i didn't catch that part, i guess it must be more of that corruption of language seeping into everyone's idiom thing 

 Yes, it's become a common idiom. It's an old theory but hit the mainstream like a bus in 2020. Just read Kendi and you'll get a gestalt for it. It's cancerous. 

 it is probably something i've seen in cult indoctrination techniques and experienced directly being used on me in the past then... i codified a set of 9 typical tricks and made mnemonics out of them, it's almost certainly one of them 

 https://gist.github.com/l0k18/99692e5a92868b53529899fccd9859a0

this is the long winded version 

 WTF is woke about that post? I really, really don't see how you're catching that from what she wrote and how she wrote it.  

 i think it will still be a teachable moment... tbh when i read it, i was sorta ho hum, yeah, ok the fancy people post and don't read, but i didn't catch the other parts so much

i would appreciate a point at the exact parts of the expression that resembled or were vicious rhetorical elements so i can recognise them better, i'm already pretty good at catching propaganda word tricks but this is something i missed 

 The big one is point #10, which is another way of saying "if you reject my framing, that is evidence that my framing is correct". This lays several traps for the so-called "elite":

If they say there is no elite, that will be evidence that there is one, and they are in it, and a liar to boot.

If they grovel and apologize and offer to "be better", that legitimizes the framing, and will only be used against them.

The only feasible options are to join in as part of the mob, or literally say "I reject your framing".

The former solution has the obvious downside of reinforcing the attack on whatever characteristic defines " the elite" - usually not a specific indictment, just an instance of "privilege" (whiteness, maleness, grant-recipient-hood).

The latter solution means that unless one of you gives way in the framing question, it kills the possibility of having a conversation. And of course this will be used as evidence that you, the "elite", are exercising your power to suppress the purported victim.

You can't argue with someone using CT. It turns your reasonableness against you. This is particularly true when one of the defining virtues of the elite is "western rationality" as in critical race theory. But CT is inherently fallacious and circular, so there is always an attack on reason involved on some level.

Even though the Frankfurt School was reacting against marxism and communism, CT has some of the same characteristics, since it works by inventing novel class divides and then appeals to egalitarian justice to split people along those lines.

The end result when you always attack the "upper class" is of course the denial of everything that elevates, in other words, of virtue. 

 You know i respect you. 
And like you. 
And it did model CRT.

If anyone understands having an anger response to cultural Marxism is me.
In fact, I’d wager my struggles with anger and violence make you look quite gentle.
What is being missed is both you and her are courageous enough to take a stand against perceived injustice. 

I want to see that courage unified.
Against a much more dangerous foe.
Especially considering what we will all be facing soon.

And in case you’re missing it, this is a backroom brawler attempting to become a peacemaker. 

 Yes, I completely agree with this. There is no need to draw us/them lines here (which is basically what I was objecting to by my criticism). And you're right that my mute comment played into that, which I regret.

nostr:nprofile1qydhwumn8ghj7argv4nx7un9wd6zumn0wd68yvfwvdhk6tcppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyv9kh2uewd9hj7qpqm4ny6hjqzepn4rxknuq94c2gpqzr29ufkkw7ttcxyak7v43n6vvs36jfsv  none of this was intended to be a personal attack. You are attacking your own side, however. You should realize that and stop. 

 I mean, he didn't say that my critique wasn't true. He's saying that I shouldn't be allowed to voice such a critique and should be punished for it.

I get that he's protecting his friends, but this screed attacking me for being a member of some obscure woke academic movement is a step too far. Not every complaint about elitism is part of some Californian social justice movement. 🥴 

 it's one that is instantly visible to anyone who isn't in the in group also 

 For not knowing what it is, you wield it adeptly. This note is a case in point. Ad hominem attacks and attribution of motives are not good faith arguments, but they are effective at humiliating and silencing your opponent. 

 well, i'm a bit equivocal about this since this is their own medicine 

 coexist/ makes life interesting 

 let it go bro 

 Just answering the man's question 

 oh ok. well as long as you are just answering the man's question then. 

 I appreciate you quite a bit. 

 back @ u 

 Gotcha, thanks for the explanation.

The flaw I've seen in this line of discussion (and I may not have seen all of it), is that you seem to be conflating a technique with an agenda.

Critical theory uses the analytical toolset of postmodern hermeneutics that seeks to identify and amplify alternative perspectives as a means of questioning a prevailing narrative or school of thought.

This is distinct from the worldview presented by Critical Theory, which views all language as an instrument of power and thus is inherently skeptical of any and every traditional, dominant, or widespread narrative.

Wokeness and Critical Race Theory are particular instantiations of this broader philosophical movement as applied to Western--and specifically American--politics.

Identifying the rhetorical tools of postmodern hermeneutics and pointing those out is perfectly fair.  It is not, in my opinion, a particularly strong rhetorical device, and identifying such a weakness helps your interlocutor further develop her arguments, which in turn may produce more fruitful dialogue.

The fallacy that I observe, @hodlbod, is that you are seeing postmodern hermeneutical rhetoric and imputing to @Laeserin the worldview of Critical Theory as a result.  That is a non sequitur.  In fact, anyone who's followed Laeserin for any amount of time would know that she is an orthodox Catholic, which requires an adherence to tradition and authority antithetical to Critical Theory.  Thus we need not immediately assume that she is attempting to advance some sort of woke victim ideology.

I think you have fair critiques to offer, but perhaps they were not offered in a constructive spirit.  Everyone is getting rather uppity over this whole conversation on little provocation.  I don't think that's necessary. 

 Fine philosophical distinctions are difficult for me. But I do think the employment of language as power and the subversion of established structures of power are relevant here, because what's happening is the "othering" of a class of people. I also agree that CT is antithetical to Christianity, which is why a Christian shouldn't use it. But people aren't consistent, and that's ok. This was never intended to be a character assasination. 

 That may be occurring, but a Christian virtue ethic requires us to consider the intentions of an act as well as the content of the act itself.

I'm just trying to point out a nuance, lest we see something that looks like CT and make unfair character judgements as a result.

As always, Nostr is a free place, anyone can follow or mute who they want depending on the value provided by the individual's posts and interactions.