If you criticize the views of woke Social justice Activists they'll attack your motivations and imply that you're not being honest about your true motives. The goal is to make the audience suspicious of your intentions so they won't trust you or believe anything you say.
1/
One of the most common tricks used by woke Social Justice activists to defend their view is to de-legitimize criticism by attacking the motives of the person who is opposing them. The goal is to undercut the moral authority and social standing of anyone who disagrees with them
If you criticize the views of woke Social justice Activists they'll attack your motivations and imply that you're not being honest about your true motives. The goal is to make the audience suspicious of your intentions so they won't trust you or believe anything you say.
By attacking your motives the woke activists can both discredit you while getting the audience to raise their level of skepticism toward you. This tactic is sometime referred to as "poisoning the well."
It is a dirty tactic, but it is effective.
Here @BrandonLBradfor attempts to smear Conservative Black thinkers by claiming the reason the Right listens to conservative blacks is to assuage their own insecurity. The implication is people don't really care about the ideas of conservative blacks, they just use them...
This implies that the ideas of conservative blacks are not worth listening too, and that even if conservative blacks had good ideas, nobody would care any way. This is the sort of pure cynicism that typifies Wokeness.
Here Joshua Harrington-Sealy uses critical race theory to say that certain lawyers objections to a Statement Of Principles (SOP) was a show, and that he can use Critical Race Theory to explain that is was *REALLY* about regressive politics, not principles.
Note that Mr. Sealy implies that the reasons people claimed to be agains the SOP are just a show, and he needs to pull back the curtain and tell you what everyone's *REAL* motives are.
Again, pure cynicism.
Here @kkdumez implies someone negatively reviewed her book in order to trivialize her scholarship because she's a woman. All of the reviewers objections to her book are just layers of nonsense that need to be cut through so you can see the real motivating force: sexism.
Woke activists do not want to win by defeating you intellectually, they want to win by tearing you down socially.
The goal is to destroy your credibility and make it look like you're hiding something and not being upfront with the audience.
It's a disgusting tactic.
Do not try to diffuse this tactic by insisting that you're honest. That turns the conversation from an intellectual discussion about facts and ideas into a referendum on your character. That's what woke activists want, don't fall into that trap. There's a better solution...
The right move is to make it obvious they're using a smear tactic. Simply saying "you're not using arguments you're just attacking my motives" is much more effective then trying to defend yourself because it makes the smear tactic obvious so people don't get taken in by it.
If you make it painfully obvious that the other person is using a smear tactic, refuse to react with anger or insults and direct the conversation back to the arguments and the facts, you can diffuse the smear while increasing your credibility with the audience.
Here is an excellent explanation of the principle explained perfectly by Jordan Peterson. He explains exactly how to respond to attacks from people. This is really excellent.
Because woke activists are very concerned with social power you can expect them to try to win debates or have their ideas win the day by using social power to enforce their view. That's not how we want to go about things. I've messed up in this area and had to apologize...
More from Wokal Distance
1/
Time to talk Trumpers.
This is Cori Bush's bill to expel from congress anyone who supported election challenges yesterday.
Yesterday was Jan 6.
The bill is dated Jan 5.
*SHE KNEW YOU WOULD PROTEST, LOSE CONTROL, AND GET VIOLENT. AND SHE HAD A BILL READY FOR WHEN YOU DID*
2/
You guys are going to take the "L" here and quite frankly you deserve it. Cori Bush is going to eat your lunch every day until Biden is inaugurated and there isn't a thing you can do about it.
So....
Let's talk about how to make sure this never, ever, happens again.
3/
How did Cori Bush know you guys were going to have problems and violence?
Because she was trained in the lefty protest movement. Lefty organizing are what she did for years, that's her area of expertise. So she knows just how quickly and easily protests go off the rails...
4/
She knew that this was likely planned by people who did not understand how easily protests go bad, and she knew there was a high likelihood of something going wrong.
