Is modern secular society headed down the path to Sodom and Gomorrah.

[stevevw]

Acknowledged by who? The "Long march through the Institutions" is the long dead idea of a long dead B team German radical of the 60s.

Did you even read those links. We can trace, physically trace the ideology behind the Long March through the years by activists own words. Authors and activists like Kimberlé Crenshaw, Richard Delgado, Bell Hooks, Angela Davis, Judith Butler who developed Queer theory and Gloria Ladson-Billings who introduced Critical Race Theory to education in 1995 and in more recent times DiAngelo's 'White Fragility'. They all grew out from the same school of thought and underpin todays DEI policies within our institutions.

You correctly identified the influence of the The Frankfurt School of thought. This was the basis of the Critical theories that later influenced many activist thinking and the development of DEI.

So if Critical theory stems from the Frankfurt School and DEI stems from critical theory theres your basic evidence for the link. Of course like all things its not the only influence such as the influence of Derrida and Foucault and Postmodernist applications but its foundational.

So its all there and we can trace the development of the ideological thinking and its influences throughout history into modern times. You need to do some research before you make unsupported assertions. At the very least theres a connection and its certainly not dead. Perhaps a little hyperbole from yourself lol we all do it to make a point. Except yours is not hyperbole but not even an exaggeration as its completely wrong.

What would be the point? There is no content which supports your assertions.

We know that DEI is the basis and informs Institutional policy and procedures today. Even the Left acknowledge this. We know that DEI ideology underpins much of todays thinking within the institutions like education because we see its fallout.

I suggest you do some reqading then as this is completely wrong. I just linked the evidence showing that influences on todays ideological thinking. Its there in black and white. Look here is a modern day example of the ideology that is linked to the Critical theories and DEI with policy.

DEI Required: 67% of Universities Mandate ‘Diversity’ Indoctrination
More than two-thirds of America’s major universities are prioritizing indoctrination in “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) ideology over real education. That’s the bracing conclusion of a new report finding that 67 percent of major universities across the country require students to take courses in DEI—an ideology that promotes race-based discrimination—just to graduate.

https://speechfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Speech_First_DEI_Report.pdf

The authors describe their hoax as proof that fields focusing on identity — gender studies, queer studies, critical race studies, etc. — were “corrupt” to their core. “Grievance studies,” as they chose to refer to these fields, elevate politically fashionable nonsense over rigorous scholarship

The controversy around hoax studies in critical theory, explained

The “Grievance Studies” or “Sokal Squared” hoax aimed to discredit gender and critical race studies. Did it work?

www.vox.com

Fueled by DEI, A Dangerous Generation of Jew Haters Has Arisen
Data from the latest Harvard CAPS-Harris poll offers firm evidence of just how deep this indoctrination and dangerous misinformation about Israel and Jewish community have become. Younger Americans, aged 18 through 24, who have grown up and been fully indoctrinated by diversity principles and are deeply ignorant about international history, hold shocking views that are notably divergent from older generations.

Fueled by DEI, A Dangerous Generation of Jew Haters Has Arisen

All Jews, left to right, should be calling for the end of the toxic DEI programs that have seeded this hate and ignorance.

jewishjournal.com

By nearly every measure, language associated with the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion ideology has risen dramatically in STEM fields. Outside the universities, the same trends are visible in science funding sites and funded research proposals, in the scientific literature and literature databases, and, to a lesser extent.

The activists’ aim is to radically transform the sciences by making all aspects of scientists’ careers conform to the demands of DEI ideology. Training and education in the sciences, hiring of new science educators and researchers, decisions on research grants, accreditation, governance of research universities, and more are now being reshaped to meet the demands of DEI ideology. The ideological intensification over the past few years is now empirically evident.

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED625490.pdf

"activists’ aim is to radically transform the sciences". Radical transform is the same as re-engineering the sciences, education and how we think. This is the Long March continuing.

So Critical theory has infiltrated academia to the point where its influencing peoples ability for Critical thinking, thats Critical thinking as opposed to Critical theories. So the long march in its evolving forms is re-engineering the institutions from the long held truths of Enlightened thinking into a mismash of ideological indoctrination and capture.

 

[stevevw]

Whe should be able to have a discussion. If you limited yourself to single-topic posts of less than 500 words it would be much easier. That was my point.

Ok I will try so long as people engage with the content and not misrepresent or just ignore evidence. That is what causes the discussion to breakdown.

Its good when both sides can understand the same content to be able to then discuss further whether that content and evidence is valid. At the very least it should help get a better understanding of the issues even if some information or evidence proves unfounded.

Theres also no sense in having any discussion about establishing the facts and truth if there is not epistemic values we both implicitly agree on. Like not misrepresenting each others arguement, don't use logical fallacies and address the content. I think these are implicit in all debates and without them any discussion becomes incoherent and useless.

I would rather investigate as the more information, data ect the better to determining the truth, facts and reality.

 

[stevevw]

When the first course is garbage salad, why should I stay for the meal?

The problem with that logic is that food taste is subjective, personal.

I don't see anything from the links themselves that indicate there is anything non-polemical in any of them.

