Pinned toot

「 The request to listen, that's fine. the request to "shut up and listen" , that's a completely different ask. It is "shut up, listen, and do not criticize, we are automatically right." 亅

Pinned toot

什么是种族批判理论?

种族批判理论是一种对种族和种族主义的特定思维方式,它源起于上世纪70年代的哈佛法学院,初步建立于90年代早期。它宣称自己的目的是质疑民权运动和民权法案在改善种族状况上起到的作用(在西方国家,尤其是美国),它真正的目的是彻底重组社会,文化,法律的大环境,并以此逆转它认为历史上存在过的种族不公。

为了简要地说明这一点,我将向诸位援引《种族批判理论:来自于种族批判理论家Delgado 与 Stefancic的引言》中的两句原文。这些原文以种族批判理论自身的文字,概括了种族批判理论的实质。

首先,种族批判理论是这样理解种族和种族主义的:种族是政治建构,白人建构了种族,以便于维护自身特权,同时排斥他人,种族主义是社会的常态,存在于所有的交互中,存在于所有的机构中,存在于所有的现象中,而且将永远持续下去(除非展开彻底的社会文化革命,让种族批判理论家掌握大权)。也就是说,在种族批判理论的预设中,种族主义无处不在,种族批判理论把这种预设当作教条,这一教条也就是人们知道的”系统化种族主义”。Delgado 和 Stefancic在书中如是说道,

种族批判理论家相信什么呢?也许他们并不都相信这本书的所有宗旨,但大都同意以下的几点主张:首先,种族主义是常态,而不是什么反常现象—它是惯例,是社会的平常运转方式,是有色人种的日常经历。其次,多数人会赞同,我们的制度是白人优先的制度,这个制度在物质层面和精神层面均起有着重要的功用。种族主义的第一特性,即普遍性,使得种族主义难以改变,难以面对。……种族主义的第二特性,有时又叫做”利益聚合性” 或 “物质决定性,则提供了一个更广泛的视角。种族主义既有利于白人精英(物质上),也有利于工薪阶层白人(心理上),因此,社会中的大部分人并无意消除种族主义。

如你所见,种族批判理论家相信人们普遍从种族主义中获利,因此普遍希望维持”系统化种族主义”,这也是为什么种族批判理论家会宣称几乎所有人都是种族主义者。那些尤其擅长在任何事物中发现”系统化种族主义”的人,就被称为”种族批判理论家”,这些人采用的是种族批判理论的第一条预设,用Robin DiAngelo的话来说,就是:”问题不在于’种族主义有没有发生?’ 而在于’种族主义在此情况下是如何体现的?’ “也就是说,他们先是预定了种族主义无处不在,然后再”批判”地寻找种族主义,直到找到为止。还有很重要的一点:判定种族主义是否发生的,不是客观的标准,而是主观的”生活经历”,有没有证据无关紧要。

其次,和很多人以为的不一样,种族批判理论并没有继承民权运动的遗产。种族批判理论反对西方社会的两大基石:自由主义和宪政民主,并且同时否认了宪法的平等原则和中立原则(这些原则是废奴运动和民权运动的支柱)。它还否定了合法推论和启蒙理性主义。既然它有着这些特点,那么根据定义,种族批判理论便是反理性的,反自由的,反平等的,反美国的一种理论。

“种族批判理论运动包话了各种致力于研究和改变种族,种族主义与权力之间的联系的学者和社会活动人士,该运动与传统的民权研究和种族研究所关注的议题类似,但与后者不同的是,本运动试图将这些议题放在更广括的视角下进行研究,这包括了经济,历史,环境,群体利益,个人利益,情感和潜意识。与传统的,注重改良主义和逐步进步的民权话语不同,种族批判理论质疑自由主义秩序的根本,包括了平等理论,合法推论,启蒙理性主义,和宪法的中立原则。”

种族批判理论认为,自由社会的基石,也就是自由主义原则,没有消除,而是掩盖和维持了岐视。正如Özlem Sensoy 和 Robin DiAngelo在她们的种族批判理论手册《人们真的平等吗?》中写道的,

“种族批判理论运动原先提倡过某种形式的自由人文主义(个人主义,自由,和平),但迅速转向了自由人文主义的对立面。自由人文主义的背后的思想是个人自由(认为人们可以独立地做出理性决定,决定自身的命运),在种族批判理论看来,这一思想掩盖了系统化的种族主义,让弱势群体接受现状。换句话说,它让人们错误地以为自己拥有比社会结构允许他们拥有的更多的自由和选择。”

可以看到,种族批判理论对我们社会有着根本不同的看法,我们中的多数人并没有意识到这一点,也不认同这种看法。种族批判理论先是预设了种族主义无所不在,再刻意地去寻找它。他们说,不这样做的人,以及不同意种族批判理论的人,就是种族主义的共犯。他们还否定了自由社会所赖以运行的自由主义原则,理性原则,法律原则和科学原则。因此,即便他们对种族和种族主义的看法有些是对的,他们也是各种意义上的激进派,很难相信这些人会诚实地描述现实,而有足够的理由相信这些人在种族问题上起到的恰恰是反面作用。

What Is Critical Race Theory?

