised as a Jew. He pretty much followed the Jewish law, departing from it only in the name of what he saw as its deeper meaning. “For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished,” he insisted at the end of the Sermon on the Mount. Sure, he debated furiously with the Pharisees and Sadducees, especially about the significance of the temple. And, in time, this argument came to be restyled by Jesus’ gentile followers as an attack upon Jews per se. But originally it was an internal debate within Judaism, not an attack upon Jews from the outside. In was an internal debate in the same way that the prophets of the Hebrew scriptures, such as Jeremiah, often attacked the priests of the temple for missing the point.

It is a horrible irony, then, that Christianity bears primary responsibility for historic antisemitism. Few ideas can have been as poisonous as, and inspired more murderousness than, the idea that Jews were the Christ-killers.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/25/jews-cross-symbol-of-oppression-christians

Hi, It’s Us, All the Fourteen-Year-Old Girls in America by JESSICA M. GOLDSTEIN

The insufferable hypocrisy and cowardice of the cathedral.

Muslim rape gangs?
Female genital mutilation?
Child marriages?
Rampant Hollywood pedophilia?
Ignoring murders at the hands of illegal immigrants?
The measurable misery of modern women?
Increasing legal, social, cultural disincentives to marriage?
Demonization of healthy family life?

Nope. Nevermind all that. Conservative white men. Make any and every argument you can scrape together. Alinsky’s playbook. Truth doesn’t matter. Just attack. Presume to speak for a group. Be 1000% ungrateful.

My advice to friends is to be good at three things:

Family. Your profession. Guns.

https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/hi-its-us-all-the-fourteen-year-old-girls-in-america

DNA Testing Companies Like 23andme Admit Adding Fake African Ancestry To White Profiles In Order To “Screw With Racists”

Remember when white supremacist Craig Cobb found out that he was 14% black? Well as it turns out, there’s a possibility that those numbers could have been fudged with.

Morgan and his colleagues were caught between a rock and a really-want-to-mess-with-racists place. It would’ve been fun to throw a “10 percent West African” in there, but then they might have a pissed-off, dangerous person at their office, waving a gun. “Since we couldn’t do anything to the results (and we wanted to), what we did was add ‘< 1 percent’ to each African category of ethnicity. That way we weren’t lying, and they would both be wondering how much under a percentage point was. We always try to round to the nearest number because we sometimes hear about percentage points, but for them, we leave it open to whether it’s a one or a zero.” It’s a compromise that’s elegant in its passive-aggressive simplicity. And it got a result. “The near-N-bomber wrote to us asking what that meant, and we wrote back that it meant it was under 1 percent. And we were not saying zero. Unless they got another test, that was going to bother them. Maybe they weren’t 100 percent Caucasian. I mean, they were, according to the results, but this way it leaves it open, and they’ll always be wondering.” This is beyond shady and deceptive, people pay more than they can really afford sometimes, just to find out the truth about their heritage. What about this is acceptable? How does this turn a racist into a “non racist”? It doesn’t. There’s nothing but high levels of dishonesty in these companies. Unfortunately, this doesn’t even fully cover the other things they do behind closed doors. With a massive database of genetic information, the company can turn around and sell that data to other companies. Plenty of those companies are doing scientific research that can only be done with access to large amounts of genetic information. Even government agencies like the National Institutes of Health use the data to better understand the hereditary causes of diseases. Popular Science reports. Also, AncestryDNA has a partnership with the Google-owned biotech Calico, and shares the DNA of unsuspecting victims in the name of science and helpful research. https://squawker.org/culture-wars/dna-testing-companies-like-23andme-admit-adding-fake-african-ancestry-to-white-profiles-in-order-to-screw-with-racists/

Flashback VIDEO: Barbara Walters Scolds Corey Feldman for Calling Out Hollywood Abuse

The former ’80s child star tried to explain to host Barbara Walters that he, along with his best friend Corey Haim, had been sexually abused by older, powerful men in Hollywood. Feldman added that he believed the abuse led Haim to drug addiction and ultimately his sudden death in 2010.

“Are you saying they are pedophiles and that they are still in this business?” Walters asks incredulously, to which Feldman replies, “Yes.”

“They don’t want me here right now. They want me dead,” he added.

After Feldman advised parents who want their kids to enter show business not to go into it blindly, Walters cuts him off, saying, “You’re damaging an entire industry!”

“I’m sorry,” Feldman replied.

Social media users immediately chimed in after Feldman tweeted the 2013 clip on Thursday, acknowledging a problem that Walters ignored.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2017/10/14/flashback-video-barbara-walters-scolds-corey-feldman-calling-hollywood-abuse/

Letter from Conservatives to the left

I don’t speak for all conservatives, but I speak for at least some of them:

We reject your observations. We reject your logic. We reject your conclusions. And most importantly, we reject your demands. We have no common ground to build on. We have no common vision to work toward. No amount of shaming and pearl-clutching outrage will change my mind – you’ve exhausted your credibility. If you want cooperation, show me what is in it for me, my family, and my extended family.

(For the record, I regard it as a bit of a tragedy that Universalism is dead. But you killed it. I spent a lot of time trying to preserve it, but your demands for parasitic relations, your lies, your violence, your hypocrisy has made it impossible. I don’t wish you any harm, only separation. I cannot help you. My hope is that forcing you to live with the consequences of your parasitic ideology will change you, because I cannot.)