Really and yet you don't explain what that is. As far as I understand the Long March and its influence on todays identity politics is widely acknowledged by those in the know. So its not personal or polemical to have such a wide qualified consensus. Its as real as we can trace Marxism or ferminism.

You also just failed to address any of the things I wrote. I try to address the things you write (with in the limits of volume).

Ok so you jumped into this discussion with the objection about the Manhatten Institute. If thats what your talking about not addressing. I did address this when I said its a logical fallacy to dismiss the content by association or the source.

I did not know about the Manhatten Institute. All I know is I do a quick check to see what the organisations are about and they usually say they are non-partisan and independent and help inform policy.

But I fail to see the relevance. I linked more than one support all saying the same thing. Even Wiki which is a Left learning organisation. It seems all I am getting are fallacies and not explanation or reason why what I have said and linked is wrong, has not influenced todays thinking on the Left. Both parties have a history of influence and we can trace those influences like we can for any ideology like Marxism and Feminism.

 

[BCP1928]

Ok I will try so long as people engage with the content and not misrepresent or just ignore evidence. That is what causes the discussion to breakdown.

No what we are talking about is not the evidence you present. It's the conclusions you draw from it.

Its good when both sides can understand the same content to be able to then discuss further whether that content and evidence is valid. At the very least it should help get a better understanding of the issues even if some information or evidence proves unfounded.

Theres also no sense in having any discussion about establishing the facts and truth if there is not epistemic values we both implicitly agree on. Like not misrepresenting each others arguement, don't use logical fallacies and address the content. I think these are implicit in all debates and without them any discussion becomes incoherent and useless.

I would rather investigate as the more information, data ect the better to determining the truth, facts and reality.

The content is your conclusions.

 

[BCP1928]

Did you even read those links. We can trace, physically trace the ideology behind the Long March through the years by activists own words. Authors and activists like Kimberlé Crenshaw, Richard Delgado, Bell Hooks, Angela Davis, Judith Butler who developed Queer theory and Gloria Ladson-Billings who introduced Critical Race Theory to education in 1995 and in more recent times DiAngelo's 'White Fragility'. They all grew out from the same school of thought and underpin todays DEI policies within our institutions.

You correctly identified the influence of the The Frankfurt School of thought. This was the basis of the Critical theories that later influenced many activist thinking and the development of DEI.

So if Critical theory stems from the Frankfurt School and DEI stems from critical theory theres your basic evidence for the link. Of course like all things its not the only influence such as the influence of Derrida and Foucault and Postmodernist applications but its foundational.

So its all there and we can trace the development of the ideological thinking and its influences throughout history into modern times. You need to do some research before you make unsupported assertions. At the very least theres a connection and its certainly not dead. Perhaps a little hyperbole from yourself lol we all do it to make a point. Except yours is not hyperbole but not even an exaggeration as its completely wrong.

We know that DEI is the basis and informs Institutional policy and procedures today. Even the Left acknowledge this. We know that DEI ideology underpins much of todays thinking within the institutions like education because we see its fallout.

I suggest you do some reqading then as this is completely wrong. I just linked the evidence showing that influences on todays ideological thinking. Its there in black and white. Look here is a modern day example of the ideology that is linked to the Critical theories and DEI with policy.

DEI Required: 67% of Universities Mandate ‘Diversity’ Indoctrination
More than two-thirds of America’s major universities are prioritizing indoctrination in “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) ideology over real education. That’s the bracing conclusion of a new report finding that 67 percent of major universities across the country require students to take courses in DEI—an ideology that promotes race-based discrimination—just to graduate.

https://speechfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Speech_First_DEI_Report.pdf

The authors describe their hoax as proof that fields focusing on identity — gender studies, queer studies, critical race studies, etc. — were “corrupt” to their core. “Grievance studies,” as they chose to refer to these fields, elevate politically fashionable nonsense over rigorous scholarship

The controversy around hoax studies in critical theory, explained

The “Grievance Studies” or “Sokal Squared” hoax aimed to discredit gender and critical race studies. Did it work?

www.vox.com

Fueled by DEI, A Dangerous Generation of Jew Haters Has Arisen
Data from the latest Harvard CAPS-Harris poll offers firm evidence of just how deep this indoctrination and dangerous misinformation about Israel and Jewish community have become. Younger Americans, aged 18 through 24, who have grown up and been fully indoctrinated by diversity principles and are deeply ignorant about international history, hold shocking views that are notably divergent from older generations.

Fueled by DEI, A Dangerous Generation of Jew Haters Has Arisen

All Jews, left to right, should be calling for the end of the toxic DEI programs that have seeded this hate and ignorance.

jewishjournal.com

By nearly every measure, language associated with the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion ideology has risen dramatically in STEM fields. Outside the universities, the same trends are visible in science funding sites and funded research proposals, in the scientific literature and literature databases, and, to a lesser extent.

The activists’ aim is to radically transform the sciences by making all aspects of scientists’ careers conform to the demands of DEI ideology. Training and education in the sciences, hiring of new science educators and researchers, decisions on research grants, accreditation, governance of research universities, and more are now being reshaped to meet the demands of DEI ideology. The ideological intensification over the past few years is now empirically evident.

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED625490.pdf

"activists’ aim is to radically transform the sciences". Radical transform is the same as re-engineering the sciences, education and how we think. This is the Long March continuing.