I’ve been asked a million times for a short introduction to Critical Race Theory that hits the high points in a quick, straightforward way. Most people will have heard of Critical Race Theory by now, but in case you haven’t, it’s a particular way of thinking about race and racism that developed first at Harvard Law School from the late 1970s through the early 1990s. Its stated objective is to question whether the Civil Rights Movement and Civil Rights Acts legislation improved the racial situation in Western nations, especially the United States. Its true objective is to re-organize the social, cultural, and legal playing field in a way that claims to reverse “historical injustices” around the issue of race, allegedly without reproducing them.

To keep this short and simple, I’ll provide you with two quotes from the book Critical Race Theory: An Introduction (third edition) by Critical Race Theorists Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic. These quotes summarize everything that Critical Race Theory is really about in its own words.

First, Critical Race Theory views race and racism this way: race is a political construction that was invented by white people to give themselves power while excluding all other races from it, and racism is the ordinary state of affairs in society, present in all interactions, institutions, and phenomena, and effectively permanent in society (short of a full sociocultural revolution that puts them in charge). That is, Critical Race Theory assumes that racism is present in everything under a doctrine known as “systemic racism.” Quoting from Delgado and Stefancic,

What do critical race theorists believe? Probably not every member would subscribe to every tenet set out in this book, but many would agree on the following propositions. First, that racism is ordinary, not aberrational—“normal science,” the usual way society does business, the common, everyday experience of most people of color in this country. Second, most would agree that our system of white-over-color ascendancy serves important purposes, both psychic and material. The first feature, ordinariness, means that racism is difficult to cure or address. … The second feature, sometimes called “interest convergence” or material determinism, adds a further dimension. Because racism advances the interests of both white elites (materially) and working-class people (psychically), large segments of society have little incentive to eradicate it.

As you can see, Critical Race Theorists believe that people who they claim benefit from “systemic racism,” which they declare to be the ordinary state of affairs in society, want to maintain it, which is why Critical Race Theorists say virtually everyone is racist. People who are especially skilled at finding the “systemic racism” in everything are called “Critical Race Theorists.” They proceed according to a simplified version of this first assumption of Critical Race Theory, which can be expressed in the words of Robin DiAngelo this way: “The question is not ‘Did racism take place?’ but ‘How did racism manifest in that situation?’” That is, they assume racism is present in everything and look for it “Critically” until they find it. Importantly, this is assessed subjectively according to the “lived experience” of racism and does not depend upon there being any evidence of racism.

Second, Critical Race Theory does not continue the legacy of the Civil Rights Movement, as many incorrectly believe. It is against liberalism and the liberal order upon which Western societies are founded, and it rejects both equality and neutral principles of constitutional law (these were the backbone of both the abolitionist movement that ended slavery and the Civil Rights Movement). It also rejects legal reasoning and Enlightenment rationalism. This makes Critical Race Theory unreasonable, illiberal, against equality, and anti-American, by definition.

The critical race theory (CRT) movement is a collection of activists and scholars engaged in studying and transforming the relationship among race, racism, and power. The movement considers many of the same issues that conventional civil rights and ethnic studies discourses take up but places them in a broader perspective that includes economics, history, setting, group and self-interest, and emotions and the unconscious. Unlike traditional civil rights discourse, which stresses incrementalism and step-by-step progress, critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law.

Critical Race Theory believes these bedrock liberal principles upon which free societies are built are ways that discrimination can be hidden and maintained rather than overcome. As stated by Özlem Sensoy and Robin DiAngelo in their Critical Theory education manual Is Everyone Really Equal?,

[Critical] movements initially advocated for a type of liberal humanism (individualism, freedom, and peace) but quickly turned to a rejection of liberal humanism. The ideal of individual autonomy that underlies liberal humanism (the idea that people are free to make independent rational decisions that determine their own fate) was viewed as a mechanism for keeping the marginalized in their place by obscuring larger structural systems of inequality. In other words, it fooled people into believing that they had more freedom and choice than societal structures actually allow.