Someone is going to say "They had people planted to make it go violent, it is not our fault..."
5/
So what?
Your job is to make sure your people behave, and that you have enough trained people to handle agitators looking to make trouble.
The left knows how to do this. The hold peaceful protests *WHEN THEY WANT TO*
Look at the Women's march, 2 million people, no violence
Time to talk Trumpers.
This is Cori Bush's bill to expel from congress anyone who supported election challenges yesterday.
Yesterday was Jan 6.
The bill is dated Jan 5.
*SHE KNEW YOU WOULD PROTEST, LOSE CONTROL, AND GET VIOLENT. AND SHE HAD A BILL READY FOR WHEN YOU DID*
I believe the Republican members of Congress who have incited this domestic terror attack through their attempts to overturn the election must face consequences. They have broken their sacred Oath of Office.
— Congresswoman Cori Bush (@RepCori) January 6, 2021
I will be introducing a resolution calling for their expulsion. pic.twitter.com/JMTlQ4IfnR
2/
You guys are going to take the "L" here and quite frankly you deserve it. Cori Bush is going to eat your lunch every day until Biden is inaugurated and there isn't a thing you can do about it.
So....
Let's talk about how to make sure this never, ever, happens again.
3/
How did Cori Bush know you guys were going to have problems and violence?
Because she was trained in the lefty protest movement. Lefty organizing are what she did for years, that's her area of expertise. So she knows just how quickly and easily protests go off the rails...
4/
She knew that this was likely planned by people who did not understand how easily protests go bad, and she knew there was a high likelihood of something going wrong.
Someone is going to say "They had people planted to make it go violent, it is not our fault..."
5/
So what?
Your job is to make sure your people behave, and that you have enough trained people to handle agitators looking to make trouble.
The left knows how to do this. The hold peaceful protests *WHEN THEY WANT TO*
Look at the Women's march, 2 million people, no violence
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.
2/
I did an entire thread on how these sort of people monetize Social Justice on the one hand, and the turn around and accuse anyone who disagree with their ideas and methods of being in it for power and
3/
Books like "White Fragility" and "how to be antiracist" sell millions of copies...because that's where the money is and this guy thinks anyone who would say "this recent cultural view that progressive Christians are adopting is bad theology" is in it for money and power...
4/
Ibram Kendi wrote "how to be anti-Racist and had an ad deal with McDonalds.
Does Ameen think he's in it for the money?
5/
Nikole Hannah-Jones said "Capitalism is the motor thay drove slavery" and then, this is not a joke, did a lecture series on emancipation *SPONSORED BY SHELL OIL*
Will @Ameen_HGA be accusing her of chasing power?
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.
How many are \u201crich young rulers\u201d when it comes to social and cultural power and capital but want to hold on to those riches instead of seeking to give it up to help the vulnerable? Many are going away, yet, I don\u2019t think they are going away with much sorrow
— Ameen (@Ameen_HGA) December 27, 2020
2/
I did an entire thread on how these sort of people monetize Social Justice on the one hand, and the turn around and accuse anyone who disagree with their ideas and methods of being in it for power and
1/
— Wokal Distance (@wokal_distance) September 3, 2020
While activists disrupt, dismantle and deconstruct everything from art to tech, Corporations are going woke.
Why? Because despite the woke rhetoric about "income inequality," there is ZERO ideological conflict between wokeness and capitalism. None.
I'll explain
A thread\U0001f9f5 pic.twitter.com/1ofvzUrwwV
3/
Books like "White Fragility" and "how to be antiracist" sell millions of copies...because that's where the money is and this guy thinks anyone who would say "this recent cultural view that progressive Christians are adopting is bad theology" is in it for money and power...
4/
Ibram Kendi wrote "how to be anti-Racist and had an ad deal with McDonalds.
Does Ameen think he's in it for the money?
5/
Nikole Hannah-Jones said "Capitalism is the motor thay drove slavery" and then, this is not a joke, did a lecture series on emancipation *SPONSORED BY SHELL OIL*
Will @Ameen_HGA be accusing her of chasing power?
