The neatest trick of critical theory is on the one hand claim to be deconstructing, subverting and opposing "power" while simultaneously being brutishly authoritarian, then having people believe this preposterous nonsense.
The reason I mention the neo-commies as fascist is to “redefine” the term and use their own weapon against them.
And the redefinition is actually very easy. It’s one “group identity” considering themselves superior over the others. Use of authoritarian dictates. Just the lack of a “single” dictator, since neo-commies are like street dogs - too stupid to have anyone among them who can become a true dictator and hence it’s a collective tribe like hyenas.
Ah, the word you are looking for is Marxism. As fascism does not have motive nor arises on it's own, except as an opposition to impending communism. And historically it always peacefully transitions into democracy when the threat goes away. Check historical examples.
While I agree that debate must never be off the table, there is another reason for it that I don't see you engage with. Simply put, the amount of effort and evidence required to debunk a crazy and wrong theory is disproportionate to the benefit. I have seen this discussed in the context of podcast hosting: if you argue and push back on everything that your fringe guest says, you will never get around to discussing anything else.
Ultimately, these arguments become boring. For topics that have become mimetic, like vaccines, climate change, sex-is-a-social-construct, and abortion, both sides can arrive with canned arguments that at least are efficient that way, even if they ultimately persuade nobody. We could, as the joke goes, conduct these debates by reference code. "Pro-choice argument 64!" "Pro-life counter-argument 22!" Fresher topics, like "is Trump in the Epstein files" might still require back-and-forth.
Here's another thing that doesn't get debate. A few days ago in Boston, a CEO and a head of HR of a funny named company Astronomer AI were caught on camera snuggling during Coldplay concert and made worldwide news scandal. They committed an ultimate sin against corporate HR taboo of dating one's coworkers. And, there was a difference in Power!
I have not read anyone in media saying that this modern Puritanism got out of hand. Yes, I know well the fear of lawsuits, etc. However, these days it is a moral virtue signaling taboo, rather than a matter between two consenting adults in their free time, and if they are having an affair, their spouses.
Both were promptly shamed, ostracized and fired.
The point is, about anyone in the public eye follows the NO DEBATE rule on this too, and the whole mindset took decades sprouting root in the mixture of all the same dynamics you criticize.
Now, imagine if both were trans, their sacred status would likely trump the HR taboo.
NOBODY is 'trans'. They're mentally ill or perverts, there's nothing else. Trannys have had their fetishes reframed as a civil right due to 'no debate!' and other shit.
If anyone says that to me, I shout back 'Right? NOBODY IS BORN IN THE WRONG BODY. Humans can't change sex! Men are not women, even if you squint. Non-binary is bullshit!'
It's all made up wiffle and the Gender Abattoir relies on the #LifelongPatient model. Trannys need the children to validate their filthy fetishes. I will NEVER kowtow to the men who would be queen or the titless pooner women who creep on gay men.
#FuckYourPronouns the days of 'no debate!' are long fucking gone, troonscum panderers! #XX #AdultHumanFemale there is NOTHING to respect about this pervert's movement sterilising children for feelings in their head. With you.
Trans is a made up identity. Some are transvestites, some are sexual fetishists of other varieties, a small number retreat into the identity of the opposite sex as a result of abuse or other deep trauma. There are various “trans” identities in other/past cultures, so it is clearly a human thing. But yes, we do not have inner gender souls.
Nowhere in my culture (native wahine Maori) or even that of the fa'afafine is there any trans anything - it's mental illness or a fetish. Nothing more.
As for trauma? We all have a sad story; I'm unmoved by this ideology. It's not ancient, nothing about it (trans identities haha no) is embedded in history - transvestites or perverts. The cross dressers or 'third gender' societies that accommodate (mainly) men with their wish to x-dress aren't part of this new ideology.
Very good and an astute observation. It always seemed to me that the No Debate types were fundamentally authoritarians and bad faith actors (which IS true) its also a manifestation of their desire at dominance. Dominance is the right word here.
Social alchemy theory has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard about. Amazing the lunacy that gets packaged up nicely by some fancy academic nonsense and gets traction.
Well yes. I have, of course, labelled it in a way that makes its idiocy as transparent as possible. Though my label is also a nod to the Hermetic—we have special, transformative knowledge—and gnostic—we are in all-confining prison—antecedents of this strain of thinking. But the idea really is you bring down oppressive society and the utopia will emerge. It is stunningly stupid and transparently false—unless, of course, you are completely besotted by your Theory, as they are.
I once suggested the sebum harvesting is a widespread practice in Southeast Asia, and that the substance is shipped off to Zurich where it is then processed to be used in very high-end skincare cosmetics. Instead of being laughed at, I was taken quite seriously. Give me some vodka straight up and I'll liven any academic dinner party.
If the United States Air Force could find a way to effectively drop 10 million bottles of Polish vodka over the front lines of the Ukraine conflict, the war would be over.
It is a straightforward part of probability theory, that is of a rational assessment of claims, that unopposed hypotheses be assigned a low plausibility. Suppression – no debate – decreases the plausibility of its advocates and therefore the plausibility of the hypothesis. This does not require examining the substance of the claim.
