We start out with acknowledging a shift in how "truth" is thought about.
Which, I mean, yeah just read some Stanley Grenz and you can see it coming. It is called *taps mic*
🥐🦭🥐🦭🥐🦭🥐🦭
POSTMODERNISM
🥐🦭🥐🦭🥐🦭🥐🦭
1/
Mini Thread:
Every time I think there is no more postmodernism in Christianity, I find more postmodernism in Christianity.
This time @KaitlynSchiess
We start out with acknowledging a shift in how "truth" is thought about.
Which, I mean, yeah just read some Stanley Grenz and you can see it coming. It is called *taps mic*
🥐🦭🥐🦭🥐🦭🥐🦭
POSTMODERNISM
🥐🦭🥐🦭🥐🦭🥐🦭
Pic 1: We are sinful and as such we are epistemicly flawed
Pic 2: Because we are flawed and imperfect we must adopt the philosophy of Richard Rorty: "The truth is out there but we can't get it."
Although she hedges slightly with "every time."
Next "There is no universal basis for evaluating our environment."
This is her argument for that:
1. our perspectives are limited,
2. our communities suffer from generational and structural biases,
Therefore:
3. there is no universal basis for evaluating our
environments.
This whole argument (much like the whole essay) is totally confused.
For one, the conclusion does not follow from the premises. She goes from different perspectives and people have bias directly to there is no foundation for the discovery of truth.
now....
The cheap dunk is to ask "if there is no universal basis for evaluating the environment, on what basis do you know your communities suffer from generational and structural biases?"
She had to evaluate her environment to figure out her community suffers from structural bias...
If she can't evaluate her environment, she can't know her community suffers from structural bias.
She makes all kinds of claims about the world while claiming that a universal Basis for evaluating the environment does not exist.
Her argument is self-refuting.
Next, she trots out the idea that "absolutism" is just as bad for faith as relativism.
Damn it.
The problem is not the property of truth that is it absolute, the problem is the psychological fact about humans that sometimes we have *CERTAINTY* that is unjustified. But...
Although it is true that Christians sometimes claim to have complete certainty when they ought to content themselves with blessed assurance, this does not mean that truth is no longer absolute, or that we should abandon a "belief in objective means of assessing reality."
The fact that truth is absolute does not imply that our certainty is always justified. This is an argument for humility. It is not an argument for abandoning absolute truth in favor of local narratives which is what @KaitlynSchiess appears to be suggesting here.
She then says "hard facts can lead us astray"
*deep breath*
Lord, give me strength
*exhale*
She then says Christians need "storytelling communities that use particular narratives, practices, and norms to instill in us a truth that could not be reached by reason alone"...
She says we can't get to absolute truth and hard facts lead us astray, so she wants us to abandon both absolute truth and hard facts in favor of narratives and story telling.
How, exactly, does this woman think Trump got elected? Let me tell you:
HE TOLD THE BEST NARRATIVE.
Trump won the first time by winning the Narrative warfare. And Trump Lost this time because he lost the narrative warfare. Trump is our first postmodern president precisely because his presidency was based on, built around, and powered by narratives, not truth.
If we accept the idea that absolute truth is impossible to grasp, all we are going to get is ever deeper and more insidious forms of narrative warfare on all sides.
That is, and I cannot stress this enough, very bad.
So, @KaitlynSchiess please, lets *NOT* abandon truth...
The deeper we get into postmodernism the worse this is going to get and the winners are not going to people like you, the winners are going to be people who can tell a story, who can use persuasion, who can create a mirage with words....
You know, like Trump...
unless you want more of Trump, lets get back to the facts, because if you think people can be led astray with hard facts, just wait till you see what people can do with a narrative....
/fin
Be nice to @KaitlynSchiess please. Don't be mean. She actually seems honest so let's give her the benefit of the doubt that she means well.
More from Wokal Distance
1/
Time to talk Trumpers.
This is Cori Bush's bill to expel from congress anyone who supported election challenges yesterday.
Yesterday was Jan 6.
The bill is dated Jan 5.
*SHE KNEW YOU WOULD PROTEST, LOSE CONTROL, AND GET VIOLENT. AND SHE HAD A BILL READY FOR WHEN YOU DID*
2/
You guys are going to take the "L" here and quite frankly you deserve it. Cori Bush is going to eat your lunch every day until Biden is inaugurated and there isn't a thing you can do about it.
So....
Let's talk about how to make sure this never, ever, happens again.
3/
How did Cori Bush know you guys were going to have problems and violence?
Because she was trained in the lefty protest movement. Lefty organizing are what she did for years, that's her area of expertise. So she knows just how quickly and easily protests go off the rails...
4/
She knew that this was likely planned by people who did not understand how easily protests go bad, and she knew there was a high likelihood of something going wrong.
Someone is going to say "They had people planted to make it go violent, it is not our fault..."
5/
So what?
Your job is to make sure your people behave, and that you have enough trained people to handle agitators looking to make trouble.
The left knows how to do this. The hold peaceful protests *WHEN THEY WANT TO*
Look at the Women's march, 2 million people, no violence
Time to talk Trumpers.
This is Cori Bush's bill to expel from congress anyone who supported election challenges yesterday.
Yesterday was Jan 6.
The bill is dated Jan 5.
*SHE KNEW YOU WOULD PROTEST, LOSE CONTROL, AND GET VIOLENT. AND SHE HAD A BILL READY FOR WHEN YOU DID*
I believe the Republican members of Congress who have incited this domestic terror attack through their attempts to overturn the election must face consequences. They have broken their sacred Oath of Office.
