This is a brilliant observation: “What is surprising…is the effectiveness of victim-centric narratives at shutting down critical thinking and inspiring blind faith acceptance of statements and behaviors which would be seen as inauthentic, if not cloaked in the false virtue of victimhood.”
What also shuts down conversations and critical thinking is one woke participant in the room who calls you racist and walks out with an air of theatrical outrage.
I’m a traditional socialist and I agree with you on a few points. The woke-Left needs to reconcile with the civilizational facts, that Nihilism means the end of society. That’s not revolutionary, that’s for sure.
I have to agree with you, and I wanted to contribute this, that I am thoroughly confused with the attachment to everything Indigenous, the government allows 'elder's ' into their meetings, They do a 'ceremony' prior to government meetings. By having a feather and doing some sort of gesture with feathers. Well, why is that allowed. BUT not the reciting of the Lord's Prayer. Who replaced Christianity, why is this the default acceptance of this culture. Recently Buffy St. Marie, was removed from her Order of Canada, because she was a FRAUD, not one drop of Indigenous blood, she is American and has blood lines of Italian ancestry. So what's my point, all this is just Lies! catering to those Indigenous, and yet they get to steal our society! I recently wanted to make a trip out to Alberta and wanted to go on a retreat center. And this is the way they ended their emails?
XXXXXXXXX is grateful to the people of the Treaty 7 area (including the Iyethka Nakoda, the Niitsitapi and the Tsuutina peoples) upon whose traditional lands we are located. We understand that the Stoney Nakoda First Nation have a generational legacy as stewards and caretakers of this land upon which we reside and bear witness as Treaty people today. We honour this legacy through this acknowledgement and in our practices, committing to be faithful caretakers of this land as long as we inhabit it.
I don't this this country is the land of these people, God is the owner of this Land.. but guess I am wrong!
You undermine your argument by claiming objectivity.
It is intellectually weak to claim that only you and your compatriots see the world as it is and your opponents do not. This does nothing to shed light on either side and only makes a reader think you are being dishonest with yourself.
Objectivity is not possible, you would have to have complete knowledge of the world and no emotional connection to anything. I know the former is not possible and the clear passion for your subject makes the latter also false.
I would love to see how you would write this piece without resting on this crutch. It would at least leave you to reference Barbara Kay, an opinion writer, the most subjective writing, without contradiction.
Saying there is no objectivity is Sophomoric. He and his compatriots, as you say, may be wrong. If so, show how. To deny the possibility for people to discover the truth through reason and dialogue means that you give up on the liberal project.
This is a list of human biases. To claim objectivity is to claim you have overcome each and every one of these things. People who have thought for a few minutes know that this is not possible.
The easier thing to do is to claim your subjectivity and speak with strength from that position. To claim objectivity is to lie to yourself and flatter the listener, this does harm to both.
If I claim to be objective and you accept this claim then everything I claim is credible because it reflects objective reality. Everything my opponent is not credible because they can’t see objective reality. You the listener can relax your critical thinking and let all the schemas fit into your schemas with surprising ease.
If I believe I am objective, then I also relax my critical thinking and dismiss completely other theories of mind, because my mind is perfectly aligned with the world as it is. Every perception I have is truth. What I then have to offer to you is one singular perspective rooted in my singular experience. That has some value, but it is the bare minimum of what anyone can offer the world.
We look to great thinkers to see a synthesis of experience and thought. We trust that they read widely and assimilate many points of view, that they hold contradiction and complexity as friends.
A person who claims objectivity sets themselves apart from the world, they don’t want to be changed by it. They are unreliable because this is not possible. A person who claims their subjectivity puts themselves in the world and is a part of its function. They are more reliable because they are honest.
My point is that I want James to make this argument honestly, so I can understand it and respond to it. It’s built on a dishonest foundation and not worth addressing at this point.
