“Woke”

[shuttlt]

This is a pretty good start.

Critical in this sense should be taken to mean operating from the perspective that knowledge is socially constructed and education is a political project embedded within a network of social institutions that reproduce inequality. I'm happy to take social justice^WP in the usual sense.

I'm not sure you quite have the meaning of "critical". Horkheimer wrote an essay called Traditional And Critical Theory. I think that is close to an origin point for this. Sure it kind of assumes a Marxist view of the world, but lacking from what you said is that for it to be "critical" it must do three things.
1. describe the world (that is the bit you seem to be describing).
2. it has to be practical, the problem with traditional theory is it's requirements for evidence stand in the way of answering questions that we want to answer. Neo-marxist theory is substituted for evidence.
3. it has to be normative, it has to be a moral call to action.

In some ways, I don't see the difference between critical theory and critical social justice.

Can we agree that "woke" academia covers all the different academic disciplines which consciously take a critical stance, e.g. multicultural education, anti-racist education, postcolonialism, intersectionalism, gender studies, critical race theory, etc.?

That is a definition. I guess you could also call it all academic disciplines that supress results that go against the woke world view. The resignation of Jonathan Haidt has been mentioned I think.

If you were to google "Critical Social Justice" as a phrase, you'd mostly get hits from anti-woke people in the Pluckrose camp. Seems to me the phrase is more often used to characterize one's opposition than one's allies.

Sure, rhetorically it is foolish to call it that when talking to the public. It makes it clear that you aren't just talking about some kind of naïve programme to treat people fairly and get's in the way of motte and bailey equivocation. It's like how you might refer favourably to some theory as Marxist in academic circles, but you probably wouldn't do that on CNN. Were I woke, I would certainly not call it that.

 

[jt512]

I have in my hand a list of known communists.

I have a list of liberals with their heads buried in the sand.

 

[d4m10n]

Were I woke, I would certainly not call it that.

I'm just trying to get a sense of two things:

1) What is under the umbrella?

2) What do we call the umbrella?

I don't think "wokeness" and "critical theory" and "critical social justice" and "intersectionality" and "successor ideology" are exactly the same things but they probably are all under that unnamed umbrella. Honestly, I'm sort of indifferent which one gets promoted to be the general label, so long as we're 80-90% clear on the set of ideas taking shelter thereunder.

I have a list of liberals with their heads buried in the sand.

LOL

Maybe you're right, and I'm just not paranoid enough. Wouldn't be the first time.

 

[shuttlt]

I'm just trying to get a sense of two things:

1) What is under the umbrella?

2) What do we call the umbrella?

d4m10n, it is 2022. You haven't been living under a rock. You don't need a definition to know what these words mean better than 90% of the people who use them.

I don't think "wokeness" and "critical theory" and "critical social justice" and "intersectionality" and "successor ideology" are exactly the same things but they probably are all under that unnamed umbrella. Honestly, I'm sort of indifferent which one gets promoted to be the general label, so long as we're 80-90% clear on the set of ideas taking shelter thereunder.

You are never going to get precise, unchangeable, unambiguous borders on these things. You've been having these debates on various forums for long enough that I doubt you don't know the history of these ideas. Are the people who use these words trying to be 100% rigorous and consistent with their terminology? I'm not sure they are. If anything, I would say lack of clarity on this is a strategy. What is the question that having several names that mean similar things is preventing you answering? It must be a very subtle question.

 

[d4m10n]

What is the question that having several names that mean similar things is preventing you answering? It must be a very subtle question.

It is not so much a specific question as a problem of tribalism. If we could actually get people from the left, right, and center to agree upon the set of ideas under discussion, that would be a good start. I don't care if the labels are awkward and badly transliterated from (for example) German or culturally appropriated from AAVE.

ETA: You may recall that Rufo caught no end of flak for trying to stuff all of these related ideas under the "CRT" umbrella. I do think that was awkward, since "critical" and "theory" were doing most of the conceptual work but "race" got all the attention.

