1/
There is an entire industry of guys like this whose only goal is to front as "speaking truth to power" while they build a brand. "Social Justice"
*IS* the cool thing.

The reality of biology in a single clip:

Transwomen are women

I'm not being a jerk, I'm making my point with a sledgehammer.

Pretending differences between men and women don't exist is utterly absurd, and people keep saying it. This ACLU lawyer quite literally says "Women and girls who are trans are biological women and girls."

In 2017 Craid Telfor ranked 390th in the mens 400m hurdles.

In 2018 Craig Telfor transitioned and became CeCe Telfor.

In 2019 CeCe Telfor won the women's 400m hurdles at the Womens Division II National Championship.

In what moral universe is this fair to women?

Renee Richards was a male to female transgender person who at age *45* became the 20th ranked women's player in the world.

Richards now says if the transition had at happened age 22 rather then at 40 no biological women would have had a chance:

I have loaded the vibe trebuchet and launched into the world a large number of bublasuars, Ivysaurs, and Venusaurs. The reason for this is not clear to me. Although I do have reasons for having done so...

Sometimes our artistic nature allows us to intuit what is coming prior to the even showing up. It is sometimes the case that there is something inside us, something deep, that only comes out by way of expression and art.

It is not always symbolic.

So the bulbasaurs are not symbolic of some ideas, they are something I felt the need to express, so I did. As odd as it sounds, like a sad person plays a song, or a happy person does a dance, I am contemplating the current social and political milieu so I tweeted bulbasaurs.

I have been tweeting less threads, with less regularity, because there has been a shift in the social and political milieu and I am still attempting to apprehend it. I have not nailed it down exactly, as the shift is subtle, but it is there and has been since the start of October

I don't mean to be cryptic, but there has been a change and I do not fully understand it yet. Woke ideology (AKA critical social justice) has not changed, it is still postmodern and it still uses critical theory, but something else has changed. There is a shift in the air...

1/
A huge mistake people make is to think of postmodernism, post-structuralism, intersectionality, Critical Legal Studies, Critical Race Theory, 4th wave feminism, and Critical Theory as being separate and distinct, having nothing to do with each other

This is a massive mistake.

2/
These disciplines are connected. They are not like individual academic factories producing different theories. The fact is that the ideas that are produced in various disciplines cross-pollinate and influence each other. The theorists make use of and share each others ideas.

3/
These fields are akin to ingredients used by activists to make the stew of Critical Social Justice.

Mix some postmodernism here with some intersectionality there, add Critical Race Theory and 4th wave feminist post-structuralism and *taste test* YUMMY...Social Justice!👨‍🍳

4/
Take a look through the activist literature and you'll see that they pull from all these theorists as they see fit and as they find it useful.

An excellent example of this is the book/website: "Beautiful Trouble." You can see how this dynamic works in that book.

5/
You all know the old trick about how "postmoderns" and Marxists are totally different? Well that was true at one time, but woke activists will gladly take ideas from both the Postmodern philosopher Michel Foucault (1st pic) and the Marxist Antonio Gramsci (2nd pic)

1/

Mini Thread:

Every time I think there is no more postmodernism in Christianity, I find more postmodernism in Christianity.

This time @KaitlynSchiess

2/
We start out with acknowledging a shift in how "truth" is thought about.

Which, I mean, yeah just read some Stanley Grenz and you can see it coming. It is called *taps mic*
🥐🦭🥐🦭🥐🦭🥐🦭

POSTMODERNISM

🥐🦭🥐🦭🥐🦭🥐🦭

3/
Pic 1: We are sinful and as such we are epistemicly flawed

Pic 2: Because we are flawed and imperfect we must adopt the philosophy of Richard Rorty: "The truth is out there but we can't get it."

Although she hedges slightly with "every time."

4/
Next "There is no universal basis for evaluating our environment."

This is her argument for that:

1. our perspectives are limited,
2. our communities suffer from generational and structural biases,
Therefore:
3. there is no universal basis for evaluating our
environments.