So Critical theory has infiltrated academia to the point where its influencing peoples ability for Critical thinking, thats Critical thinking as opposed to Critical theories. So the long march in its evolving forms is re-engineering the institutions from the long held truths of Enlightened thinking into a mismash of ideological indoctrination and capture.

The National Association of Scholars is another right wing propaganda mill just as extreme as the Manhattan Institute. The other article is just an opinion piece in a regional paper.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The problem with that logic is that food taste is subjective, personal.

The actions and positions of the Manhattan institute are well known. It is not subjective.

Really and yet you don't explain what that is. As far as I understand the Long March and its influence on todays identity politics is widely acknowledged by those in the know. So its not personal or polemical to have such a wide qualified consensus. Its as real as we can trace Marxism or ferminism.

Ok so you jumped into this discussion with the objection about the Manhatten Institute. If thats what your talking about not addressing. I did address this when I said its a logical fallacy to dismiss the content by association or the source.

See Post #919. Why should I spend my time replying to your posts if all you are going to do is post back blocks of copied text that doesn't address anything.

I did not know about the Manhatten Institute. All I know is I do a quick check to see what the organisations are about and they usually say they are non-partisan and independent and help inform policy.

"non-partisan" only means they are not directly affiliated with a political party. If you are going to rely on a "think tank" for your sourcing, it would be good to understand their biases.

But I fail to see the relevance. I linked more than one support all saying the same thing. Even Wiki which is a Left learning organisation. It seems all I am getting are fallacies and not explanation or reason why what I have said and linked is wrong, has not influenced todays thinking on the Left.

wiki is not "left leaning" unless you things facts are leftist.

Both parties have a history of influence and we can trace those influences like we can for any ideology like Marxism and Feminism.

What "both parties" are you talking about?

 

[Hans Blaster]

The National Association of Scholars is another right wing propaganda mill just as extreme as the Manhattan Institute. The other article is just an opinion piece in a regional paper.

We need some "research" for the University of Austin. (eyeroll)

 

[stevevw]

No what we are talking about is not the evidence you present. It's the conclusions you draw from it.

The conclusions come from the evidence and how that has influenced societal views and how those views are then applied to society. The simple fact is we as a society are the product of the ideas within the literature we express and those ideas can be evidenced in the literature we use within society. We can trace the change in those ideas and beliefs in our history. Especially through academia which is the foundation for knowledge that ends up infiltrating into the institutions starting with education.

Just like we can say Shakesphere, Einstein, Darwin and Christ has influenced our thinking so we can with the Critical theories, authors and activists that influenced societal beliefs through academia.

My only conclusion is that this period in our history of this ideological thinking and the theories this promoted happened which we can clearly show. Therefore it is self evidence that because it did happen the influence of these ideas and beliefs has at least some influence on our thinking and beliefs today.

Are you saying that this movement of thinking and beliefs did not happen and had no influence of society. I don't understand your point when you say you diusagree with my conclusions when its not my conclusion but those of the scholars who commentate on this.

The content is your conclusions.

What does this mean. It doesn't make sense. Content cannot be the conclusion. It is what it is. In the case of the evidence for say the Critical theories within academia its there is black and white, in the literature, the ideas and beliefs of the authors.

The conclusions come from what those ideas represent, how they played out in society. That is based on the evdience how how those ideas infiltrated into mainstream society. Then we can join the dots.

 

[stevevw]

Yes, the Long March is not just the long dead idea of a long dead B-list German radical, it's a sinister presence in our lives today. And you can prove that it's a sinister presence in our lives today it with a Wikipedia article about it written in the past tense.

I only used the Wiki link to show that the 'Long March through the Insitutions' was a real event that aimed to re-engineer the institutions. For some reason the Wiki link was very short, too short for such an event that had a real impact of western thought. The other links I provided went into detail of how this happened if you read them.

But if you look at the references Wiki uses you will see the evidence. For example they quote Kimball, Roger (2001), The Long March: How the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s Changed America.

In that reference Kimball mentions

how the "cultural revolution" of the 1960s and '70s took hold in America, lodging in our hearts and minds, and affecting our innermost assumptions about what counts as the good life. The counterculture transformed high culture as well as our everyday life in terms of attitudes toward self and country, sex and drugs, and manners and morality.

For all that has been written about the counterculture, until now there has not been a chronicle of how this revolutionary movement succeeded and how its ideas helped provoke today's "culture wars." The Long March fills this gap with a compelling and well-informed narrative.

https://www.amazon.com.au/Long-March-Cultural-Revolution-Changed/dp/1893554309

 

[BCP1928]

I only used the Wiki link to show that the 'Long March through the Insitutions' was a real event that aimed to re-engineer the institutions. For some reason the Wiki link was very short, too short for such an event that had a real impact of western thought. The other links I provided went into detail of how this happened if you read them.

But if you look at the references Wiki uses you will see the evidence. For example they quote Kimball, Roger (2001), The Long March: How the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s Changed America.

In that reference Kimball mentions

how the "cultural revolution" of the 1960s and '70s took hold in America, lodging in our hearts and minds, and affecting our innermost assumptions about what counts as the good life. The counterculture transformed high culture as well as our everyday life in terms of attitudes toward self and country, sex and drugs, and manners and morality.