As you can see, Critical Race Theory presents a radically different view of our society and of us than most of us recognize or accept. They begin with the assumption of racism and look to find it. They say everyone who doesn’t do this is complicit in the problem, including just for disagreeing with Critical Race Theory. And they reject the fundamental liberal, reasonable, legal, and scientific principles upon which liberal societies operate. That is, even though they touch on real truths about race and racism in our world, they are radicals in every sense of the word, and there’s almost no reason to believe they describe reality as it is and much reason to believe they get the issue almost exactly backwards.

newdiscourses.com/2021/01/what

“残疾研究”(Disability Studies)

残疾运动起于20世纪60年代,与民权运动、第二波女权主义、光荣同性恋运动基本处于同一时期,目标也基本相似,即建设一个对残疾人更友好,更方便的社会,以此提高残疾人的生活质量。具体的做法就是使残疾人拥有和常人一样的机会。大体而言,这一做法取得了不少成就。

但是到了上世纪80年代,该运动吸收了来自实用后现代主义,交叉女权主义,酷儿理论,种族批判理论的思想,于是改变了原有的合理目标。“残疾研究”开始把“身体健全”视为一种社会构建,越来越怀疑乃至于否认现实。

经历了80年代的这场变化后,“残疾运动” 和“残疾研究” 改变了原有的观点,不再把残疾视为个体的一种状态,而是把残疾视为一种社会迫使人们接受的一种事物。在这场变化发生以前,残疾人被视作身患残疾的人,在这场变化发生之后,残疾被视为由一个冷酷无情的社会强加而生的产物。 打一个比方,在以往,如果一个人听不见声音,他就会被视为聋人,某种程度上也被视为残疾人,因为他听不见。这场变化后,如果一个人听不见声音,他就会被视为一个“被残疾”的聋人,所谓“被残疾”,就是说社会没有学会适应聋人的需要,使得聋人和非聋人享有同等的便利。换句话说,如果某人是残疾人,那一定是因为在社会的预期中身体建全是一种有益的一般状态。残疾人所遭到的各种不便是社会强加的。

这种社会建构论的转向有两个阶段,第一阶段发生在80年代,在这一阶段,“社会残疾模型”取代了传统的“医疗残疾模型”(又称“个体模型”),这一阶段的发展是由英国社会学家 Michel Oliver主导的,Michel Oliver试图改变人们以往的观点,将解决残疾的责任从个体转移到社会身上,要求社会适应残疾人,而不是让残疾人适应社会。他写道,

Th[e] social model of disability acknowledges impairment as being a cause of individual limitation, but disability is imposed on top of this. This may be summed up this way: Disability is the disadvantage or restriction of activity caused by the political, economic and cultural norms of a society which takes little or no account of people who have impairments and thus excludes them from mainstream activity. (Therefore disability, like racism or sexism, is discrimination and social oppression)…. This social model of disability, like all paradigms, fundamentally affects society’s world-view and within that, the way particular problems are seen

在第一阶段,Michel Oliver的研究方式并未明显地受到后现代理论的影响,他的社会建构论倾向也不严重。但这一切很快就改变了,他于1983年出版的<<Social Work with Disabled People>>对身份研究进行了大量引用,语言风格也受到了“交叉论”(Intersectionality)的明显影响,他写道,

[E]xperiences will undoubtedly be culturally located and reflect differences of class, race, gender and so forth, and so discourse may well be culturally biased. When using the social model, understanding also comes from recognising that historically experiences of disability have been culturally located in responses to impairment. The social model can be used by those in different cultures and within ethnic, queer or gender studies to illustrate disability in those situations. Equally these disciplines all need to take account of disableism with their communities.

如今的“残疾研究” 则强烈地受到了两条后现代原则的影响:1.知识是社会建构。2.社会充斥着权力和特权体系。“残疾研究”常常引用种族批判理论,并高度依赖米歇尔·福柯和朱迪斯·布特勒的思想。

“健全主义”

对于“残疾研究”而言,“健全主义”指的是认为身体健康是一种常态,并且通常要好于身体残疾的这种观点。相反,“残疾主义”则意味着对残疾人的偏见,例如把残疾当作一种异常状态,认为健全好于残疾。号称自闭、残疾、无性、酷儿的活动家Lydia X. Y. Brown这样定义“残疾主义”:

[A]bleism might describe the value system of ablenormativity which privileges the supposedly neurotypical and ablebodied, while disableism might describe the violent oppression targeting people whose bodyminds are deemed deviant and thus disabled. In other words, ableism is to heterosexism what disableism is to queerantagonism.

