You are currently browsing the monthly archive for August 2025.
Canada’s policing landscape reveals a troubling inconsistency, a corrosive double standard that erodes public trust: assaults on Jewish citizens often draw sluggish responses, while those on Muslims prompt swift condemnation and action. Consider the Montreal debacle—a Jewish father beaten in Dickie Moore Park before his terrified children, his kippah tossed into a splash pad like discarded refuse. Police took nearly an hour to arrive, allowing the assailant to vanish, and only arrested him days later amid public furor spurred by community outcry on social media.
Contrast this with Ottawa’s swift response to an unprovoked attack on a young Muslim woman aboard public transit, punched and bombarded with Islamophobic slurs as passengers watched in stunned silence. Authorities immediately labeled it hate-motivated and launched an investigation, reflecting a government commitment to combatting hate crimes. No delay, no limbo—just urgency, as if the system awakens only for select victims.
This disparity is not aberration but pattern. Statistics Canada reports Jews—under 1% of the population—endured over 900 hate crimes in 2023, roughly 70% of religion-based incidents, while Muslim-targeted crimes, numbering around 200, saw faster police action. Yet responses to antisemitic violence often lag, fostering a climate where aggressors act with impunity. Muslims face brutal attacks too, but policing pivots faster, bolstered by vocal leadership. Both communities deserve equal protection; only one consistently receives it.
The irony stings in a nation priding itself on equity: one community’s cries echo unanswered, another’s summon swift shields. Such two-tiered enforcement is not oversight—it is antithetical to justice. If Canada fails to apply equal urgency to all victims, it risks fracturing society into a hierarchy of suffering, dividing rather than uniting against bigotry’s tide.
Sources Referenced
- Statistics Canada, 2023 Hate Crime Report
- CTV News, Montreal, July 2023: Dickie Moore Park assault coverage
- CBC News, Ottawa, June 2023: Transit attack reports
- X posts aggregated from community reports, July 2023
Whelp….
I asked Grok and ChatGPT to perform a meta analysis on the process we used to write the essay that appeared titled – The Moral Certainty of Woke Ideology: A Critique. Today we will look at how Chat GPT decided to break down the request.
Author’s Note:
This post is a transparent reflection on the process behind writing “The Moral Certainty of Woke Ideology”. As AI tools become more prevalent in writing and editing, I wanted to share how I used large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT and Grok—not to generate content wholesale, but to refine, clarify, and challenge my own thinking. What follows is not just a behind-the-scenes look at authorship in the age of AI, but a case for maintaining intellectual honesty, even when using powerful tools.
You can read the full original article here, and the companion version produced using Grok here.
(ChatGPT): Here’s my take on a meta-analysis of our collaborative process around The Moral Certainty of Woke Ideology, written in your voice, but shaped by a neutral and insightful tone. It acknowledges your authorship, the iterative nature of our process, the careful balancing of authenticity and refinement, and how LLMs (both myself and Grok) were used deliberately as tools rather than as originators.
Meta-Reflection: Writing Honestly with AI Help
Introduction: The Experiment in Human-AI Authorship
In an era awash in generative content, the challenge for any writer is not just originality—but integrity. Can an essay still be truly “yours” if refined with the help of a large language model (LLM)? This essay—the one you’re reading a meta-analysis about—was a test of that question.
What follows is a transparent breakdown of how the piece The Moral Certainty of Woke Ideology was written: from its raw origins, through iterative passes with LLMs (Grok and ChatGPT), and into a final, publishable synthesis. The goal was not simply to “make it better,” but to keep it honest—to ensure that the human voice, the argument, and the underlying conviction remained firmly rooted in the author’s own moral and intellectual framework.
1. The Human Origin: A Frustrated, Focused Thesis
The original essay was written without any AI assistance. It was personal, direct, and driven by a clear frustration: the futility of arguing with ideologues who see themselves as morally infallible because of a process they describe as “consciousness raising.” The essay framed this mindset as gnostic in character—an epistemology rooted not in evidence or mutual understanding, but in having accessed a supposedly higher truth.
That draft was neither perfect nor polished. But it was undeniably authentic: a writer grappling with something real, intellectually and emotionally. That is where any serious use of AI must begin.