5/
This whole argument (much like the whole essay) is totally confused.

For one, the conclusion does not follow from the premises. She goes from different perspectives and people have bias directly to there is no foundation for the discovery of truth.

now....

2021 Predictions‼️

Made by James Howard Kunstler

👇🏻👀

Kunstler is said to be one of the best thinkers and authors of our modern era. He’s well known as an expert in energy economics, among other topics.

He is NOT a fan of Trump which makes his predictions even more interesting.

1) The election is re-adjudicated, fraud subtracted from the tally, and President Trump is declared the winner.

2) The mail-in vote for the Georgia Senate seat runoff is disqualified as systematic fraud is revealed. Stacy Abrams is indicted for organizing the fraud.

3) A number of political celebrities, DC swamp rats, K-Street hustlers, media figures, and tech company executives are arrested and charged with serious crimes around election fraud.

4) The CIA is purged and reduced to a strictly analytical role for advising the executive.

There's a particular kind of romantic partnership, with a certain sort of person, that I've wanted since I became a self-aware, directed agent at around age 15.

Empirically, this kind of relationship has been hard to achieve. It hasn't worked out yet, at least.

And this sometimes leaves me wondering if my standards are unreasonable.

In years past that desire was often very alive.

These days, I'm rarely directly or viscerally in contact with it.

I sometimes contemplate aiming for some other kind of romantic and/or sexual relationship instead. In part because I might be more effective if I...I don't know, got laid more? But that's not really the thing. More like, if I had someone around whom I could regularly relax.

But mostly, I don't pursue those alternative relationship-setups out of a sense of something like loyalty to myself + a vague sense of wrongness and/or sadness about it. It often feels like giving up or giving in.

[I might elaborate on the wrongness sometime.]

Some familiar figures are pushing the absurd and defamatory claim that Ken Loach supports Holocaust denial. The story of this bogus talking-point, which relies upon multiple layers of falsehood and guilt-by-association, makes for a revealing case-study. 1/

It dates back to the 2017 Labour conference. In a NYT op-ed, Howard Jacobson claimed that “a motion to question the truth of the Holocaust was proposed” from the conference floor—a crude fabrication, which the NYT sanctioned in its pages. 2/

If you follow the link supplied by Jacobson or his editors, you’ll see that he was wrong on 3 counts: it wasn’t a motion, it wasn’t at the conference, and it wasn’t in favour of Holocaust denial. Quite the hat-trick! 3/

At a fringe meeting, granted no official status by Labour, an Israeli-Jewish speaker, Miko Peled, had said that he didn’t think Holocaust denial should be a criminal offense (which it is in some European countries). 4/

This is a perfectly reasonable position to hold—that opinions, no matter how wrong-headed or morally objectionable, should not be a matter for the criminal law—and of course it does not mean that Peled himself questions the truth of the Holocaust. 5/

THREAD: On the full-fledged process of responding to a Revise-And-Resubmit (R&R).

I have written pieces of the process, but I hadn't actually written a thread or a blog post showcasing how all my blog posts fit with one another. I teach this process when I give workshops.

So here's what I do (now), and let me share a lesson from my past lives:

DO NOT SIT ON R&Rs.

I know, they're painful and scary and sometimes we don't know if our paper will get rejected in the end.

But remember, an R&R means an OPPORTUNITY to get your paper published.

Sitting on R&Rs, leaving them for later, and not prioritizing them has gotten me fewer publications. I know this for a fact. I am not ashamed of admitting that I have sometimes felt that I will not be capable of responding to multiple (often conflicting) comments.

HOWEVER...

Sustained, frequent advice from professors who are senior to me (though I am senior myself now too) is always the same and on-point:

The goal is the R&R.

You're not getting a desk rejection.

You are getting your work read, reviewed carefully, thought about, responded to.

What do I do now (and have been doing for the past few years, with success)

When I get the R&R (the "decision letter"), I make sure to calm down, because I am always afraid I'm going to get nasty comments. These have been (luckily) very rarely present in my latest submissions.