 

[Suddenly]

You've misinterpreted the sentence. What it says is that as a condition of funding, scientists must now promote "equity and inclusion," which is a concept from critical social justice. To put it a different way, as a condition of DoE funding, scientists must commit to further the goals of the critical social justice movement.

So what's the problem?


Does it make sense for them to try to include, say, more women in stem projects because in the long run making the field more friendly to women would greatly increase the pool of available talent in stem fields going forward and thus serve the ends of those fields?


I'd think so.

 

[jt512]

So what's the problem?

Does it make sense for them to try to include, say, more women in stem projects because in the long run making the field more friendly to women would greatly increase the pool of available talent in stem fields going forward and thus serve the ends of those fields?

There are a lot of problems with making social justice a goal of science, and a lot of problems with your statement, the first being the unevidenced premise that STEM is not friendly to women.

 

[shuttlt]

It is not so much a specific question as a problem of tribalism. If we could actually get people from the left, right, and center to agree upon the set of ideas under discussion, that would be a good start. I don't care if the labels are awkward and badly transliterated from (for example) German or culturally appropriated from AAVE.

At this point, if they appear not to know what the ideas are, they are either lying, actively don't want to know, or don't care. The problem isn't with the definitions, it's that the time for discussions like the one you want to have is past.

ETA: You may recall that Rufo caught no end of flak for trying to stuff all of these related ideas under the "CRT" umbrella. I do think that was awkward, since "critical" and "theory" were doing most of the conceptual work but "race" got all the attention.

At worst the use of that expression allowed people who were motivated to play games to play games. Anybody with the beginnings of an interest in any of this knows what is being talked about. There is no label or definition that you can choose to enable a debate that people don't want to have.

 

[d4m10n]

At this point, if they appear not to know what the ideas are, they are either lying, actively don't want to know, or don't care. The problem isn't with the definitions, it's that the time for discussions like the one you want to have is past.

This is unduly pessimistic or perhaps cynical. People are always joining subject threads afresh, unaware of the background issues or the jargon used to neatly conceptualize them. It is up to the subject matter veterans to lay out certain basics and work towards consensus on terminology.

 

[shuttlt]

This is unduly pessimistic or perhaps cynical. People are always joining subject threads afresh, unaware of the background issues or the jargon used to neatly conceptualize them. It is up to the subject matter veterans to lay out certain basics and work towards consensus on terminology.

How is the attempt to spark debate on this going on this thread? I don't see it going differently to how I described. I suppose it is possible that some innocent who hasn't taken a side will wander along, but that hasn't been what has been going on when I have dipped into the thread. Where these people have been living that they are interested in the subject, and have yet kept their otherwise open minds in virginal innocence, I can't imagine. This thread is effectively about one of the central fault lines in western culture. Who is coming to this unaware at this point? I'm not sure I have ever seen anybody convinced on the question by the kind of argument you are describing. Have you got an example on the thread you can point to?

Also, the whole issue is that the subject matter veterans don't want to work towards a consensus. You have one side who will happily talk about the Frankfurt School, and the other side who won't discuss it because it is conspiracy theory nonsense (and they kind of agree with the Frankfurt School's project). The two sides aren't separated by a confusion about definitions, and rational argument isn't going to fix it. It's like thinking that the religious strife between Catholics and Protestants in 17th Century England just needed rational debate to bring everybody together. That only happened when one side won, and the other side lost.

 

[d4m10n]

How is the attempt to spark debate on this going on this thread?

Gimme a few days and I'll get back to you on this.

Where these people have been living that they are interested in the subject, and have yet kept their otherwise open minds in virginal innocence, I can't imagine.

This strikes me as a failure of imagination on your part. Someone can be well read on all aspects of traditional scientific skepticism and familiar with all of James Randi's books and television appearances and still lack even a Wikipedia level familiarity with the Frankfurt School.

A forum designed to do scientific skepticism isn't likely to have that many humanities majors in the first place. Give it a moment.

 

[shuttlt]

This strikes me as a failure of imagination on your part. Someone can be well read on all aspects of traditional scientific skepticism and familiar with all of James Randi's books and television appearances and still lack even a Wikipedia level familiarity with the Frankfurt School.