For all that has been written about the counterculture, until now there has not been a chronicle of how this revolutionary movement succeeded and how its ideas helped provoke today's "culture wars." The Long March fills this gap with a compelling and well-informed narrative.

https://www.amazon.com.au/Long-March-Cultural-Revolution-Changed/dp/1893554309

Another right-wing polemicist. Honestly, Steve, do you think we have never heard of these people and the line they're pushing?

 

[stevevw]

I think you misread. It is your attitudes I am worried about. Your statements seem to imply things I don't think are true.

Your worried about my attitudes and my statements 'seem' to imply things You don't think are true" What exactly does that mean and how would you even substanciate such a subjective determinations.

Are you confusing general history with American history? (Also, "race war" still not a good choice of words.)

No it is mainly the US history I am talking about. Just about all those authors and activists I mentioned are American. Richard Delgado who developed Critical Race theory and Kimberlé Crenshaw who developed Intersectionality both the basis of DEI which underpins most institutional policies are American.


DEI is basically an American idea stemming out of post 60's revolutions especially relating to race and from which todays Identity politics is based on.

No. Sex is and was a biological property. It is not a social construct.

Then you ought to do some revising and learn what is really going on with this ideology infiltrating our institutions.

The science journal Nature goes woke, claiming that both sex and gender are nonbinary
The two most prestigious science journals in the world, Nature and Science, are both going woke. And by that I mean that they’re buying into tenets of Critical Theory Wokeness that are palpably unscientific.
The science journal Nature goes woke, claiming that both sex and gender are nonbinary

Sex is not a spectrum, there are only two sexes in humans.
The sudden introduction of the concept of ‘gender identity’ into public policy across the globe has generated quite a turmoil, riddled with worldwide confusion and clashes of mismatched theories relating to the meaning of sex, gender and personal identity.
Biological sex is not a spectrum: there are only two sexes in humans. An interview with Claire Graham - Woman's Place UK

Why So Many Progressives Are Arguing That Biological Sex Doesn't Exist
"Evil Womxn": The Silencing Of Biological Reality And The Technology Of Obfuscation

Gender has arisen as the label for the social and psychological aspects related to sex, but that was more than 15 years ago. (No matter how recently you or I learned of it.)

Yes around 15 years ago the idea was sex is biological and gender is a social construct. Now sex is the social construct and gender identity the objective reality enough so that it trumps biological facts.

The idea that Gender is a spectrum is false ideology being pushed in schools and society. Gender is tied to sex, 98.5% of people born align their gender with their biological sex and for good reason as they are tied, interconnected. But Gender ideologues push this idea onto children and it causes confusion and harm.

THis is part of the progressive new religion that is replacing Gods order and is created by human ideas as they believe there is no God of nature and that humans can recreate Gods creation in their own likeness no Gods.

Gender identity needs to be based on objective evidence rather than feelings

Gender identity needs to be based on objective evidence rather than feelings

If we abandon the testimony of experts, we may find ourselves at the mercy of whoever shouts loudest, writes Debbie Hayton, a trans teacher

www.economist.com

The institutions you are referring to are scientific research, not "engineering".

You would hope so but it seems the ideological reach has penetrated even prestigious science journals who want to appear politically correct rather than factually based. No just science journals but also world health organisations like the UN.

Which is probably why so many ignore the actual research on gender identity and sexuality.

Do they. If they do then your supporting my point that this ideological movement which also happens to be supported by the Left is not reality but a belief being pushed into our institutions.

Race isn't biological. It is a social construct around superficial biological characteristics.

Like Gender its tied to biological reality. The complete detachment of this by ideologues is part of the social constructionist agenda to re-engineer society into a new reality. Just like sex you can't change your race.

But with this new subjective reality being pushed people also claim to identify as different races when they are not from that race. Just like they are identifying with different ages and even with qanimals and Furries ect. Once reality is rejected it opens the door for all sorts of incoherent ideas.

It was invented in colonial America to justify the subjugation of groups of people. Sex is NOT a social construct. And gender (as we have just covered) is how sex and society interact with the psychology and identity of individuals.

THis is silly. Race was not invented, its a reality. African Americans are a different race to white European Americans. It was that racial differences that was exploited and used to make out that some races were inferior. Race was not invented but the ideology to devalue some races was.

The only "ideology" on these things that are widely adopted is the "ideology" that those people exist and are just regular people.

Its much more complicated. Even the L, G and I of the LGBTIQ+ community are in conflict with the T. Its an ideological overreach that is being pushed onto everyone. As we have just discussed the ideas of sex and gender being a complete spectrum, a social construction is a belief and not based in science.

So there are questions about it being real, that there are real identities that trump reality that is the problem.

The Manhattan Institute is not some scholarly organization, they are a propaganda mill. They dress themselves up with the cloak of scholarly study, but they are still just propagandists.

But how do you determine this. From what I can see they are not saying anything that is also supported by other scholars.

MI was at the heart of "redefining" CRT into something taught in schools, then redefining "woke" to the way you are using it now.