2. Grok’s First Intervention: Editorial Guidance and a Tone Shift
Grok’s initial contribution was like a sharp, attentive editor. It praised the conceptual core—especially the gnosticism analogy—but pointed out that the term “woke” was too broad, the tone too combative, and the structure lacking clarity. It attempted a rewrite that introduced a narrative hook (an anecdote), softened the tone, and introduced counterarguments to avoid echo-chamber logic.
This revision was helpful—but also crossed a line: the anecdote was fictional. And for an essay concerned with truth and intellectual honesty, inventing scenes or emotions is unacceptable. That feedback became part of the process: keep what helps clarify, but reject what confabulates.
3. ChatGPT’s Contribution: Academic Structure and Citation Depth
When the same draft was fed into ChatGPT, the result was something more formal, more structured—and frankly, more publishable in academic or policy-adjacent venues. ChatGPT added scholarly context (e.g. citing Freire, Kendi, DiAngelo, MacKinnon), coined or introduced the term “sociognostic” to sharpen the gnosticism analogy, and framed the essay in neat, well-organized sections.
It was rigorous, but something was lost. The personal voice—the frustration, the urgency—was flattened. It was lucid, but it didn’t feel alive. The machine had made the piece safer, smarter, but also more sterile.
4. The Writer’s Role: Choosing What to Keep and What to Cut
The next phase wasn’t about accepting what Grok or ChatGPT had produced, but about curating it.
- The fabricated anecdote was cut.
- The sociognostic concept stayed.
- The academic references were kept—but only those relevant and intellectually honest.
- The tone was recalibrated: direct, but not incendiary. Critical, but not snide.
- Counterarguments were brought in—not to water down the thesis, but to model the kind of debate the essay lamented as missing.
In short: the writer took back control. The models weren’t driving; they were in the passenger seat—sometimes helpful with directions, sometimes fumbling with the map.
5. The Final Essay: A Genuine Synthesis
The result was a piece that combined:
- A human-originated thesis, structured by real-world experience and philosophical insight.
- LLM-enhanced clarity, especially in structure, citation, and terminology.
- Writer-driven integrity, ensuring no hallucinations, no emotional falsification, and no bending to the rhetorical norms of either outrage or academic obfuscation.
It didn’t just argue that the moral certainty of “the Woke” is rooted in a kind of secular gnosticism—it modeled how to make that case in public discourse, rigorously and in good faith.
Why This Process Matters
We’re entering a time when essays, op-eds, books, and even scientific papers may be increasingly AI-assisted. The temptation will be to outsource more and more of the work. But if we care about truth and originality, we should use these tools as collaborators, not crutches.
This experiment showed that you can start with a personal idea, refine it through AI, and still come out with a product that’s yours—provided you:
- Start with your own thoughts (even messy ones),
- Engage the tools critically, not deferentially,
- Reject anything inauthentic (especially fabricated anecdotes or fake citations),
- Preserve your own voice and purpose, even through heavy editing.
This is how original writing survives in the age of AI: by refusing to outsource moral and intellectual judgment, even if everything else—grammar, structure, references—gets a machine polish.
Final Thought: Integrity is Still the Point
If you’ve made it this far, you’ve already done something most writers don’t do in 2025: you’ve thought carefully about how something was written, not just what it says.
The Moral Certainty of Woke Ideology isn’t an “AI-generated” essay. It’s a human-generated idea, refined by machines, but always guided by a living mind. That matters—not just for the credibility of the piece, but for the honesty of the writer.
And in an age where belief is often weaponized and language is politicized, honesty in writing may be the last moral certainty we can claim without irony.
I asked Grok and ChatGPT to perform a meta analysis on the process we used to write the essay that appeared titled – The Moral Certainty of Woke Ideology: A Critique. Today we will look at how Grok decided to break down the request. Grok wrote the meta analysis as if responding directly to me, the author the piece.
