Kooks and nut jobs

[SeattleUte]

New York Magazine: The left wing cult that’s racist against Blacks and making piles of money purveying its nutty ideology to corporations and schools.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020...ram-kendi.html

John McWhorter, Columbia professor of linguisitics and Atlantic regular (and who’s Black), actually calls it a cult:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...gility/614146/

The "scientific method" "work ethic" "deferred gratification" "written expression" "individualism" are strictly "white" values? That could be in a white supremacy book or museum.

[BigFatMeanie]

What's the difference between a kook and a nut job?

[SeattleUte]

What's the difference between a kook and a nut job?

Nut jobs are to the right and kooks are left.

[Jeff Lebowski]

The "scientific method" "work ethic" "deferred gratification" "written expression" "individualism" are strictly "white" values? That could be in a white supremacy book or museum.

Embedded Tweet

[swampfrog]

Embedded Tweet

I almost posted that one earlier today. In order to combat the new definition of systemic racism, you must actually be racist by the longstanding definition.

And this one is just as good.

Embedded Tweet

[Northwestcoug]

Nut jobs are to the right and kooks are left.

Man, Stealers Wheel messed up using clowns and jokers in their song. Kooks to the left of me, nut jobs to the right has a much better ring.

[swampfrog]

Getting to where there are multiple threads covering the same topics, but since this one seems to emphasize the similarities of far left and far right around the topic of race essentialism, I'll put this here. It overlaps with the Harper's letter/Rowling thread also.

Article on some black thinkers' responses to the woke anti-racist mainstream.

“Racial essentialism is very reductive and actually oppressive,” Valdary told me. “Ironically, it reduces us as individuals to our immutable characteristics, which is precisely what we were supposed to be fighting against.”

“‘Woke’ anti-racism proceeds from the premise that race is real – if not biological, then socially constructed and therefore equally if not more significant still – putting it in sync with toxic presumptions of white supremacism that would also like to insist on the fundamentality of racial difference,” he writes. “Working toward opposing conclusions, racists and many anti-racists alike eagerly reduce people to abstract color categories, all the while feeding off of and legitimizing each other, while any of us searching for gray areas and common ground get devoured twice.

“We can simultaneously resist bigotry and imagine a society that has outgrown the identities it preys on,” Williams concludes.

Here’s how Foster put it: “I think conditioning yourself to believe that the whole of the country or the whole of a particular race are at all times and in general disposed to think about you as a racial entity, as opposed to as a human, as an individual, I think that’s probably to your disadvantage.”

The whole discourse of white privilege is similarly insulting, Foster argued. It robs him of his ability to be an individual in a way that is presumptuous and dehumanizing. “In the current moment, everywhere I look I see these signs that say Black Lives Matter, and I see Brooklynites who have scrawled the same slogan on their T-shirt with a Sharpie or something like that,” he told me. “And it’s hard for me to see that, these people who are obviously motivated by good and conceive a sort of injustice, and imagine that there’s something they can do about it.

“But the slogan actually suggests that when they see me, they imagine me as somehow disabled, as somehow disadvantaged,” he added. “They imagine themselves as superior to me, whether or not they conceptualize it in that way. They are privileged and I am not. And nothing could be further from the truth.”

Same group on Bret Weinstein's podcast:

[BlueK]

The "scientific method" "work ethic" "deferred gratification" "written expression" "individualism" are strictly "white" values? That could be in a white supremacy book or museum.

Or a garden variety Tucker Carlson broadcast.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...ws-republicans

[SeattleUte]

A must read.

https://andrewsullivan.substack.com/...ts-of-wokeness

[Joe Public]

A must read.

https://andrewsullivan.substack.com/...ts-of-wokeness

Good stuff. I was in a conversation recently that was discussing how one-sided the academic bandwidth has been in this regard for years and years now. Lots of “critical _______ studies” professors doing full-time position-honing.

[Eddie]

A must read.

https://andrewsullivan.substack.com/...ts-of-wokeness

So - I read the first article. Good stuff.

Then I read the next.

Does he really think that if/when Trump loses the election he isn't going to hand over power to the new guy? Does he really think Trump has enough support in the places that count (we're talking about a coup here, no? So I'm thinking he would need to have enough support in the military, secret service, House, Senate, Supreme Court, etc.) to make this work? I mean - it wouldn't take just a coup - it would take a bloody coup with elimination of quite a few people who would not agree to such a thing.