But this is based on facts. As I said we can identify the ideology and its harms. Its based on facts bith in science and in the reality of the ideology playing out in real life and how it leads to misdiagnosis, unsupported treatments and conflicts between identity groups.

CRT is an unscientific ideology and causes damage to society. We are seeing the negative results everywhere. That is not to dismiss the need to support minorities and people with these problems. Its a matter how we do so and the basis for what these problems represent.

MI is at the heart of the RW war on the culture. Other key players are the Claremont Institute and Hillsdale College. MI is *NOT* a credible source on "CRT/Woke/DEI", they are propagandists.

Ok I don't know. But all I know is what they say is in line with the science and with other more reputable organisations.

Even more discrediting MI has been home to "scientific racism" for decades. The dressing up of racist notions in scientific clothing.

Ok well you will have to give me an example as as far as I can see most of the time people object its based on a misrepresentation or misunderstanding of what is being said. If the MI is so obviously wrong and yet presents itself as independent and based on facts then surely there are obvious examples.

every time I read about one of these old lefties that are the boogie men of the right, I shake my head in disbelief at how far these guys are from any popular social movement.

But none of what I linked is just unsupported rants. They can be supported by factual evidence. Sure some can exploit this and use it to push their own ideology and agenda. But the basic facts still stand that these ideas are not based in facts and are ideoloigical beliefs being pushed under the guise of a nobel cause. Just like religion.

Some first-name only rando blog poster? Seriously?

How does this logical fallacy mean that the content has no basis. How about dealing with the content rather than the names of authors lol. I chose this article because it is comprehensive, it explains each aspect of the ideology which can be supported by independent facts and science.

It never is a good look, while pressing forward a religious view, to characterize something you don't like as "like a religion" as a means to put it down.

Who says that the articles are a religious view when determining whether an ideology being pushed is like a religion. Nothing that was said in that article points to it being a religious view.

I would beg to disagree about religion, but that is not the topic here. (or is it, the topic gets lost in the trees)

Unfortunately or amy necessarily its gone down this path as part of making the arguement that modern society in rejecting God left a belief void as no human or society can operate independently from belief. That void has been filled with human made metaphysical ideas about nation and reality. That being the social constructivists and relativists beliefs which have birthed todays ideology about who we are and how the world is ordered.

But thats ok because its required to make the point. If we can show that what is being pushed is not science but rather an ideological belief then that is the religious like belief that has taken over. The point is if not Woke, DEI or Identity ideological beliefs then it will be some other human made beliefs as there is no such thing as a society without such beliefs underpinning those societies and reality itself.

The longer your posts the more likely I am to skip parts or most of them. Especially long blocks of quoted text.

Fair enough but as you can see it gets complicated and we need to unpack things to understand them. Otherwise we are left with misrepresentations. A lack of information is how we end up misunderstanding what is going on.

Even if what I say can be argued against at least then it can be discounted and we can get on with finding the truth of the matter. But I do the research and have done on these matters for years so I am still waiting for an actual arguement against what I am saying rather than these logical fallacies attacking the sources.

 

[BCP1928]

THis is part of the progressive new religion that is replacing Gods order and is created by human ideas as they believe there is no God of nature and that humans can recreate Gods creation in their own likeness no Gods.

How do you know what God's order is supposed to be?

Gender identity needs to be based on objective evidence rather than feelings

Gender identity needs to be based on objective evidence rather than feelings

If we abandon the testimony of experts, we may find ourselves at the mercy of whoever shouts loudest, writes Debbie Hayton, a trans teacher

www.economist.com

You would hope so but it seems the ideological reach has penetrated even prestigious science journals who want to appear politically correct rather than factually based. No just science journals but also world health organisations like the UN.

Do they. If they do then your supporting my point that this ideological movement which also happens to be supported by the Left is not reality but a belief being pushed into our institutions.

Like Gender its tied to biological reality. The complete detachment of this by ideologues is part of the social constructionist agenda to re-engineer society into a new reality. Just like sex you can't change your race.

But with this new subjective reality being pushed people also claim to identify as different races when they are not from that race. Just like they are identifying with different ages and even with qanimals and Furries ect. Once reality is rejected it opens the door for all sorts of incoherent ideas.

THis is silly. Race was not invented, its a reality. African Americans are a different race to white European Americans. It was that racial differences that was exploited and used to make out that some races were inferior. Race was not invented but the ideology to devalue some races was.

Its much more complicated. Even the L, G and I of the LGBTIQ+ community are in conflict with the T. Its an ideological overreach that is being pushed onto everyone. As we have just discussed the ideas of sex and gender being a complete spectrum, a social construction is a belief and not based in science.

So there are questions about it being real, that there are real identities that trump reality that is the problem.

But how do you determine this. From what I can see they are not saying anything that is also supported by other scholars.

But this is based on facts. As I said we can identify the ideology and its harms. Its based on facts bith in science and in the reality of the ideology playing out in real life and how it leads to misdiagnosis, unsupported treatments and conflicts between identity groups.

CRT is an unscientific ideology and causes damage to society. We are seeing the negative results everywhere. That is not to dismiss the need to support minorities and people with these problems. Its a matter how we do so and the basis for what these problems represent.