酷儿理论关注于“解构常态”,因此就非常适于“残疾研究”,于是Robert McRuer 在他2006年的<<Crip Theory: Cultural Signs of Queerness and Disability,6 which examines how queer Theory and disability studies inform each other>>里就将酷儿理论应用到了“残疾研究”上,他写道,

Like compulsory heterosexuality, then, compulsory able-bodiedness functions by covering over, with the appearance of choice, a system in which there is actually no choice…. Just as the origins of heterosexual/homosexual identity are now obscured for most people so that compulsory heterosexuality functions as a disciplinary formation seemingly emanating from everywhere and nowhere, so too are the origins of able-bodied/disabled obscured … to cohere in a system of compulsory able-bodiedness that similarly emanates from everywhere and nowhere.

我们在这里可以很明显地看到福柯的影响,即认为权力渗透了社会的各个方面,对人们进行控制和约束,迫使他们满足社会的期待,所以就必须模糊乃至消除类别之间的界限。福柯和吸收了福柯思想的酷儿理论家宣称,性别和疯病都只是医学话语的建构,在他们看来,医学话语试图把人分为“正常的”和“不正常的”,并且将“不正常人”排除在社会的主流话语之外。自从“残疾研究”接受了酷儿理论,这一看法就占据了主导。

“残疾研究”就是在这时候进入了第二发展阶段:实用后现代主义阶段,在于2014年出版的<<Disability Studies: Theorising Disableism and Ableism>>里,作者Dan Goodley直接借用了福柯的观念,他写道,“人们通常透过医疗凝视来理解残疾,医疗利用自身话语,以一种还原论的的方式对人进行医治“。他采用了福柯的“生物权力”概念,认为创造了各种类别的科学话语在社会上广受尊敬,长期被当作真理。但在他看来,科学话语只是一种压迫话语,科学的严谨程度并不比其它的认知方式更高—在他将科学与殖民主义做类比时,这一点尤其明显,

We know that colonial knowledges are constructed as neutral and universal through the mobilisation of associated discourses such as humanitarian, philanthropic and poverty alleviation measures. We might also ask: how are ableist knowledges naturalised, neutralised and universalised?

更危险的是,Goodley认为,任何试图诊断、医治、痊愈残疾人的做法,必然都动机不良,在他看来,这些做法基于腐败的“健全主义”期待,受着“新自由主义系统”(neoliberal system)的支持,“新自由主义系统”希望所有人身体健全,这样就可以充当资本主义市场的劳动力。不仅如此,他甚至还宣称“自主、独立、理性都是“新自由-健全主义”所期待的品德。

后现代主义的政治原则,即认为权力系统构建了社会的这种看法,充斥于Goodley的书中。他采用交叉论的词汇,将社会描述成“各种权力话语的重叠与合并”,他写道,

I argue that modes of ableist cultural reproduction and disabling material conditions can never be divorced from hetero/sexism, racism, homophobia, colonialism, imperialism, patriarchy and capitalism.

Goodley认为Oliver的社会模型缺少“交叉性”,应该再加入种族和性别的分析,Goodley还主张从酷儿理论的角度,将残疾人作为一种破坏社会规范,颠覆社会价值的身份进行庆祝。

这种认为残疾人有责任利用自身的残疾颠覆社会习俗,乃至拒绝任何治疗,以便于服务后现代主义对类别的破坏的看法,是“残疾研究”的另一危险特点,这一观点并不限于Goodley,在广受引用的<<Contours of Ableism: The Production of Disability and Abledness>>里,作者Fiona Campbell认为,把残疾视为一种需要医治的问题的这种看法本身,就是一个问题:

[A] chief feature of an ableist viewpoint is a belief that impairment or disability (irrespective of “type”) is inherently negative and should opportunity present itself, be ameliorated, cured or indeed eliminated.

Campbell还吸收了种族批判理论,认为“健全主义”和种族主义一样,无所不在,是西方社会的常态,以至于很多人都意识不到它。她还对一些残疾人进行攻击,认为他们“内化”了健全主义。Lydia X. Y. Brown和Joseph Shapiro更是认为残疾是一种荣誉,一种值得骄傲的身份。

无可否认,人们不应该因为性别,种族,宗教,残疾而羞愧,但很多残疾人也许并不认为身患残疾是一件值得庆祝的事情,对于那些想摆脱残疾的人来说,这一态度毫无益处。虽然“残疾研究”千方百计地污名化人们摆脱残疾的想法,但希望摆脱残疾并不是一件值得羞愧的事情。