I think you are underselling the shift you are asking people to make, or the level of openness you are asking for.

A forum designed to do scientific skepticism isn't likely to have that many humanities majors in the first place. Give it a moment.

OK. I will retire to the shadows and watch. If you succeed, I will celebrate with you.

 

[wareyin]

Oh my, you really think the OBE is authorized to defy laws passed by the legislature and signed by the governor?

Look at this cute attempt to move the goalposts. It's not going to work, as you claimed the legislature punished the school when in reality the B of E did, but at least you're trying something, huh?

I don't have any idea how many examples actually exist. This one only came to light because it was legally banned by HB1775.

Well, if the lone example you have contradicts your theory, a good skeptic will imagine that there are other examples out there that nobody knows about which confirms his theory, right? Wait, that doesn't sound right...

 

[d4m10n]

Look at this cute attempt to move the goalposts. It's not going to work, as you claimed the legislature punished the school when in reality the B of E did, but at least you're trying something, huh?

You need to read what I actually wrote:

If the punishment was originating from outside the schools (e.g. state legislature) it wouldn't tell us anything about the culture inside the schools.

The idea of punishing the school originated with HB1775, clearly, and the Board of Education is duty bound to follow the law.

Well, if the lone example you have contradicts your theory, a good skeptic will imagine that there are other examples out there that nobody knows about which confirms his theory, right?

What theory?

 

[wareyin]

You need to read what I actually wrote:
The idea of punishing the school originated with HB1775, clearly, and the Board of Education is duty bound to follow the law.

I took a quick gander at HB1775 and I didn't see that school mentioned. Perhaps you can quote the bit that picked that school?

What theory?

The one you brought up here.

You know, the whole "d4m10n can't remember what he said yesterday" tactic is just a piss poor way to debate. It's in writing. If you can't remember what you wrote, go back and reread it. Your tactic of saying something then pretending you can't remember what you said is no more good faith than the conservative troll tactic of saying something so stupid and wrong that they know someone will correct them as a way to pwn teh libz is, but the conservative tactic actually has the possibility of advancing a conversation. Having to remind a poster of what he wrote hours or days ago does nothing but bog things down.

 

[jt512]

Which is still not the same thing as "dominating" or "bad".

I didn't say that CSJ dominated in science. I said that it affects funding decisions. And that's not the same thing as "good," is it?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

I didn't say that CSJ dominated in science. I said that it affects funding decisions.

You used the example I am questioning as an answer to Darat asking you to show that it dominated in universities.

So it is just a factor in funding like other factors.

And it's not the same thing as "good," is it?

I think it is. You don't want an end to racism?

 

[jt512]

You used the example I am questioning as an answer to Darat asking you to show that it dominated in universities.

False. The post of mine that he was replying to said it was dominating in a number of areas, including universities, and that it was affecting funding decisions in science. CSJ dominating a university does not imply that college physics texts would be rewritten.

So it is just a factor in funding like other factors.

What is the point of that statement. Yes, it is a factor. If you don't show you're committed to Critical Social Justice your grant won't be funded. Is that "like other factors"? No, it is not, all the other factors relate to the scientific merit of the proposal.

I think it is. You don't want an end to racism?

I'm not going fall for that cheap rhetorical trick.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

False. The post of mine that he was replying to said it was dominating in a number of areas, including universities, and that it was affecting funding decisions in science. CSJ dominating a university does not imply that college physics texts would be rewritten.

So ignore his suggestion about how to prove your own point and provide proper evidence of your own.

This seems very disingenuous on your part. You have to know he was questioning the more important claims on your list, not the one minor claim.

What is the point of that statement. Yes, it is a factor. If you don't show you're committed to Critical Social Justice your grant won't be funded. Is that "like other factors"? No, it is not, all the other factors relate to the scientific merit of the proposal.

No. There will be administrative requirements, audit requirements, and cost justification requirements.

I'm not going fall for that cheap rhetorical trick.

You can't say that you want an end to racism?

 

[jt512]

You can't say that you want an end to racism?

Why would you even ask? That' a rhetorical question. I'm done with you here.