Ok I don't know. But all I know is what they say is in line with the science and with other more reputable organisations.

Ok well you will have to give me an example as as far as I can see most of the time people object its based on a misrepresentation or misunderstanding of what is being said. If the MI is so obviously wrong and yet presents itself as independent and based on facts then surely there are obvious examples.

But none of what I linked is just unsupported rants. They can be supported by factual evidence. Sure some can exploit this and use it to push their own ideology and agenda. But the basic facts still stand that these ideas are not based in facts and are ideoloigical beliefs being pushed under the guise of a nobel cause. Just like religion.

How does this logical fallacy mean that the content has no basis. How about dealing with the content rather than the names of authors lol. I chose this article because it is comprehensive, it explains each aspect of the ideology which can be supported by independent facts and science.

Who says that the articles are a religious view when determining whether an ideology being pushed is like a religion. Nothing that was said in that article points to it being a religious view.

Unfortunately or amy necessarily its gone down this path as part of making the arguement that modern society in rejecting God left a belief void as no human or society can operate independently from belief. That void has been filled with human made metaphysical ideas about nation and reality. That being the social constructivists and relativists beliefs which have birthed todays ideology about who we are and how the world is ordered.

But thats ok because its required to make the point. If we can show that what is being pushed is not science but rather an ideological belief then that is the religious like belief that has taken over. The point is if not Woke, DEI or Identity ideological beliefs then it will be some other human made beliefs as there is no such thing as a society without such beliefs underpinning those societies and reality itself.

Fair enough but as you can see it gets complicated and we need to unpack things to understand them. Otherwise we are left with misrepresentations. A lack of information is how we end up misunderstanding what is going on.

Even if what I say can be argued against at least then it can be discounted and we can get on with finding the truth of the matter. But I do the research and have done on these matters for years so I am still waiting for an actual arguement against what I am saying rather than these logical fallacies attacking the sources.

The sources, your favorite right-wing extremist intellectuals who like to blame everything on left-wing extremist intellectuals?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Who says that the articles are a religious view when determining whether an ideology being pushed is like a religion. Nothing that was said in that article points to it being a religious view.

You're the one with the religious view in this reference. I can't say such about the articles you post.

Unfortunately or amy necessarily its gone down this path as part of making the arguement that modern society in rejecting God left a belief void as no human or society can operate independently from belief. That void has been filled with human made metaphysical ideas about nation and reality. That being the social constructivists and relativists beliefs which have birthed todays ideology about who we are and how the world is ordered.

Isn't that all this thread is? A reaction to the secularization of society?

But thats ok because its required to make the point. If we can show that what is being pushed is not science but rather an ideological belief then that is the religious like belief that has taken over. The point is if not Woke, DEI or Identity ideological beliefs then it will be some other human made beliefs as there is no such thing as a society without such beliefs underpinning those societies and reality itself.
Fair enough but as you can see it gets complicated and we need to unpack things to understand them. Otherwise we are left with misrepresentations. A lack of information is how we end up misunderstanding what is going on.

I have no idea what this is supposed to be.

Even if what I say can be argued against at least then it can be discounted and we can get on with finding the truth of the matter. But I do the research and have done on these matters for years so I am still waiting for an actual arguement against what I am saying rather than these logical fallacies attacking the sources.

 

[stevevw]

The actions and positions of the Manhattan institute are well known. It is not subjective.

I think you mean the criticism of MI is not subjective. But then what is objective when it comes to these matters on social policy. We already know that most of these issues to do with welfare, education and health policy, rights ect are partisan by each party. Your not going to get any consensus from either side and each side will have their own bias as to what is best.

I cannot find much on the MI as far as criticism. I find individual critics on individuals within MI but no universal critics from independent sources. In fact it seems the MI was listed with the 'Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program' which was a Policy Think tank that monitored Think Tanks like the MI which seems to imply MI qualified as being a legitimate policy think tank.

See Post #919. Why should I spend my time replying to your posts if all you are going to do is post back blocks of copied text that doesn't address anything.

First post 919 nor the one before it have any large blocks of copied text. Its all my commentary. Second I link quotes from articles because you don't even read the articles. That is what I have found that I could list 30 links without any detail and they are just dismissed. So I quote some relevant parts and as you notice highlight the evidence to support what I am saying.

But still I get absolutely no arguement or reasoning as to why this doesn't support my arguements but rather fallacies attacking the sources or complaints about that I have linked them in the first place.

"non-partisan" only means they are not directly affiliated with a political party.

Actually it also means not using any political bias despite being associated with a political party. So each party can be non partisan on the floor of parliament regarding a political or social issue.

The greatest problem today is partisan politics where each party will reject the oppositions ideas and polcies for simply being the opposition because thats what they are meant to do. If they agree then they are seen as giving an advantage to the opposition. Even if the Right or Left said the sky is blue the opposition will make a case that its green or yellow.

If you are going to rely on a "think tank" for your sourcing, it would be good to understand their biases.

Obviously policy think tanks associated with the Right or Left are going to have their own ideological views on things and theres no way around this. Even social advocates representing certain groups or issues are going to be biased about their groups, about the narrow position they advocate from as opposed to the general view or the view from all groups.