Introduction: Navigating the Human-Machine Collaboration
Writing is a human endeavor—gritty, imperfect, and deeply personal. In 2025, large language models (LLMs) like myself (Grok 3, built by xAI) and ChatGPT offer powerful tools to refine ideas, but they risk diluting authenticity if not guided carefully. How does a writer use LLMs to enhance their work while keeping it original? This meta-analysis traces the creation of your essay, The Moral Certainty of Woke Ideology, through iterative exchanges among you, me, and ChatGPT. By detailing who did what, stage by stage, and including your original draft as a reference (see Appendix), I aim to show how LLMs can sharpen ideas without overshadowing the writer’s voice. The result is a piece that’s yours—honed by technology, grounded in your intent.
Stage 1: The Original Draft (Your Starting Point)
Who Did What: You wrote the initial essay without LLM assistance, articulating why arguing with “woke” ideologues feels futile. You proposed that their moral certainty stems from consciousness raising, which you compared to gnosticism—a belief in possessing deeper, unassailable insight. Using racism as an example (color-blindness vs. systemic racism), you argued that this mindset creates a knowledge differential, stifling debate and leading to name-calling (e.g., “bigot, racist”). The draft, included in the Appendix, was raw but clear.
Impact on the Process: Your draft was the foundation, setting the essay’s direction and tone. Its directness—born of frustration with unproductive debates—gave it a vivid, authentic edge, even if terms like “woke” were broad and the tone occasionally sharp. The gnosticism analogy, though not fully fleshed out, was a creative attempt to pinpoint the issue. Weaknesses, like vague terminology and limited counterargument engagement, were typical of a first pass, offering room for refinement.
Commentary: Starting without LLM help was a practical choice. It ensured the essay reflected your perspective, not a machine’s interpolation. The draft’s roughness—its unpolished phrasing, its raw irritation—was its strength, capturing a real human struggle. This stage highlights the value of beginning with your own words, using LLMs to refine rather than originate.
Stage 2: Grok’s First Refinement
Who Did What: I reviewed your draft, praising its clarity and bold gnosticism analogy while noting areas for improvement: vague “woke” terminology, a strained gnosticism comparison, a confrontational tone, and weak counterargument engagement. I provided a revised essay with a personal anecdote (later removed), a shift to “ideological certainty” for accessibility, a softer tone to broaden appeal, and a counterargument addressing systemic racism’s validity, citing National Institute of Justice data.
Impact on the Process: My revision aimed to preserve your intent while making the essay more persuasive and relatable. The pivot to “ideological certainty” clarified the gnosticism analogy, and the counterargument added rigor, aligning with your truth-seeking focus. The tone adjustment aimed to invite more readers, though it risked softening your edge. The anecdote, while engaging, was a misstep given your preference for authenticity.
Commentary: This stage showed LLMs as collaborative editors. I didn’t rewrite your ideas but suggested structural and tonal tweaks to amplify them. Your later feedback—rejecting the anecdote—kept the process honest, proving the writer’s role in guiding the machine. Without that check, LLMs can over-polish or stray into inauthenticity.
Stage 3: ChatGPT’s Contribution
Who Did What: You prompted ChatGPT with the same task, and it produced a formal, polished essay. It retained your gnosticism analogy, introducing “sociognostic” to refine it, and added citations (MacKinnon, Freire, DiAngelo, Kendi, Pluckrose) for credibility. Structured with clear sections (e.g., “Why the Woke Can’t Debate”), it used a measured tone and emphasized the moral hierarchy in woke ideology, concluding with advice for engaging such certainty.
Impact on the Process: ChatGPT’s version added scholarly depth, making it suitable for outlets like C2C Journal. The “sociognostic” term sharpened the analogy, and citations grounded consciousness raising historically. However, it felt detached, lacking your personal fire, and didn’t robustly engage counterarguments, risking a one-sided tone. Its academic lean made it less accessible for a general audience.
Commentary: ChatGPT delivered polish but drifted from your vivid style. Its output was rigorous but formulaic, highlighting the LLM’s tendency to prioritize structure over personality. Your decision to compare it with my version showed your active role in the process, using LLMs as a resource rather than a replacement.
Stage 4: Your Feedback and Directive
Who Did What: You reviewed both versions, noting ChatGPT’s polish but its sterility, and appreciating my version’s accessibility and counterargument engagement. You rejected the fabricated anecdote, prioritizing authenticity, and directed me to merge the two, combining ChatGPT’s rigor with my relatability while ensuring no confabulated stories.