另一个问题在于,残疾活动家们一方面把残疾人当作一种光荣身份,一方面却又反对医界人士称这些人为残疾人。他们信奉后现代主义的知识原则,认为医生并不比其他人高明,因此没有资格对残疾做出诊断。这种看法还鼓励人们为了从属于一个群体身份而自行诊断。Lydia X. Y. Brown 与 Jennifer Scuro 的一场对话就是很好的例证

LB: People do say to me, “I think I’m Autistic but I don’t really want to say that because I’ve never been diagnosed,” that is, given a diagnosis by someone with letters after their name. My response is: “Well, it’s not up to me to tell you how you should or should not identify,” but I don’t believe in giving power to the medical-industrial complex and its monopoly over getting to define and determine who counts and who does not count as Autistic …

JS: Yes, once I started to get into the territory of diagnosis, once I started playing around with the problem of diagnostic thinking when it is only left to trained diagnosticians, this allowed me to challenge how all of us must contend with thinking diagnostically.

这段对话似乎在鼓励人们自我认同为残疾人,这样他们就能获得一个(后现代主义式的)群体身份,和后现代主义一起破坏医学知识(后现代主义知识原则),或者破坏主流社会对于残疾的看法(后现代主义政治原则)。很难看出这种做法能对残疾人有什么帮助。

来源:<<Cynical Theories>>第七章“DISABILITY AND FAT STUDIES”,在转述的过程中有所简化。

我这样总结了“残疾运动”的变化:

1.残疾是个体遭遇的不幸,社会应该帮助残疾人➡2.残疾是个体遭遇的不幸,社会必须帮助残疾人➡3.残疾是社会的错,社会对残疾人负有原罪➡4.社会对残疾进行着系统性压迫➡5.根本不存在残疾,社会构建了残疾➡6.残疾是一种光荣的身份,残疾优于健全

我的看法

在我看来,一场运动,不论它一开始的目的有多么高尚,多么合理,如果它的参与者总把自己当作救世主和道德的化身,用一套不可证伪的抽象理论解释一切现象,对客观事实缺乏基本的尊重,而且拒绝接受批评,那么任何运动都难免会走上“残疾运动”的道路。

很少人原则上会反对社会帮助残疾人,正如很少人会支持种族歧视和性别歧视一样,但是这并不意味着那些以帮助残疾人,反对歧视为名义的运动和理论就代表了不容批判的道德权威。因此,首先要明确一点,即口号本身不能成为批评的挡箭牌,支持工人阶级,不代表就不能攻击共产主义;反对歧视,不代表就不能反对批判理论;反对辱华,不代表就不能质疑习近平思想。

其次,要重新思考什么叫做“代表”,各种左翼批判理论和“觉悟”意识形态总是宣称自己“代表”了弱势群体,就像共产主义宣称其“代表”了无产阶级和受压迫人民。可是他们的“代表”身份究竟是谁规定的?谁授予的?人们选举了他们作代表吗?还是说他们“被代表”了?布尔什维克是一小撮职业革命人士,周恩来刘少奇邓小平毛泽东是一帮左翼知识分子,从事残疾研究、肥胖研究、性别研究的是一帮政治化的学生和教授,而且事实上我们看到这些革命先锋队、左翼学生、批判理论教授是在把自己信奉的意识形态强加于人民之上,一旦那些“被代表”的人反对这些人的强加意识形态,这群自命不凡的精英就以"错误觉悟“(false consciousness)”身份叛徒“(identity traitor) 的名义对反对者进行污名化、封杀。左翼精英总是以救世主自居,可是人们并不需要这种自以为是的精英来拯救。真正的代表是选出来的,而不是自封的,代表的合法性应该源于选民的认可,应该试去理解普通老百姓在想什么,而不是假定他们拥有应该拥有的想法。

第三,要警惕“永远正确”的抽象理论。人性中的固然缺陷使得人们倾向于逃避复杂的现实,寻求一种能够解释一切的终极答案,然而这种答案根本不存在,能解释一切的只有谎言。从事身份研究的许多“学者”制造的抽象理论,无非是经过了“思想洗钱”的高级谎言而已,这些人用一大堆枯奥晦涩,装模作样的专业词汇,得出了毫无根据,脱离现实的可笑结论,对真正的问题没有任何帮助,并且让民众对学界彻底失去信任。要正确地认识现实世界,就必须面对现实的复杂性,用科学的方法真正地去研究具体的问题,而不能先预设一个不可证伪的结论,再用这个结论倒推原因。

正当性危机(Legitimation Crisis)

1.何为正当性危机?

所谓正当性危机就是指民众对公共机构,比方说政府,政党,学术机构等丧失了信任。

2.民众对公共机构,比如说学术机构的不信任会产生什么后果?