I think there's a lot of truth to the idea that he wants to muddy the waters. That he doesn't want to admit defeat. I could even see some kind of Gore/Bush style law suit related to mail in ballots or something. But I don't think anyone has the will - OK, anyone is the wrong word - I don't think near enough people have the will to allow a hostile takeover of the government. When Trump loses he'll bitch and moan like Hillary and file a lawsuit like Gore - but he'll ultimately be gone. He won't have anywhere near the support necessary to stay in power, even if he wanted to.

He might float the idea. He might have some supporters. He's known for saying dumb stuff. But I have no doubt that he will be out of the white house if/when he loses. Regardless of however many "I was cheated" claims he makes. He's a little more childish than Hillary - quite a bit more childish than Gore. But he will be gone either way.

The post "woke" article talking about failing to say he'll honor the outcome of the last election or planting seeds of doubt for the coming one is a non-story for me. It isn't about Trump's willingness to give up power or not give up power. I tend to believe the American people - including the vast majority of those who ultimately vote for Trump - will be telling him to move on if/when he loses.

[Bo Diddley]

Does he really think that if/when Trump loses the election he isn't going to hand over power to the new guy? Does he really think Trump has enough support in the places that count (we're talking about a coup here, no? So I'm thinking he would need to have enough support in the military, secret service, House, Senate, Supreme Court, etc.) to make this work? I mean - it wouldn't take just a coup - it would take a bloody coup with elimination of quite a few people who would not agree to such a thing.

The US Military, as an institution, is as apolitical as you can get. Each member certainly has their own political views that run the full spectrum, but they also mostly support staying out of politics--I say mostly, because there are always knuckleheads. They hate being used as political pawns, when that happens. They enjoy their privileged position above the political fray. I hope it stays that way.

Here's an article that talks about the issue.

When governors representing one political party supply nearly all the National Guard troops for a contentious domestic operation, those in uniform are tainted as partisan no matter how professionally they behave.

[Eddie]

The US Military, as an institution, is as apolitical as you can get. Each member certainly has their own political views that run the full spectrum, but they also mostly support staying out of politics--I say mostly, because there are always knuckleheads. They hate being used as political pawns, when that happens. They enjoy their privileged position above the political fray. I hope it stays that way.

Here's an article that talks about the issue.

I agree - COMPLETELY. Honestly, that's my whole point. In third world countries when a coup takes place, it always involves generals controlling military troops to force the change in power.

The only way for a coup to be successful, and that's what we're talking about here, is for it to have enough support from the people who have the ability to force it. And that would include needing enough of some combination of members of the military, secret service, national guard, etc. to protect and enforce him remaining in power. And that isn't going to happen. If he yelled and threw a temper tantrum and insisted that he wasn't leaving - he would simply be escorted out kicking and screaming. He isn't going to get the amount of armed support he would need to stay in office. He just isn't. And I'm fairly certain there would be very VERY few republicans in congress supporting him trying to use force to stay. He'd get some support for a lawsuit, I'm guessing. But he wouldn't get support for using force to stay in office.

I think the worry expressed in the article is dumb.

I mean, I think Trump is dumb too. He should just say he'll honor the election. Because if he loses - he isn't staying in office.

[swampfrog]

A must read.

https://andrewsullivan.substack.com/...ts-of-wokeness

I'm looking forward to the book. James Lindsay has quite a bit of information on his site newdiscourses.com, and Helen Pluckrose is editor-in-chief of areomagazine.com.

[Non Sequitur]

The US Military, as an institution, is as apolitical as you can get. Each member certainly has their own political views that run the full spectrum, but they also mostly support staying out of politics--I say mostly, because there are always knuckleheads. They hate being used as political pawns, when that happens. They enjoy their privileged position above the political fray. I hope it stays that way.

Here's an article that talks about the issue.

I'm not concerned that Trump could pull it off, but I would not be a bit surprised to see him try it. We've never seen a President with such disdain for the Constitution and such an affinity for authoritarianism. If Trump thought it were viable, I can't think of anything that would prevent him from trying.