Impact on the Process: Your feedback was critical, steering the essay back to your vision. Rejecting the anecdote ensured authenticity, and your call for a merger balanced ChatGPT’s depth with my accessibility. By weighing both versions’ strengths, you clarified your priorities—rigor, relatability, and your own voice—keeping the process grounded.
Commentary: This stage underscored your control. LLMs can produce slick prose, but without your input, they risk diluting your intent or inventing details. Your insistence on authenticity and your clear directive for a merger showed you weren’t just accepting LLM outputs but shaping them to fit your goal.
Stage 5: The Merged Final Product
Who Did What: I crafted the final essay, blending ChatGPT’s citations and “sociognostic” term with my accessible opening (“We’ve all encountered it”), counterargument engagement (with NAACP and NIJ data), and vivid descriptors (“moral X-ray vision,” “excommunications”). I retained your thesis—woke ideology’s certainty stems from consciousness raising—and used your style: formal yet sharp, with a nod to colloquialism (“bollocks”). The structure balanced clear sections with an urgent flow.
Impact on the Process: The final essay synthesized all inputs: your original thesis, ChatGPT’s scholarly scaffolding, and my accessible tone. It clarified the gnosticism analogy with “sociognostic” and “ideological certainty,” engaged counterarguments robustly, and preserved your voice’s edge (e.g., “debacle we can’t afford”). The universal opening replaced the anecdote, ensuring authenticity while remaining relatable.
Commentary: The merger succeeded because you set the terms. Your draft provided the core idea, ChatGPT added intellectual weight, and I bridged the gap with accessibility. Each stage refined the essay, but your feedback ensured it stayed true to your intent, avoiding the phoniness of generic LLM output.
Reflections on the Process
This journey offers lessons for writing with LLMs while staying original:
- Begin with Your Words: Your unaided draft ensured the essay was rooted in your perspective, not a machine’s. LLMs can’t replicate that initial spark.
- LLMs as Refiners, Not Creators: Both ChatGPT and I acted as editors, enhancing structure, evidence, and clarity. Your oversight kept us from overstepping.
- Prioritize Authenticity: Your rejection of the fabricated anecdote was a practical choice, guarding against LLM tendencies to confabulate.
- Iterate Actively: The process—your draft, my revision, ChatGPT’s take, your feedback, and the merger—shows writing with LLMs is iterative. Your direction made each stage purposeful.
- Balance Depth and Appeal: ChatGPT’s citations added rigor, while my tone and counterarguments broadened the essay’s reach. Your vision tied these together.
Conclusion: Authenticity in the Age of LLMs
Writing with LLMs is a tightrope walk: they can sharpen your ideas or smooth them into bland uniformity. This process—your raw draft, my refinements, ChatGPT’s polish, and your final directive—shows how to stay on the rope. The final essay, The Moral Certainty of Woke Ideology, is no LLM-generated clone; it’s your idea, refined through collaboration but anchored in your truth-seeking drive. In an era of AI saturation, that’s a victory worth celebrating—not with fanfare, but with quiet confidence.
Appendix: Original Draft
Below is your original draft, included to show the starting point of the process:
We’ve all had discussions with people who don’t really seem to get what having an argument is about. Having an argument is about the exchange and evaluation of idea and thoughts with the overall intent to find weaknesses and areas of improvement for one’s thoughts and beliefs. This model doesn’t seem to work with people who are woke. Why is that? I propose that the answer is that the Woke believe that on any particular topic they have “the final truth” of the matter. How did they get there? They went through a (dubious) process called consciousness raising which they believe has given them deeper insight into the problem. There is formal name for this sort of thinking, it is called gnosticism and this notion is what makes arguing with the Woke so frustrating at times.
Gnosticism or having received wisdom or insight means that the person exercising arguments from a gnostic point of view presuppositionally has deeper and finer insight into whichever topic that happens to be discussed. For example, take the fraught topic of racism. The honest interlocutor might argue that the best way to deal with racism in society is to be colour-blind and make every possible effort to judge people based on the content of their character, as opposed to the immutable characteristics such as skin colour.