The underperformance of certain groups, by certain criteria, is an excellent example. All explanations other than "racism" are suppressed and of course, the principal evidence for the claim – underperformance – is itself the matter to be explained.
"The underlying philosophical dynamic underlying “No Debate” claims is Critical Constructivism—the claim that reality is socially constructed; that all statements and knowledge claims are, in fact power claims; and that the righteousness of a claim can be determined by their (alleged) effects on (morally differentiated) social groups." Thanks for this concise definition. Having never been exposed to such idiocy in any of my formal education, or normal adult life, I am glad you are sane enough to explore this insanity on our behalf.
And yet ... while recognizing the distortions contained in your definition ... I started to wonder that a great deal of our lives are socially constructed: law, markets, driving on the "right" side of the road [ :-) ], and many other norms and cultural practices, etc. Perhaps this is part of why some people seem so easily convinced of the insane extensions to this observation? They just need a little push beyond the more reasonable assumptions and boundary conditions our social interactions require?
The only way ‘no debate’ could work is if everyone already knew the best path forward. That’s never the case… and I notice that the people who advocate for no debate (or thoughtcrime penalties, or enforced institutional conformity) end up being wrong about an awful lot of things.
It's refreshing to see that there are still people who value debating the issues that you mentioned. However, I have found that once certain people have attained what they perceive to be the moral high ground, even when shown that their beliefs are based on BS, will adhere to them, rather than admit they've been fooled.
This is a very good description of what happens AFTER an a peculiar sort of identity is assimilated. That identity can be called NOBLE-GLOBAL, or NOBGLOB, and it exists as an anti-identity to the BOURGEOISE. These are the slobs who have money, sure, but no real culture or good taste - and really don't deserve to have money, yet d -, which can be sooooo aggravating, especially if it's mum or dad, and see no reason for you to go to Bali with your mates.
The neatest trick of critical theory is on the one hand claim to be deconstructing, subverting and opposing "power" while simultaneously being brutishly authoritarian, then having people believe this preposterous nonsense.
“No debate” is essentially fascism. Using pseudo moralistic claims to suppress foundational criticism.
Which is not limited to fascism. I agree with your second sentence, however, which is spot on.
The reason I mention the neo-commies as fascist is to “redefine” the term and use their own weapon against them.
And the redefinition is actually very easy. It’s one “group identity” considering themselves superior over the others. Use of authoritarian dictates. Just the lack of a “single” dictator, since neo-commies are like street dogs - too stupid to have anyone among them who can become a true dictator and hence it’s a collective tribe like hyenas.
Ah, the word you are looking for is Marxism. As fascism does not have motive nor arises on it's own, except as an opposition to impending communism. And historically it always peacefully transitions into democracy when the threat goes away. Check historical examples.
You clearly didn’t understand what I meant. Redefining terms, happens all the time in English vocabs.
While I agree that debate must never be off the table, there is another reason for it that I don't see you engage with. Simply put, the amount of effort and evidence required to debunk a crazy and wrong theory is disproportionate to the benefit. I have seen this discussed in the context of podcast hosting: if you argue and push back on everything that your fringe guest says, you will never get around to discussing anything else.
Ultimately, these arguments become boring. For topics that have become mimetic, like vaccines, climate change, sex-is-a-social-construct, and abortion, both sides can arrive with canned arguments that at least are efficient that way, even if they ultimately persuade nobody. We could, as the joke goes, conduct these debates by reference code. "Pro-choice argument 64!" "Pro-life counter-argument 22!" Fresher topics, like "is Trump in the Epstein files" might still require back-and-forth.
Excellent post. Brief and to the point.
Here's another thing that doesn't get debate. A few days ago in Boston, a CEO and a head of HR of a funny named company Astronomer AI were caught on camera snuggling during Coldplay concert and made worldwide news scandal. They committed an ultimate sin against corporate HR taboo of dating one's coworkers. And, there was a difference in Power!
I have not read anyone in media saying that this modern Puritanism got out of hand. Yes, I know well the fear of lawsuits, etc. However, these days it is a moral virtue signaling taboo, rather than a matter between two consenting adults in their free time, and if they are having an affair, their spouses.
Both were promptly shamed, ostracized and fired.
The point is, about anyone in the public eye follows the NO DEBATE rule on this too, and the whole mindset took decades sprouting root in the mixture of all the same dynamics you criticize.
Now, imagine if both were trans, their sacred status would likely trump the HR taboo.
They're just transvestites.
NOBODY is 'trans'. They're mentally ill or perverts, there's nothing else. Trannys have had their fetishes reframed as a civil right due to 'no debate!' and other shit.
If anyone says that to me, I shout back 'Right? NOBODY IS BORN IN THE WRONG BODY. Humans can't change sex! Men are not women, even if you squint. Non-binary is bullshit!'
It's all made up wiffle and the Gender Abattoir relies on the #LifelongPatient model. Trannys need the children to validate their filthy fetishes. I will NEVER kowtow to the men who would be queen or the titless pooner women who creep on gay men.
