New Discourses Bullets, Ep. 142
What in the world do the Woke mean by “lived experience“? As has been discussed here before, lived experience is a kind of magical combination of what someone actually lives and experiences and a Woke (or “Critical” or Marxist) interpretation of what causes that experience and what it means. That is, it is experience plus Woke interpretation. The thing is, while only the Woke Left calls this mixture of experience and activating misinterpretation by the term “lived experience,” the phenomenon is spreading outside of Leftist circles. It’s important we see how. In this episode of New Discourses Bullets, host James Lindsay revisits the topic of “lived experience” and explains how it manifests outside of Leftist enclaves and without the cutesy name. You don’t want to miss this one. It’s an important one.
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.
2 comments
People who use the term “lived experience” are claiming that their experience comprises the totality of all possible experiences that one can have in a given situation. It is a narcissistic claim to omniscience, as well as a solipsistic one because it is based upon the Post-Modern premise that reality is subjective and relative, which is the reason that they become angry and defensive when someone challenges their narration. Their method of cognition is infantile.
James makes good points here.
I follow to some extent “modern” psych theories and they have become full of this idea that all truth is subjective and “who are you to challenge my truth?”
There is a grain of correctness in this model, but it is of course misused by the various criminal elements around us to justify criminal behaviors.
Criminals have no real ideology (as the basic purpose of ideology is an attempt to make things better) but will play into ANY ideology that suits their destructive purposes.
Though individuals do have a right to live and think as they choose, when those choices begin to infringe on the rights of others, then others – or some system (the “justice” system) that has been erected to help enforce community standards – may intervene to limit the actions of the offender.
Criminals use every opportunity to hide behind our commitment to preserving individual rights. And we need to be careful about placing ANY group above or beyond of our realm of scrutiny. Criminals can and will invade any group and make that group look bad, even though it is seldom the case that all members of the group are criminals. I see this mistake being committed all the time. One must be willing to self-reflect and root out internal criminal tendencies; they are very common.
My only real beef with James is that he has his own intellectual boundaries that he has not yet been willing to venture beyond, and thus he doesn’t see the whole picture (or at least a bigger part of it). As a “conservative,” he thinks that all we need to do is return to traditions that “worked” for us in the past. And I would only point out that if those traditions worked so well, why did they become replaced by more criminal ones? Those traditions all have historic weaknesses which must be addressed and resolved. Woke is not the way; it is a criminal ideology. But revisions to our ways of thinking ARE required.