学术机构是一个社会的知识引擎,如果人们不信任学术机构,就不会相信学术界的研究结果。举一个最简单的例子,地球气候变化可谓是人类正面临的最严峻挑战之一,但不少美国人本完全不相信关于气候变化的学术研究,因为在他们眼中,这些是“是自由派和左派骗人的把戏”。

但他们的这种看法并非毫无道理:2020年的夏天,美国的将近1000名公共卫生专家共同签了一封联名信,信中认为,BLM的街头抗议对美国人(尤其是黑人)的健康”至关重要“(edition.cnn.com/2020/06/05/hea 哈佛的公共卫生学院则宣布,种族主义是美国的一项“公共卫生危机“(hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in- 美国疾病管制与预防中心也做了同样的事。(businessinsider.com/cdc-direct
politico.com/news/magazine/202

许多人如今不相信来自学术机构的任何研究成果,但这并不因为他们智商不够,而是因为学术机构制造了自己的一套语言体系,又用自己的一套语言体系构建了一个虚假的事实。许多人真正不相信的其实是学术人士的政治偏向,因为强烈的政治偏向会使得学术人士一厢情愿地思考,用自己的意识形态理解世界。福柯式的活动人士认为,只要你获得了权力,你就获得了正当性。“觉悟者”认为,只要你占据了优势,你就能决定何为真伪。但事实并非如此,正当性来源于对客观事物的正确认识。

3.思想洗钱

这种用自己的一套语言体系构建虚假的事实的做法,可以用一种形象的比喻来形容,那就是“思想洗钱”(Idea Laundering)。我们知道洗钱(Money Laundering)就是把钱从非法的转化成合法的,而“思想洗钱”就是把某些人的幻想或道德冲动转化成权威的知识。打一个比方,两个学者产生了某种道德念头(但不一定非是道德念头),于是这两人就创立一个期刊(Journal),找一个评审员,然后就像理工科的那些期刊一样,走一遍学术流程,于是这两个学者的念头就成了知识。然后其他人(通常相互认识)也在此期刊以及类似的期刊上发表文章,并且互相引用,于是这些人的想法就成了一套“知识体系”。如果外人质疑他们的观点,他们就把这些期刊摆出来,说:“看,xxx上就是这样说的“,给人一种权威知识的假象,然而事实上只不过是同一群人在强化他们制造的幻象而已。

很典型的一个例子就是“肥胖研究”(Fat Studies),很多人从来都没听说过“肥胖研究”,在听到“肥胖研究”时,他们都会以为这是在开玩笑。然而这根本不是玩笑,有一个期刊的名字就叫做<<肥胖研究>>。而且,和人们想的不一样,<<肥胖研究>>研究的不是饮食和锻炼与体重的关系,这家刊物真正想做的是使肥胖成为一种常态。在<<肥胖研究>>看来,肥胖只是一种叙事,(这又是一个来源于后现代主义的概念)<<肥胖研究>>宣称,体重超标对于健康没有任何风险,并且引用经过了“思想洗钱”的Charlotte Cooper的观点,认为“任何体重都很健康”(health at any size)。有的人甚至攻击癌症研究组织,因为该癌症研究组织指出肥胖是致癌的第二大原因,攻击者称肥胖没有任何危险,真正危险的是用肥胖羞辱他人。但是问题在于,肥胖真的是会给人带来危险的,一旦当人们真的因为肥胖而死亡,就可不是这些抽象理论能解释了的。肥胖研究还只是冰山一角,在欧美国家的不少大学,这类“研究“甚至成为了大学生的学习课程。(除了肥胖研究,还有性别研究,种族研究,文化研究等等,统称为“怨恨研究” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievanc


4.学术人士为什么会想着虚构现实?

原因有三点:第一点,学术界的很多人把教授当作了一种政治行为。第二点,学术界的很多人接受了后现代思想的灌输,认为事物的真伪仅仅取决于谁认为它真,谁认为它伪,而不是事物本身是真是伪。第三点,也是很关键的一点,那就是这些学术人士的道德冲动压倒了他们的理性思维,并且成为了“学者活动家”(Scholarship Activist)

5.解决办法何在?