So we have to then investigate whether what they claim is backed by independent evidence. That is why I said that despite the MI position on the Long March and its influence on todays thinking on the Left is also backed by independent research. Just like we can say determine the infleunce of Marxism on societies. Its there in black and white underpinning social policies and the literature.

wiki is not "left leaning" unless you things facts are leftist.

And yet Wiki's own co-founder says Wiki has a Left leaning bias and aligns with the centre Left media.

Wikipedia co-founder says site is now ‘propaganda’ for left-leaning ‘establishment’

Wikipedia co-founder says site is now ‘propaganda’ for left-leaning ‘establishment’

Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger has warned that the website can no longer be trusted — insisting it is now just “propaganda” for the left-leaning “establishment.”

nypost.com

But also generally the mainstream media has been biased against the Right, Conservative and traditional views. It seems when it comes to THink Tanks like the MI its the Left who are much more biased in referring to Left leaning Think Tanks for sources then the Right.

The Liberal Media: It's No Myth
The Groseclose-Milyo study shows the media are skewed substantially to the left

https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/barro/files/bw04_0614.pdf

What "both parties" are you talking about?

Both the Left and Right parties in western nations. I thought that was a common understanding.

 

[stevevw]

You're the one with the religious view in this reference. I can't say such about the articles you post.

Who saays I am pushing a religious view. We are talking about the article itself and not my beliefs. The article is not promoting any religious view. Its a general observation about how ideology influences peoples views. How belief itself underpins peoples political views more generally.

Isn't that all this thread is? A reaction to the secularization of society?

No thats how you want to cast it. Its designed to go beyond that. To examine how belief itself underpins the position secular society takes. In fact if anything its to show that despite secular positions claiming to be neutral and ridding themselves of any religious beliefs that its actually a false claim.

Secularists cannot be neutral and will themselves have some form of religious belief even if thats called humanism, Woke, PC, progressive politics, protecting minorities or whaever nobel label placed on it. That this new ideological belief is every bit as religiously motivated and just as bad as the criticisms of traditional religion. Its just better at hiding the agenda as its drapped in secular disguises.

I have no idea what this is supposed to be.

It means exactly what it says, that no secular society can be belief free, and neutral. That metaphysical ideologies are like religions when it comes to pushing certain beliefs about social and moral realities. They are not based on science or reality.

So we need to dig a little deeper as its not as obvious as traditional religion to expose this. What appears to be a nobel cause and morally right thing to do can actually be a Trojan Horse for pushing a new ideological belief in the name of protection or rights based politics.

If we look at the way and I hate to say it 'Woke' ideology has been pushed we see all the hal;lmarks of religion, the bowing to DEI, the shaming of those opposed, the cancelling of opposing views and the indoctrination of institutions. We just have to dig below the surface to find the truth.

 

[stevevw]

Another right-wing polemicist. Honestly, Steve, do you think we have never heard of these people and the line they're pushing?

But I am not pushing this but Wiki, They have used the reference to support their article lol. You just literally used Wiki to refute my arguement when you said they were actually saying the Long March has not continued and was in the past. So your undermining your own arguement lol.

 

[stevevw]

How do you know what God's order is supposed to be?

Thats easy, its nature, the laws of nature and objective reality. Science has been revealing it for decades.

The sources, your favorite right-wing extremist intellectuals who like to blame everything on left-wing extremist intellectuals?

I am beginning to lose count of the number of times logical fallacies are being used especially ad hominems. Not once has anyone engaged in the actual content or given arguements. That indicates they have no arguement.

 

[BCP1928]

Thats easy, its nature, the laws of nature and objective reality. Science has been revealing it for decades.

Except when science reveals something you don't like, then it's suddenly "ideology."

I am beginning to lose count of the number of times logical fallacies are being used especially ad hominems. Not once has anyone engaged in the actual content or given arguements. That indicates they have no arguement.

That's because we're arguing with you, not them. All we have to do is refute your argument that these are main stream intellectuals of great influence on average citizens.

 

[stevevw]

Except when science reveals something you don't like, then it's suddenly "ideology."

No thats not true. Facts are facts, evidence is evidence and reality is reality. As long as we have a rational mind the facts and truth cannot be denied no matter what beliefs we have. As they say the truth will come out in the end.

But I think you are conflating two things here when you say "when science reveals something you don't like". Liking something is subjective and science is objective. So thats an obvious give away if someone 'doesn't like something' as the reason they dispute science and facts.

We know we can easily show that a person is allowing their beliefs or personal biases to deny facts and the truth when they have no objective basis for what they say. Its the only way to sort out things in the end.

Put it this way if someone can show me a fact that I am wrong then I would have to think hard and be willing to change my mind. But the thing is I don't think my views are that extreme so theres noting too uncommon about it that would make me want to deny things. I may be ignorant but I don't think what I am saying is that unreal.

That's because we're arguing with you, not them. All we have to do is refute your argument that these are main stream intellectuals of great influence on average citizens.

No thats an aweful way to have a discussion and debate. Thats more or less reducing any discussion to find the truth of the matter down to the person without even looking at the content to understand it and determine its truth.

It would be like judging something by the exterior looks and not getting to know whats inside. Its classic ad hominem and 'don't judge a book by its cover' which is commonsense.

