1/
There is an entire industry of guys like this whose only goal is to front as "speaking truth to power" while they build a brand. "Social Justice"
*IS* the cool thing.

1/

Mini Thread:

Every time I think there is no more postmodernism in Christianity, I find more postmodernism in Christianity.

This time @KaitlynSchiess

2/
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

🥐🦭🥐🦭🥐🦭🥐🦭

3/
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."

4/
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.

5/
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....

1/
One of the most common tricks used by woke Social Justice activists to defend their view is to de-legitimize criticism by attacking the motives of the person who is opposing them. The goal is to undercut the moral authority and social standing of anyone who disagrees with them

2/
If you criticize the views of woke Social justice Activists they'll attack your motivations and imply that you're not being honest about your true motives. The goal is to make the audience suspicious of your intentions so they won't trust you or believe anything you say.

3/
By attacking your motives the woke activists can both discredit you while getting the audience to raise their level of skepticism toward you. This tactic is sometime referred to as "poisoning the well."

It is a dirty tactic, but it is effective.

4/
Here @BrandonLBradfor attempts to smear Conservative Black thinkers by claiming the reason the Right listens to conservative blacks is to assuage their own insecurity. The implication is people don't really care about the ideas of conservative blacks, they just use them...

5/
This implies that the ideas of conservative blacks are not worth listening too, and that even if conservative blacks had good ideas, nobody would care any way. This is the sort of pure cynicism that typifies Wokeness.

1/
A huge mistake people make is to think of postmodernism, post-structuralism, intersectionality, Critical Legal Studies, Critical Race Theory, 4th wave feminism, and Critical Theory as being separate and distinct, having nothing to do with each other

This is a massive mistake.

2/
These disciplines are connected. They are not like individual academic factories producing different theories. The fact is that the ideas that are produced in various disciplines cross-pollinate and influence each other. The theorists make use of and share each others ideas.

3/
These fields are akin to ingredients used by activists to make the stew of Critical Social Justice.

Mix some postmodernism here with some intersectionality there, add Critical Race Theory and 4th wave feminist post-structuralism and *taste test* YUMMY...Social Justice!👨‍🍳

4/
Take a look through the activist literature and you'll see that they pull from all these theorists as they see fit and as they find it useful.

An excellent example of this is the book/website: "Beautiful Trouble." You can see how this dynamic works in that book.

5/
You all know the old trick about how "postmoderns" and Marxists are totally different? Well that was true at one time, but woke activists will gladly take ideas from both the Postmodern philosopher Michel Foucault (1st pic) and the Marxist Antonio Gramsci (2nd pic)

The reality of biology in a single clip:

Transwomen are women

I'm not being a jerk, I'm making my point with a sledgehammer.

Pretending differences between men and women don't exist is utterly absurd, and people keep saying it. This ACLU lawyer quite literally says "Women and girls who are trans are biological women and girls."

In 2017 Craid Telfor ranked 390th in the mens 400m hurdles.

In 2018 Craig Telfor transitioned and became CeCe Telfor.

In 2019 CeCe Telfor won the women's 400m hurdles at the Womens Division II National Championship.

In what moral universe is this fair to women?

Renee Richards was a male to female transgender person who at age *45* became the 20th ranked women's player in the world.

Richards now says if the transition had at happened age 22 rather then at 40 no biological women would have had a chance:

A statement about Stephanie Hayden.

In January I became aware that Ms Hayden (who monitors this account despite being blocked) had made a series of defamatory allegations about myself and my wife.

The allegations were made on Twitter, via Hayden’s account, and were widely retweeted.

The allegations were that as a result of her making a police complaint, (1) the police were seeking to urgently speak to me.

Furthermore (2) that police has spoken to me on 26/12/20 and offered some kind of “robust” advice about my conduct on and off line.

Finally (3) that police attended my home address in November, where my wife mislead them as to my whereabouts.

Hayden commented about this at length on Twitter, said that both and I am my wife had lied, and that I had even given a false address in Hampshire.

I said at the time all the allegations were false.

The police “complaint” was nothing more than Hayden making yet another vexatious complaint to the police, as Hayden routinely does.

The police did not speak to me on 26/12/20, as alleged, or at all.

🧵 @DianeLangberg wrote about NDAs in Christian environments, noting “An NDA is an agreement to hide something. In the cases I have encountered it has always been an agreement to exercise power over and hide sin.... [it is] unlike our Lord.”
1/

NDAs are traditionally “non-disclosure” - don’t talk about specific X. Often in church/ministry cases - they’re overly broad - don’t talk abt *anything* re: your employment

but also may include

“non-disparagement” - don’t say anything negative about us EVEN IF IT IS TRUE
2/

Numerous articles have described the use of NDAs in Christian environments and the conflict with principles described in the very faith supposedly being promoted. I’m linking them here then I’ll offer my 20-year lawyer and victim of silencing (gag order) take on the practice.
3/

“Silence of the sheep” (2018) from @emlybelz described how the conference of catholic bishops has now banned NDAs in abuse cases but how some churches and Christian orgs still use them without

Later in 2018, @scotmcknight discussed NDAs after the Bill Hybels sex abuse scandal, noting that often the stronger party is implicated in sin because the whole reason for the NDA is bc they know that something is wrong and they don’t want it