#FuckYourPronouns the days of 'no debate!' are long fucking gone, troonscum panderers! #XX #AdultHumanFemale there is NOTHING to respect about this pervert's movement sterilising children for feelings in their head. With you.
Trans is a made up identity. Some are transvestites, some are sexual fetishists of other varieties, a small number retreat into the identity of the opposite sex as a result of abuse or other deep trauma. There are various “trans” identities in other/past cultures, so it is clearly a human thing. But yes, we do not have inner gender souls.
Nowhere in my culture (native wahine Maori) or even that of the fa'afafine is there any trans anything - it's mental illness or a fetish. Nothing more.
As for trauma? We all have a sad story; I'm unmoved by this ideology. It's not ancient, nothing about it (trans identities haha no) is embedded in history - transvestites or perverts. The cross dressers or 'third gender' societies that accommodate (mainly) men with their wish to x-dress aren't part of this new ideology.
Gender is made up woo.
Third gender - apparently thanks to Bernard Saladin d’Anglure https://www.anthro1.net/p/adieu-bernard-1936-2025
LoL there are 8.2 billion genders on the planet - one for every human.
There are two sexes - male and female.
Everything else is wishful thinking - the Samoan fa’afafine, for instance, accommodate effete men.
Gender is made up woo.
Very good and an astute observation. It always seemed to me that the No Debate types were fundamentally authoritarians and bad faith actors (which IS true) its also a manifestation of their desire at dominance. Dominance is the right word here.
Brilliant
Social alchemy theory has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard about. Amazing the lunacy that gets packaged up nicely by some fancy academic nonsense and gets traction.
Well yes. I have, of course, labelled it in a way that makes its idiocy as transparent as possible. Though my label is also a nod to the Hermetic—we have special, transformative knowledge—and gnostic—we are in all-confining prison—antecedents of this strain of thinking. But the idea really is you bring down oppressive society and the utopia will emerge. It is stunningly stupid and transparently false—unless, of course, you are completely besotted by your Theory, as they are.
I once suggested the sebum harvesting is a widespread practice in Southeast Asia, and that the substance is shipped off to Zurich where it is then processed to be used in very high-end skincare cosmetics. Instead of being laughed at, I was taken quite seriously. Give me some vodka straight up and I'll liven any academic dinner party.
Double checking on just what the word "sebum" was, I found this on Amazon:
https://www.amazon.com/Dermazen-Calming-Seborrheic-Dermatologist-Recommended/dp/B0B8TB9VV4/ref=sr_1_5 Calming Seborrheic Serum, Dermatologist Recommended, Topical Seborrheic Dermatitis Serum For Scalp, Face, and Body (8 fl oz) US $78.
:-)
My brief attempt to see what was available via Amazon for vodka came up blank as to a product containing any actual alcohol. :-(
If the United States Air Force could find a way to effectively drop 10 million bottles of Polish vodka over the front lines of the Ukraine conflict, the war would be over.
It is a straightforward part of probability theory, that is of a rational assessment of claims, that unopposed hypotheses be assigned a low plausibility. Suppression – no debate – decreases the plausibility of its advocates and therefore the plausibility of the hypothesis. This does not require examining the substance of the claim.
The underperformance of certain groups, by certain criteria, is an excellent example. All explanations other than "racism" are suppressed and of course, the principal evidence for the claim – underperformance – is itself the matter to be explained.
"The underlying philosophical dynamic underlying “No Debate” claims is Critical Constructivism—the claim that reality is socially constructed; that all statements and knowledge claims are, in fact power claims; and that the righteousness of a claim can be determined by their (alleged) effects on (morally differentiated) social groups." Thanks for this concise definition. Having never been exposed to such idiocy in any of my formal education, or normal adult life, I am glad you are sane enough to explore this insanity on our behalf.
And yet ... while recognizing the distortions contained in your definition ... I started to wonder that a great deal of our lives are socially constructed: law, markets, driving on the "right" side of the road [ :-) ], and many other norms and cultural practices, etc. Perhaps this is part of why some people seem so easily convinced of the insane extensions to this observation? They just need a little push beyond the more reasonable assumptions and boundary conditions our social interactions require?
The only way ‘no debate’ could work is if everyone already knew the best path forward. That’s never the case… and I notice that the people who advocate for no debate (or thoughtcrime penalties, or enforced institutional conformity) end up being wrong about an awful lot of things.
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/soft-totalitarianism
It's refreshing to see that there are still people who value debating the issues that you mentioned. However, I have found that once certain people have attained what they perceive to be the moral high ground, even when shown that their beliefs are based on BS, will adhere to them, rather than admit they've been fooled.
This is a very good description of what happens AFTER an a peculiar sort of identity is assimilated. That identity can be called NOBLE-GLOBAL, or NOBGLOB, and it exists as an anti-identity to the BOURGEOISE. These are the slobs who have money, sure, but no real culture or good taste - and really don't deserve to have money, yet d -, which can be sooooo aggravating, especially if it's mum or dad, and see no reason for you to go to Bali with your mates.