You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Education’ category.
You can’t cure what you can’t define. Let’s work toward some definitional clarity when it comes to ESG, DEI, and Bridge.
Post modern and critical theories rely on the misuse of words to mystify people. The downstream effects of this bullshittery are apparent as even the Merriam Webster dictionary is now having difficulty defining what a woman is.
Always define your terms when you arguing with the woke – it is 9/10ths of their game. Demonstrate the linguistic tomfoolery and you might have a chance at a productive discussion.
Children grow in stages in terms of physical, intellectual, and social development. They are able to properly comprehend ideas and concepts at different points of the maturation cycle.
Thus, keeping age sensitive materials availability in tune with the developmental processes is a rational way to proceed. Activists try to blend this age appropriate filter as ‘censorship’ when in fact it just a notion tied to the very real idea of stages of child development.
Why would the activist Left want to expose children to age inappropriate and destabilizing literature?
Either you follow the evidence and the scientific method, or you do not. The hard sciences are a bastion of sorts against the bullshit that is running wild in the humanities. It isn’t for lack of trying on behalf of the activist bullshiters.
If you dare, go read the full article here.
In defending against activist ideology one must know the ground rules of the game. Queer activism is never enacted unambiguously. There is always a convenience, a double meaning, the truth married to a lie.
It behooves us to start with the original queer ‘scholarship’ and evaluate queer activism in light of what queer theory definitively says. So, to begin with, you need to know what “Queer” is. Logan Lancing defines the term in his book, “The Queering of the American Child” using a quote from the queer theorist David Halperin.
“Queer activists have transformed education’s purpose, methods, and content to push kids to become Queer Activists themselves. They have determined that the best way to do this is to teach the kids to queer themselves – to teach kids to destabilize their minds and bodies by deconstructing their identity until they become queer, which is a political cult identity that has nothing to do with sex, “gender”, or sexuality. In the words of world renowned [?] Queer Theorist David Halperin, “queer is an identity without an essence”. Whoa. In full context, he gives away the game: “queer” is a wholly political stance against normalcy and legitimacy and has little or nothing to do with homosexuality it self. He writes,
“Unlike gay identity, which, though deliberately proclaimed in an act of affirmation, is nonetheless rooted in a the positive fact of homosexual object-choice, queer identity need not be grounded in any positive truth or in any stable reality. As the very word implies, “queer” does not name some natural kind or refer to some determinate object; it acquires its meaning from its oppositional relation to the norm. Queer is by definition whatever is at odds with the normal, the legitimate, the dominant. There is nothing in particular to which it necessarily refers. It is an identity without and essence. (Halperin 1995, p. 62, italics in original).”
Lancing, Lindsay (2024). The Queering of the American Child. New Discourses Publishing. (p. 25).
Queer theory has its origins in postmodern thought. The use and misuse of language is a key part of how activists move the ball in arguments and society.
When up against an activist it is advisable to define terms and always name the dynamic present. The responsibility lies with you to inform the low information audience exactly what the activist means when they say things that, ostensibly, sound reasonable.
Twitter people are getting better at dismantling the activist bullshit. Let’s look at this example.
Notice the framing of the activist. Here is the reply though.
See? It takes so much more time to reveal the false claim – the truth married to a lie – the permeates most activist discourse.
1) Here we have a man who ‘identifies as woman’ saying how could a man possibly know what women want/think. Ironic.
2) Queer Theory is against every norm in society – to be a queer activist is to have a political identity without as essence – there are no positive facts about being queer – it is a stance predicated on critiquing, deconstructing, and destroying the norms and ethics of stable societies. There are no boundary conditions for queer activism.
3) Gender ideology preaches to kids that if they feel uncomfortable in their bodies (part of going through puberty and adolescence) then changing your body to fit stereotypical gender roles and behaviour is the solution. Of course, most children, grow out of any sort notions of dysphoria with their bodies, often becoming normal homosexual adults. The activist is advocating for early hormone and surgical intervention to permanently mutilate a child’s physical body in an attempt to treat a mental condition – the polar opposite of ‘being themselves’.
It is work to refute the activists if they actually engage, but try to keep in mind you must always name the dynamic they are using and spell out exactly what they are arguing for. Once the truth is revealed it is painfully obvious how tenuous the activist positions are.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…