More from Society
A long thread on how an obsessive & violent antisemite & Holocaust denier has been embraced by the international “community of the good.”
Sarah Wilkinson has a history of Holocaust denial & anti-Jewish hatred dating back (in documented examples) to around 2015.
She is a self-proclaimed British activist for “Palestinian rights” but is more accurately a far Left neo-Nazi. Her son shares the same characteristics of violence, racism & Holocaust denial.
I first documented Sarah Wilkinson’s Holocaust denial back in July 2016. I believe I was the 1st person to do so.
Since then she has produced a long trail of written hate and abuse. See here for a good summary.
Wilkinson has recently been publicly celebrated by @XRebellionUK over her latest violent action against a Jewish owned business. Despite many people calling XR’s attention to her history, XR have chosen to remain in alliance with this neo-Nazi.
Former Labour Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell MP is among those who also chose to stand with Wilkinson via a tweet.
But McDonnell is not alone.
Neo-Nazi Sarah Wilkinson is supported and encouraged by thousands of those on the Left who consider themselves “anti-racists”.
Sarah Wilkinson has a history of Holocaust denial & anti-Jewish hatred dating back (in documented examples) to around 2015.
She is a self-proclaimed British activist for “Palestinian rights” but is more accurately a far Left neo-Nazi. Her son shares the same characteristics of violence, racism & Holocaust denial.
I first documented Sarah Wilkinson’s Holocaust denial back in July 2016. I believe I was the 1st person to do so.
Since then she has produced a long trail of written hate and abuse. See here for a good summary.
The internet is forever. https://t.co/zxBV7rjskB
— Heidi Bachram (@HeidiBachram) February 2, 2021
Wilkinson has recently been publicly celebrated by @XRebellionUK over her latest violent action against a Jewish owned business. Despite many people calling XR’s attention to her history, XR have chosen to remain in alliance with this neo-Nazi.
Former Labour Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell MP is among those who also chose to stand with Wilkinson via a tweet.
But McDonnell is not alone.
Neo-Nazi Sarah Wilkinson is supported and encouraged by thousands of those on the Left who consider themselves “anti-racists”.
You May Also Like
“We don’t negotiate salaries” is a negotiation tactic.
Always. No, your company is not an exception.
A tactic I don’t appreciate at all because of how unfairly it penalizes low-leverage, junior employees, and those loyal enough not to question it, but that’s negotiation for you after all. Weaponized information asymmetry.
Listen to Aditya
And by the way, you should never be worried that an offer would be withdrawn if you politely negotiate.
I have seen this happen *extremely* rarely, mostly to women, and anyway is a giant red flag. It suggests you probably didn’t want to work there.
You wish there was no negotiating so it would all be more fair? I feel you, but it’s not happening.
Instead, negotiate hard, use your privilege, and then go and share numbers with your underrepresented and underpaid colleagues. […]
Always. No, your company is not an exception.
A tactic I don’t appreciate at all because of how unfairly it penalizes low-leverage, junior employees, and those loyal enough not to question it, but that’s negotiation for you after all. Weaponized information asymmetry.
Listen to Aditya
"we don't negotiate salaries" really means "we'd prefer to negotiate massive signing bonuses and equity grants, but we'll negotiate salary if you REALLY insist" https://t.co/80k7nWAMoK
— Aditya Mukerjee, the Otterrific \U0001f3f3\ufe0f\u200d\U0001f308 (@chimeracoder) December 4, 2018
And by the way, you should never be worried that an offer would be withdrawn if you politely negotiate.
I have seen this happen *extremely* rarely, mostly to women, and anyway is a giant red flag. It suggests you probably didn’t want to work there.
You wish there was no negotiating so it would all be more fair? I feel you, but it’s not happening.
Instead, negotiate hard, use your privilege, and then go and share numbers with your underrepresented and underpaid colleagues. […]
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?