New Discourses Bullets, Ep. 78
Woke Marxists overwhelmingly take advantage of malicious language games. That means you cannot be linguistically lazy when trying to deal with their incursions. We have to start cultivating a habit of linguistic discipline to take apart Woke word magic. In this episode of New Discourses Bullets, host James Lindsay explains the need for linguistic discipline with several important examples. Join him to start training.
Additional episodes of New Discourses Bullets can be found here.
Subscribe to New Discourses Bullets on SoundCloud, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, Pandora, YouTube, Rumble, Odysee or by RSS.
8 comments
See: https://knowthyself.forumotion.net/t2377p360-pagan-religion#112499
I see many commentators engage in “sloppy” verbalizations, overly idiomatic or suggestive language, or juvenile patterns like mockery or flippant but dismissive brush offs. This indicates to me that they have not grasped something in the material they are dealing with, to the point where they are unable to take it seriously. You can only truly laugh at an idiocy if you really understand what it means.
This ties into what James is talking about. I would council that if someone is piling a bunch of language on you that you don’t understand or that doesn’t communicate, just laugh quietly and skip it.
I had a guy on a bus today walk up to me and start talking about “Koreans.” He was obviously in a poor mental state, and what he was saying was largely understandable. I had the choice of earnistly trying to understand him, or basically ignore him. He didn’t seem to be too upset about being ignored. This is probably his most common experience.
It’s sad, because the being approaching you obviousl desires some sort of personal interaction. But if the guy has a knife or gun in his hand, or is speaking in nonsense syllables, it is probably better to leave him alone to dramatize in the company of his own secret demons.
I don’t think we should have any delusions that we are dealing with quite sick people. They may appear “normal” and perfectly capable of having a serious discussion. But if they talk like this, chances are they really aren’t.
I missed a word above… what the man was saying was largely NOT understandable…
Dominant muslim communities (≥ 5% of total population) in otherwise secular societies employ similar tactics. The secular, after a while get to “know” what all kinds of religious terms and theories mean but only to the extent wanted by the muslim community.
“Pretend the word ‘gender’ is a bad word that you wouldn’t say in public.”
THANK YOU! Every human is one of two possible SEXES: male SEX or female SEX. To all humans who ever existed, the biological reality of human male SEX (penis bearing) or human female SEX (vagina bearing) is as natural to the species as the physical reality of breathing air and drinking water. Any human characteristic described as “gender” is psychiatric illness projection, plastic surgery mutilation rationalization, cult ritual indoctrination dogma and Leftist political warfare strategy.
In the early 2000s, a woman pretending to be a man, “human rights” lawyer Shannon Minter (still a bearded lady in 2024) bragged in “queer” online forums about her “work” to subvert legal and legislative documents by simply substituting the word “gender” wherever the word “sex” appeared. She bragged that no one noticed and those who did were silenced as “fascist”. This woman is still running amok in the US government, but I will never forget the malicious glee she took in describing how easy it was to use this simple language trick to systemically sabotage (to “Queer”) US laws and legislation to eradicate 200 years of human SEX definitions so that queered men could legally pretend to be “women” (and vice versa). And her trick worked.
James Lindsay is correct: The Woke Master’s tools will never dismantle the Woke Master’s house.
REFUSE THEIR LANGUAGE!
RESIST THEIR TYRANNY!
VIVA LA COUNTER-REVOLUCION!
FREE HUMANITY FROM WOKE!
WE HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE BUT THEIR CHAINS!
Quote from above: ” Any human characteristic described as “gender” is psychiatric illness projection, plastic surgery mutilation rationalization, cult ritual indoctrination dogma and Leftist political warfare strategy. ”
What I don’t understand is sentences like “When a baby is born, the doctor makes a guess what gender this baby is by saying it’s a baby boy or a baby girl”.
Uhm, do some people really think that? Even in their own interpretation of words like “biological sex” and “gender”.
What’s more likely, that the doctor uses the words “boy” and “girl” to refer to the biological sex of the baby, or that the doctor uses the words “boy” and “girl” to say something that according to some people can not be determined by looking at physical characteristics, and can change, and develop over time, and has way more than two options?
I think the absurdity of this reasoning might become apparent to even the most stubborn of folks by advocating that doctors should employ more than the two options “boy” or “girl” when saying something about the baby’s gender and/or biological sex (depending on what you think the doctor might be talking about).
Or advocating that doctors can’t really know the gender and they would just be guessing, so they should not say anything at all about the gender! The may however say something about the biological sex. Then doctors could all say that that’s what they will do from now on , by using the word “boy” to refer to “a male child” and by using the word “girl” to refer to “a female child”.
I think either of these would make some thing clear.
Quote from above: “I think either of these would make some thing clear.”
I wonder whether it would be possible and useful to try and come up with a few of these replies to counter the “script” certain people may have running in their brains (e.g. due to listening to college professors talk nonsense). It think this might be very useful because it might show holes in the “script”, and might cause “malfunction” of running the script in their brain.
That in turn might cause the person to break from the automatic, programmed, “script” mode and engage in more rational thought, and reasoning because they will have to somehow respond to the introduction of the new “script”. I reason this may not necessarily immediately result in a useful and/or rational conversation, but I think this might be a useful step in breaking the possible automatic, programmed, “script”.
I hope “NewDiscourses” will ponder (should they not have done this already) whether this 1) possibly makes sense, and 2) whether a few of these new replies or counter “scripts” concerning often mentioned “scripts” by some people could be thought of and collected and depicted on this website.
Just like there is a “SJ Encyclopedia” currently on this website, there could be a set of “replies” to certain often mentioned thoughts, reasoning, or “scripts” that people could use to counter stuff. That in turn could be a useful experiment to see what that might lead to.