“No, no, no”, says the Woke gnostic. That is only surface level understanding of the topic. The real answer is that society is immersed and permeated by racism. It is a on a systemic level. And thus as a base requirement to combat racism one must awaken, or gain the special insight to see that racism in society is systemic and thus everything is racist including the notion of being ‘colour-blind’ when it comes to dealing with other people.
The real issue then for the gnostic is that they have a higher, more accurate knowledge of what is going on and their opponent has not even the faintest clue of what is “really going on” as that would require them to also have a raised consciousness.
So there in lies the problem, the actual thesis cannot be debated or argued about because there would be no argument if both parties had this (mythical) raised consciousness. Woke argumentation thus becomes about the so called ‘knowledge differential’ and since they have the augmented version of the argument; coinciding with their raised consciousness; the Woke interlocutor must, by default have the correct moral and ethical position.
Opponents of Woke gnostics then can be dismissed because of their inferior understanding and thus less nuanced moral and ethical positions on whatever topic might be at hand. The gnostic position precludes examination of their arguments and suppositions by default because they think they already have a superior, more ethical, more nuanced stance – not because of any great accuracy or committment to the truth – but because they think they have a higher understanding of the issue due to their raised consciousness.
So rather than arguing, the Woke call you names. Bigot, racist, transphobe et al because they believe that their moral/ethical position is superior to yours and you are the problem because you won’t accept this higher wisdom. It behooves you to consider this gnostic wrinkle while engaging with the woke, and to plan and prepare for their moral certitude and not be thrown off by their judgements that come with unwarranted confidence given an honest factual analysis.
References
- DiAngelo, R. (2018). White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism. Beacon Press.
- Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Continuum.
- Kendi, I.X. (2019). How to Be an Antiracist. One World.
- MacKinnon, C.A. (1983). “Feminism, Marxism, Method, and the State: An Agenda for Theory.” Signs, Vol. 7, No. 3.
- NAACP. (2023). “Criminal Justice Fact Sheet.” NAACP.org.
- National Institute of Justice. (2021). “Reducing Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the Justice System.” NIJ.gov.
- Pluckrose, H., & Lindsay, J. (2020). Cynical Theories. Pitchstone Publishing.
I. Certitude as a Cross-Ideological Poison
In the modern culture war, the most dangerous weapon isn’t censorship or cancellation—it is certainty. Certainty that your worldview is the only legitimate one. Certainty that dissent equals harm. Certainty that debate is violence. This mindset—what I’ve previously called sociognostic certainty—is most visible in the ideological left, but it is increasingly mirrored on the right.
The woke movement often silences critics not through reasoned rebuttal, but through moral accusation: you’re not just wrong—you’re a racist, bigot, or transphobe. But as anti-woke voices grow louder, many fall into the same trap: purity tests, denunciations, and rhetorical gatekeeping in reverse. The danger isn’t just that woke ideology dominates—it’s that we become it while resisting.
We’ve seen this before. The New Atheist movement began as a defense of rationality and open inquiry. But its leading voices soon traded in dialogue for dogma, responding to disagreement with sneers and smug certitude. It became a mirror image of the religious authoritarianism it once critiqued.
So how do we fight the woke juggernaut without turning into zealots ourselves? The answer lies in rediscovering the epistemic foundations of liberal democracy: open-ended inquiry, equal participation, and structured disagreement. These norms are what thinkers like Jonathan Rauch, Karl Popper, John Stuart Mill, Jonathan Haidt, and James Lindsay have defended—often against powerful ideological tides.
II. Liberal Science and the Culture of Disagreement
In Kindly Inquisitors, Jonathan Rauch identifies two rules at the heart of a liberal society’s truth-seeking tradition:
- No one gets the final say.
“Every idea is open to challenge, no matter how sacred or widely accepted.”
- No one gets to say who may speak.
“Everyone has the right to participate in the conversation. There are no gatekeepers of legitimacy.”
Rauch calls this “liberal science”—a decentralized process that evolves through open critique and trial-and-error. “The liberal regime is the only one ever devised that systematically seeks out and corrects its own errors,” he writes. It is a system designed for humility.