也许西方国家需要彻底地重新思考学术机构存在的意义,并且建立新的,以追求真理为核心的学术机构。人文社科已经彻底沦陷,数学和自然科学还有希望,虽然如今就连在数学和自然科学也受到了去殖民计划(Decolonization Project)的影响。在学术机构已经病入膏肓的情况下,也许只有将其彻底重建。这未必是唯一的解决方案,但是值得人们的考虑。

来源:
youtube.com/watch?v=8Qa_4gDs3K audioboom.com/posts/7749266
本文只是概括了大意,并且有不少的信息损失,点击链接可获得完整内容。

能够作为一个人类在俗世中走完一生是何能幸运的事情。

《V2EX | 我家电视机正在监视所有连网设备》

🔗 v2ex.com/t/772523

@v64500 之前觉得电视有点慢,看了一下都有什么后台服务开着。发现有个东西叫”勾正数据服务”,完全不知道是干什么的。

电视是安卓系统,抓包研究了一下,发现这东西每隔 10 分钟扫一遍我全家连网的设备,把 hostname 、mac 、ip 甚至网络延迟时间全传回去了,还探测周围的 wifi SSID 名称、mac 地址也打包传到这个 gz-data .com 的域名。

也就是说,家里有什么智能设备、手机在不在家、谁来家里连网了、周围邻居 wifi 叫什么名,随时采集上传,确定这不是间谍服务???

代码分析如下:

这个勾正数据服务 app 对应 TVAC.apk ,解开看功能基本都在这个动态加载的 jar 里面:

里面代码挺多,有个逻辑是 arp 扫描局域网、上报所有联网设备信息:

@nanjoyoshino “目前勾正已与创维、酷开、TCL 、长虹、康佳、风行、微鲸 /电视猫、三洋、东芝、飞利浦等厂商达成长期战略合作关系,通过在系统层植入 SDK,获得一手的智能电视数据采集。
截至 2018 年底,勾正数据已覆盖智能电视终端达 1.03 亿,占全网设备量 55%,数据覆盖规模和挖掘深度居于行业领先地位。”
害怕

@ExplorerLog 你的电视开没开机,开机看了什么频道,用了什么应用,人家全知道,还给你做了张表

#隐私

Lmao so #Windows Defender on my work laptop just warned me I had a trojan called "Peekeul.B."

Nothing I can find about it online except from #Microsoft itself: microsoft.com/en-us/wdsi/threa

Windows removed it automatically so I looked at the details of what exactly it removed.

Turns out the malware in question is Endpoint Analytics.

That's Microsoft's own software allowing employers to monitor employee computers: docs.microsoft.com/en-us/mem/a

And according to Microsoft's own antivirus, it's #malware.

网上的图片,出处:

nitter.snopyta.org/waitbutwhy/

美国左派在近几十年来间的主要变化,就是从图一中的"进步自由主义者"变成了图三和图四中的"后现代进步主义者"和"批判式社会正义活动人士"

索尔仁尼琴,《古拉格群岛》的作者,曾于1978年在哈佛大学发表过一篇演讲,不少人可能对这篇演讲有些模糊的印象,知道该演讲对西方国家有不少批评,但是未必了解它的完整内容。我之前也是这样,不过在好几次看到人们提及这篇演之讲后,我对演讲的内容产生了好奇,于是我在前一段时间听完了整段内容。听完后我的感受是,虽然我不认同他的所有看法,但是他对西方(或者说,对于现代社会)的许多批评是很有价值的。


下面是我做的一些整理:


索尔仁尼琴在演讲的初始部分先是回顾了西方文明的历史,他认为,在过去的几百年中,西方凭借自己的发展优势,在世界进行了成功的扩张,对于其它的文明不屑一顾。这一切很顺利,然而到了二十世纪,人们突然发现西方是如此的脆弱。接下来,作为一名外部的观察者,索尔仁尼琴描述了他在西方看到的问题:


1.勇气的衰退


在这一部分,索尔仁尼琴认为,西方国家的精英阶层和知识分子丧失了勇气。他说道:


“对一个外部的观察者而言,勇气的衰退或许是西方世界最显著的特征。不管是作为社会整体还是公民个人,在每一个国家、每一个政府、每一个政党(更不要说联合国了)中,西方世界都已丧失其公民勇气。这种衰落在统治集团和知识精英中表现得尤为明显。当然,尚有很多勇敢之士,但他们在公众生活中缺乏决定性的影响力。政府官僚与学术官僚在言行中透露出消沉、被动和迷失,在他们高深的理论中则更是如此:他们不断争辩将国家政策建立在软弱和怯懦之上是多么现实、合理,在理智甚至道德上有多么充足的依据。当这群官僚面对孤立无援的弱小政府、国家或是弱水潺潺似的潮流时,他们每每爆发出愤怒与顽固;但当他们面对强力的政府和威胁性力量,与侵略者和国际恐怖份子打交道时,他们却总是张口结舌、瘫倒在地。这种对比仿佛就是在重重嘲讽勇气的衰退。这难道还需要人来提醒吗?自古而今,勇气的衰退总被认为是没落之始。”