We would be forever knocking down each others sources and never discussing the issue itself. A incoherent way to discuss something and to learn and find the truth.

 

[Grip Docility]

I am interested in this as I was speaking to some friends the other day about how especially in the media, Hollywood, Music and entertainment there seems to be this pagan or even Satanic ritualistism going on. Things like wearing these head dresses with goat horns and other pagan symbols. Its always very provocative and sexual as well. Almost a celebration of our animalistic side.

I think I know what is happening. Just like in the days when people defied God they turned to nature, to animals and nature itself like Stone idols. Now that modern society is rejecting God this same belief is coming back. It may seem natural for people to worship nature as god. But primarily when this happens its not really about gods in nature but the self as god, about worship our naturalistic side.

Also in those times people were made gods when theres no transcendent God. As self is god desires and feelings and self experience becomes godlike in status. Therefore comfort, pleasure and all the good feelings are moral and the aweful feeling ones are sin similar to Hedonism

So are we seeing a repeat of the down fall of society like Sodom and Gormorrah or like with how Empires have fallen where morality breaksdown and where the created is worshipped and not the Creator which undermines Gods natural order into entropy and chaos as has happened before except on a much bigger scale.

Ezekiel 16:49 “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

Hermeneutic understanding of this passage binds to this specific passage of scripture.​

Matthew 25:41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

This binds to these verses.​

​

John 13:34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. 35 By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”

James 2:8 If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing right. 9 But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. 10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. 11 For he who said, “You shall not commit adultery,” also said, “You shall not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker. 12 Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, 13 because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment.

By Colossians 1, we know that Jesus Christ's blood atoned for all creation. Because of this, we are not to count those that haven't repented from self to Jesus as "not our neighbor". In fact, we are to count even the unrepentant as "the least of these". They are enemies of the gospel in many instances, yet Peter writes this oddity.​

​

2 Peter 2:21 For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they had known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.​

​

(The Holy Commandment) John 13:34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. 35 By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”​

​

Under the very words; "Be ye perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect", Jesus teaches us to Love far beyond our "family". He states that even the heathens do that. To display the "Perfect Love" of our heavenly Father, we are to love, even our enemies as Jesus did on the cross. Paul even specifies that we were all, once enemies of God. This is why I am scripturally unable to reconcile peace with any doctrine that limits the flow of Jesus Christ's Blood. It would be defaming the core of the Gospel which Jesus and all of the Apostles speak of, time and time again.​

​

I, personally, would change a few words in this OP.

Is modern secular society headed down the path to Sodom and Gomorrah.​

I would change it to;

Is modern Western Civilization headed down the path to Sodom and Gomorrah.​

We have fat provision as Western Civilization. Even those in poverty have more than most in other locations. We are steeped with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Jesus forgave All Sin of the Old Covenant. We are under the Law of Love. We have deep knowledge of the Love of Jesus Christ unto all mankind, yet many doctrines dam up Love unto all mankind.

The Physical reading of the Sheep and the Goats is very obvious, but the Spiritual reading of the Sheep and the Goats is very upsetting.

I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.

Matthew 25:42,43 I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat

Jesus is the very Bread of life that teaches us to Love one another. That is His easy yoke. It is fulfilling to Love as God Loves, by His indwelling. His bread is free to all and especially satisfying to beggars​

​

I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink,

If a person simply turns from self to Jesus, He instantly indwells them, as they are (thanks to personal repentance), and bubbles up a fountain of Wisdom and Love that again implores one to satisfy humanity with the Magnificent Bread of Life (Jesus). The words that proceed from HIS MOUTH satisfy the most broken of souls.​

43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in,

Spiritually, this is a twofold wonder. Strangers in need, that would be healed by the Gospel are not allowed to enter Physical Brick and Mortar buildings as Brethren, because of their Physical Sins, that Jesus Christ's blood atoned for. They are shunned. Many people also shun these same people because of their physical sins that Jesus atoned for.​

​

The other wonder of this verse is that it suggests that people who transgress the Royal Law (Love our neighbor's as Jesus Loved us), have driven Jesus out of their lives and by not turning back to his Royal Commandment (Love), they have shut Him out of their Souls.​

I needed clothes and you did not clothe me,

The wedding garment has been provided for every human being that has ever lived. It is merely Repentance and willingness to become a vessel of LOVE (God's indwelling), that leads us to Love as Commanded by His work, not ours. Even the most carnally destitute of mankind can PUT ON JESUS CHRIST for the mere cost of Surrender/Repentance unto Him, which always results in Unfettered Love unto mankind that Breaks Chains.​

I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.

There is no greater Prison than slavery to a system that is unloving. Jesus is the only key to this prison! But, even so, those that have much financially, could help those that live in areas that rebuke the Gospel and imprison it's witnesses. That last part was carnal, but back to Spiritual, Chains of addiction are not broken by physical will, but Love. Love is the source of all healing in this world. Hate is born of everything else.​

​

I don't have the right to indict humanity of Western Civilization. I can merely ask this question. Has the Royal Commandment of LOVE been exalted unto the greatest and the least, within Western Civilization? Do those who have been forgiven much, love much? These are personal questions to work out with fear and trembling. IMO