— Congresswoman Cori Bush (@RepCori) January 6, 2021
I will be introducing a resolution calling for their expulsion. pic.twitter.com/JMTlQ4IfnR
2/
You guys are going to take the "L" here and quite frankly you deserve it. Cori Bush is going to eat your lunch every day until Biden is inaugurated and there isn't a thing you can do about it.
So....
Let's talk about how to make sure this never, ever, happens again.
3/
How did Cori Bush know you guys were going to have problems and violence?
Because she was trained in the lefty protest movement. Lefty organizing are what she did for years, that's her area of expertise. So she knows just how quickly and easily protests go off the rails...
4/
She knew that this was likely planned by people who did not understand how easily protests go bad, and she knew there was a high likelihood of something going wrong.
Someone is going to say "They had people planted to make it go violent, it is not our fault..."
5/
So what?
Your job is to make sure your people behave, and that you have enough trained people to handle agitators looking to make trouble.
The left knows how to do this. The hold peaceful protests *WHEN THEY WANT TO*
Look at the Women's march, 2 million people, no violence
More from Culture
.@bellingcat's attempt in their new book, published by
@BloomsburyBooks, to coverup the @OPCW #Douma controversy, promote US and UK gov. war narratives, and whitewash fraudulent conduct within the OPCW, is an exercise in deception through omission @marydejevsky @freddiesayers
1) 2000 words are devoted to the OPCW controversy regarding the alleged chemical weapon attack in #Douma, Syria in 2018 but critical material is omitted from the book. Reading it, one would never know the following:
2) That the controversy started when the original interim report, drafted and agreed by Douma inspection team members, was secretly modified by an unknown OPCW person who had manipulated the findings to suggest an attack had occurred. https://t.co/QtAAyH9WyX… @RobertF40396660
3) This act of attempted deception was only derailed because an inspector discovered the secret changes. The manipulations were reported by @ClarkeMicah
and can be readily observed in documents now available https://t.co/2BUNlD8ZUv….
4) .@bellingcat's book also makes no mention of the @couragefoundation panel, attended by the @opcw's first Director General, Jose Bustani, at which an OPCW official detailed key procedural irregularities and scientific flaws with the Final Douma Report:
@BloomsburyBooks, to coverup the @OPCW #Douma controversy, promote US and UK gov. war narratives, and whitewash fraudulent conduct within the OPCW, is an exercise in deception through omission @marydejevsky @freddiesayers
In response to @marydejevsky seemingly bad faith questions about Bellingcat on @unherd I've written a response providing details of where Bellingcat came from, and why it is like it is https://t.co/5rCsSwpcAm
— Eliot Higgins (@EliotHiggins) February 15, 2021
1) 2000 words are devoted to the OPCW controversy regarding the alleged chemical weapon attack in #Douma, Syria in 2018 but critical material is omitted from the book. Reading it, one would never know the following:
2) That the controversy started when the original interim report, drafted and agreed by Douma inspection team members, was secretly modified by an unknown OPCW person who had manipulated the findings to suggest an attack had occurred. https://t.co/QtAAyH9WyX… @RobertF40396660
3) This act of attempted deception was only derailed because an inspector discovered the secret changes. The manipulations were reported by @ClarkeMicah
and can be readily observed in documents now available https://t.co/2BUNlD8ZUv….
4) .@bellingcat's book also makes no mention of the @couragefoundation panel, attended by the @opcw's first Director General, Jose Bustani, at which an OPCW official detailed key procedural irregularities and scientific flaws with the Final Douma Report:
You May Also Like
Recently, the @CNIL issued a decision regarding the GDPR compliance of an unknown French adtech company named "Vectaury". It may seem like small fry, but the decision has potential wide-ranging impacts for Google, the IAB framework, and today's adtech. It's thread time! 👇
It's all in French, but if you're up for it you can read:
• Their blog post (lacks the most interesting details): https://t.co/PHkDcOT1hy
• Their high-level legal decision: https://t.co/hwpiEvjodt
• The full notification: https://t.co/QQB7rfynha
I've read it so you needn't!
Vectaury was collecting geolocation data in order to create profiles (eg. people who often go to this or that type of shop) so as to power ad targeting. They operate through embedded SDKs and ad bidding, making them invisible to users.
The @CNIL notes that profiling based off of geolocation presents particular risks since it reveals people's movements and habits. As risky, the processing requires consent — this will be the heart of their assessment.
Interesting point: they justify the decision in part because of how many people COULD be targeted in this way (rather than how many have — though they note that too). Because it's on a phone, and many have phones, it is considered large-scale processing no matter what.
It's all in French, but if you're up for it you can read:
• Their blog post (lacks the most interesting details): https://t.co/PHkDcOT1hy
• Their high-level legal decision: https://t.co/hwpiEvjodt
• The full notification: https://t.co/QQB7rfynha
I've read it so you needn't!
Vectaury was collecting geolocation data in order to create profiles (eg. people who often go to this or that type of shop) so as to power ad targeting. They operate through embedded SDKs and ad bidding, making them invisible to users.
The @CNIL notes that profiling based off of geolocation presents particular risks since it reveals people's movements and habits. As risky, the processing requires consent — this will be the heart of their assessment.
Interesting point: they justify the decision in part because of how many people COULD be targeted in this way (rather than how many have — though they note that too). Because it's on a phone, and many have phones, it is considered large-scale processing no matter what.