This is a brilliant observation: “What is surprising…is the effectiveness of victim-centric narratives at shutting down critical thinking and inspiring blind faith acceptance of statements and behaviors which would be seen as inauthentic, if not cloaked in the false virtue of victimhood.”
What also shuts down conversations and critical thinking is one woke participant in the room who calls you racist and walks out with an air of theatrical outrage.
I’m a traditional socialist and I agree with you on a few points. The woke-Left needs to reconcile with the civilizational facts, that Nihilism means the end of society. That’s not revolutionary, that’s for sure.
I have to agree with you, and I wanted to contribute this, that I am thoroughly confused with the attachment to everything Indigenous, the government allows 'elder's ' into their meetings, They do a 'ceremony' prior to government meetings. By having a feather and doing some sort of gesture with feathers. Well, why is that allowed. BUT not the reciting of the Lord's Prayer. Who replaced Christianity, why is this the default acceptance of this culture. Recently Buffy St. Marie, was removed from her Order of Canada, because she was a FRAUD, not one drop of Indigenous blood, she is American and has blood lines of Italian ancestry. So what's my point, all this is just Lies! catering to those Indigenous, and yet they get to steal our society! I recently wanted to make a trip out to Alberta and wanted to go on a retreat center. And this is the way they ended their emails?
XXXXXXXXX is grateful to the people of the Treaty 7 area (including the Iyethka Nakoda, the Niitsitapi and the Tsuutina peoples) upon whose traditional lands we are located. We understand that the Stoney Nakoda First Nation have a generational legacy as stewards and caretakers of this land upon which we reside and bear witness as Treaty people today. We honour this legacy through this acknowledgement and in our practices, committing to be faithful caretakers of this land as long as we inhabit it.
I don't this this country is the land of these people, God is the owner of this Land.. but guess I am wrong!
I have a problem with my subscription to “The Turn”. Who should I contact?
Hey Danny. Email me at wokewatchcanada@gmail.com
You undermine your argument by claiming objectivity.
It is intellectually weak to claim that only you and your compatriots see the world as it is and your opponents do not. This does nothing to shed light on either side and only makes a reader think you are being dishonest with yourself.
Objectivity is not possible, you would have to have complete knowledge of the world and no emotional connection to anything. I know the former is not possible and the clear passion for your subject makes the latter also false.
I would love to see how you would write this piece without resting on this crutch. It would at least leave you to reference Barbara Kay, an opinion writer, the most subjective writing, without contradiction.
Saying there is no objectivity is Sophomoric. He and his compatriots, as you say, may be wrong. If so, show how. To deny the possibility for people to discover the truth through reason and dialogue means that you give up on the liberal project.
https://substack.com/@psharbaugh/note/c-93420608
This is a list of human biases. To claim objectivity is to claim you have overcome each and every one of these things. People who have thought for a few minutes know that this is not possible.
The easier thing to do is to claim your subjectivity and speak with strength from that position. To claim objectivity is to lie to yourself and flatter the listener, this does harm to both.
If I claim to be objective and you accept this claim then everything I claim is credible because it reflects objective reality. Everything my opponent is not credible because they can’t see objective reality. You the listener can relax your critical thinking and let all the schemas fit into your schemas with surprising ease.
If I believe I am objective, then I also relax my critical thinking and dismiss completely other theories of mind, because my mind is perfectly aligned with the world as it is. Every perception I have is truth. What I then have to offer to you is one singular perspective rooted in my singular experience. That has some value, but it is the bare minimum of what anyone can offer the world.
We look to great thinkers to see a synthesis of experience and thought. We trust that they read widely and assimilate many points of view, that they hold contradiction and complexity as friends.
A person who claims objectivity sets themselves apart from the world, they don’t want to be changed by it. They are unreliable because this is not possible. A person who claims their subjectivity puts themselves in the world and is a part of its function. They are more reliable because they are honest.
My point is that I want James to make this argument honestly, so I can understand it and respond to it. It’s built on a dishonest foundation and not worth addressing at this point.
This is amazing!