I watched/listened on YouTube and I am so grateful that you joined James for this conversation.
This makes me think about the motte and bailey and the notion I get that most who proselytize Critical Social Justice are actually unaware of the concept and are treated much like the rest of us from the true believers. In my previous field I found that most people did not know the concept of Standpoint Epistemology nor the names, let alone ideas of the creators of 'Theory'. They seemed to be the useful idiots of Theory, feeling good, while achieving little.
The main idea of infantilization of the disabled really stands out. If they truly understood Standpoint Epistemology, they would never tell James or another disabled person how to view their own circumstances.
But, theory vs practice demonstrates the follies in their thinking. Their theories do not withstand scrutiny or practical applications. For instance, DiAngelo and Kendi reintroduced segregation into workplaces, not realizing their work creates the conditions of a group of people feeling like they are less. Brown v Board of Education got rid of segregation by successfully arguing that this practice makes black children feel less than white children.
All of this comes up for me from your great conversation. James, you are a hero. You are an intellectual and an activist. Thank you for what you do. 🙏🤙
There's nothing stupider in the social justice cult (apart from maybe putting rapists in female prisons) than the 'disabilities social construct' thing.
I believe it started decades ago with the deaf community which had formed a quite supportive network with each other, quite successful actually, until, as humans are wont to do, they took it way too far.
Maybe cancer is a 'social construct'.
Maybe spina bifida is a 'social construct'.
Maybe rape trauma is a 'social construct'. Hell, maybe even rape is.
Come to think of it the Disability theorists interpret efforts to alleviate disability or to compensate for it through therapy or technology the same way we would judge efforts to bleach the skin of people of color that live in the West to get rid of racism against them or efforts to perform conversion therapy on homosexuals as a means to overcome homophobia.
such a great and important conversation and topic.
Congrats on it.
It seems that the academics in the field of Disability Studies are really not at all in touch with large numbers of disables people. At least I hope that is where most of it stems from. I'd really rather not contemplate alternative origin stories for this divergence of aims.
I watched/listened on YouTube and I am so grateful that you joined James for this conversation.
This makes me think about the motte and bailey and the notion I get that most who proselytize Critical Social Justice are actually unaware of the concept and are treated much like the rest of us from the true believers. In my previous field I found that most people did not know the concept of Standpoint Epistemology nor the names, let alone ideas of the creators of 'Theory'. They seemed to be the useful idiots of Theory, feeling good, while achieving little.
The main idea of infantilization of the disabled really stands out. If they truly understood Standpoint Epistemology, they would never tell James or another disabled person how to view their own circumstances.
But, theory vs practice demonstrates the follies in their thinking. Their theories do not withstand scrutiny or practical applications. For instance, DiAngelo and Kendi reintroduced segregation into workplaces, not realizing their work creates the conditions of a group of people feeling like they are less. Brown v Board of Education got rid of segregation by successfully arguing that this practice makes black children feel less than white children.
All of this comes up for me from your great conversation. James, you are a hero. You are an intellectual and an activist. Thank you for what you do. 🙏🤙
Dear Matt Thank you so much for articulating so clearly my thoughts. Helen you are a blessing to the world of social justice. Thank you ❤️🌈🙏
There's nothing stupider in the social justice cult (apart from maybe putting rapists in female prisons) than the 'disabilities social construct' thing.
I believe it started decades ago with the deaf community which had formed a quite supportive network with each other, quite successful actually, until, as humans are wont to do, they took it way too far.
Maybe cancer is a 'social construct'.
Maybe spina bifida is a 'social construct'.
Maybe rape trauma is a 'social construct'. Hell, maybe even rape is.
Come to think of it the Disability theorists interpret efforts to alleviate disability or to compensate for it through therapy or technology the same way we would judge efforts to bleach the skin of people of color that live in the West to get rid of racism against them or efforts to perform conversion therapy on homosexuals as a means to overcome homophobia.
Dear James & Helen!
such a great and important conversation and topic.
Congrats on it.
It seems that the academics in the field of Disability Studies are really not at all in touch with large numbers of disables people. At least I hope that is where most of it stems from. I'd really rather not contemplate alternative origin stories for this divergence of aims.
All the best and keep up it!