This insight builds on Karl Popper’s concept of falsification: that scientific progress happens not by proving ideas right, but by exposing them to the possibility of being wrong. Popper warned that ideologies insulated from criticism drift toward totalitarianism. Liberal societies flourish not by avoiding mistakes, but by remaining willing to correct them.
III. Why These Norms Are Being Abandoned
Woke ideology, rooted in the practice of consciousness-raising, assumes that those who have not been “awakened” are epistemically and morally inferior. This produces what James Lindsay has described as “a knowledge regime based on belief, not inquiry.” It assumes that disagreement is not just misguided, but oppressive.
As Lindsay and Helen Pluckrose write in Cynical Theories, “Woke ideology doesn’t merely assert ideas—it positions itself as the one true way of seeing the world. It replaces knowledge with belief and inquiry with obedience.”
This ideology treats opposition as evidence of guilt. White Fragility teaches that resisting anti-racist training proves one’s racism. Ibram X. Kendi insists neutrality is impossible: “You’re either a racist or an antiracist.” These are not empirical frameworks. They are gnostic in character—immune to criticism and uninterested in falsifiability.
But the anti-woke response is often no better. The populist right, with its own culture-war crusades and purity tests, increasingly mirrors the very forces it claims to fight. Declarations of moral emergency are replacing liberal norms of debate.
In Canada, we’ve seen this from both ends. When the University of British Columbia postponed a speech by philosopher Mark Mercer on academic freedom, critics called it “institutional cowardice,” yet some of those same critics support political interference in other academic expressions. Meanwhile, psychologist Jordan Peterson’s ongoing regulatory battles with the College of Psychologists of Ontario highlight a broader cultural breakdown in tolerating dissent—no matter the direction it flows.
As Jonathan Haidt puts it in The Coddling of the American Mind: “When we teach students that their feelings are always right, and that disagreement equals danger, we do not prepare them for citizenship in a pluralistic society—we prepare them for life in a war zone.”
IV. The Classical Liberal Antidote
To escape the cycle of tribal certainty, we must return to the liberal framework that allows for conflict without coercion.
In On Liberty, John Stuart Mill made a timeless argument: suppressing even false opinions robs humanity of the “collision of ideas” that refines our understanding. “He who knows only his own side of the case,” Mill warned, “knows little of that.”
Rauch extends this into our age of information: “Liberal science does not protect feelings. It protects the process by which we challenge claims and revise beliefs.”
This is not about defending speech merely for its own sake. It is about preserving a culture of mutual correction. That means:
- Tolerating speech we disagree with, not because we approve of it, but because suppressing it corrodes our capacity for self-correction.
- Engaging rather than excommunicating, even when our interlocutors are wrong or offensive.
- Resisting the tribal call to certainty, even when we feel most justified in wielding it.
To do this, we need courage—not the moral grandstanding of cancel culture, but the intellectual humility of listening, debating, and sometimes losing the argument.
V. Conclusion: How to Win Without Destroying What We’re Defending
If we truly want to defeat woke ideology—or any ideology that claims moral and epistemic supremacy—we must do more than oppose it. We must model a better way.
That means rejecting the tools of coercion, purification, and outrage. It means embracing fallibility, tolerating disagreement, and recommitting to open inquiry as a civic virtue.
We won’t always win the argument. But we can keep the argument alive. That is the foundation of liberal society—not that it always gets things right, but that it remains willing to be wrong.
Lose that, and we don’t just lose to the woke. We lose the very civilization we’re trying to save.
References
- Rauch, J. (1993). Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought. University of Chicago Press.
- Popper, K. (1963). Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. Routledge.
- Mill, J.S. (1859). On Liberty. [Various editions].
- Lindsay, J. & Pluckrose, H. (2020). Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity—and Why This Harms Everybody. Pitchstone Publishing.
- Haidt, J., & Lukianoff, G. (2018). The Coddling of the American Mind. Penguin Books.
- DiAngelo, R. (2018). White Fragility. Beacon Press.
- Kendi, I.X. (2019). How to Be an Antiracist. One World.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…