2.福利


在这一部分,索尔仁尼琴认为,西方国家的人民享受着许多自由,拥有着许多物质财富,然而道德水平却在下降,因为他们把精力都放在了物质上的安逸和享乐上。他说道:


“当现代西方国家被创建的时候,以下的准则早已被宣告:政府的意义在于为人类服务,而人类为了自由追求幸福而活(比如,可以参照美国《独立宣言》)。而今,几十年技术和社会的发展终于使福利国家这一梦想成为了可能。每一个公民都被赋予了渴望已久的自由和物质享受,从而在理论上保证了幸福的获得,但与此同时,这几十年来道德水平一直在走下坡路。在这一过程中,还有一个心理学的细节被忽略了:那就是人们仍旧保留了对更多东西和更好的生活的持续渴望,对这些事物的追求让许多西方人苦恼甚至是绝望,尽管人们常常掩饰这样的心理。活跃且紧张的竞争渗透着所有人类的心灵,却没有打开一扇通往自由心灵发展的门。各类来自国家的压力之外的个人独立得到了保障;大多数人被赋予的福祉已到了他们父辈和祖父辈无法想象的程度;按照这些理想培养年轻人已成为可能——给他们创造强壮的体魄,快乐,物质财富,金钱和休闲,甚至是没有尽头的自由和享受。那么现在,在一个国家的安全需要在海外才能确保的复杂情况下,又有谁会放弃这些自由和福利,冒着失去宝贵生命的危险,而去捍卫共有的价值呢?


3.法律主导的生活


在这里,索尔仁尼琴认为,法治十分重要,但一个社会若是只靠法律支撑,也是不可取的。他说道,


“西方社会给它自己创造了最适合它目的的机构,要我说,西方社会就是建立在法律条文上的。人权与正义的界限被一套法律制度所决定,尽管这些界限太过宽泛。尽管对于一个普通人而言,如果没有一个专业人士的帮助的话,法律太过复杂而不能被理解,但是西方人们已掌握了相当成熟的对法律使用、解释、掌控的技术。任何争执都可以通过法律来解决,并且这被认为是最至高无上的方法。如果一个人从法律角度来看是正确的,则无需更多的解释,没有人会提出这个人仍然并非完全正确的可能性,且要求自制;那种放弃法律权利的意愿,牺牲和无私的冒险:这听起来只会是荒谬的。人们几乎从来都忽略主动的自制。每一个人都在法律框架的极度边界上生活。石油公司购买一种新能源的发明以防止它的使用,在法律上是无可指责的;食品生产商毒化他的产品以延长保质期同样也是无可指责的:毕竟,人们有不购买的权利。


我在社会主义的统治下度过了一生,因此我可以告诉你,一个没有客观法律制度的社会的的确确是可怕的,但一个除了法律制度之外没有任何别的制度的社会也同样不值得人类生活。一个社会如果只建立在法律文字之上,而不再有更高的梦想,那是对人类崇高可能性的忽视。法律文字太冷漠而且太正式,因此无法为社会带来有利的影响。一旦生命的薄纱由法律关系织成的,世界就会被平庸道德的气氛所笼罩,从而麻痹人类最崇高的激情。


如果仅剩法制的支撑,在这个充满危险的世纪,我们将完全不可能经受住重重考验。”


4.自由的方向


在这一部分,索尔仁尼琴认为,在西方,自由已经出现了失衡,人们过度地强调权利,而忽视了责任,自由成为了一种放纵的借口。他说道:


“在当今西方社会,行恶的自由有许多,行善的自由却很少。想要有所作为、为国家办实事的政治家不得不谨慎行事,甚至蹑手蹑脚。他的周围有数以千计的感情用事、不付责任的评论家,并长期遭受议会和新闻的冷遇。若要取得进展,他只有证明自己的每一个举动都经过深思熟虑并天衣无缝。实事上一个杰出的独具天赋的个人鲜有机会为心中与众不同、别出心裁的创见争得主动。至一开始就有很多陷阱等候着他。结果,平庸之辈靠着被民主强加的束缚而获得胜利。


行政力的削弱随处都成为可能,且毫不费力。事实上,所有西方国家的行政力已经被急剧地削弱了。对个体权利的保护已经走向极端,导致社会整体在某些个人面前不堪一击。在当今的西方,人们是时候更多地捍卫个人责任,而非个人权利了。


人们拥有了破坏性的且不负责任的自由,而丝毫不受限制。在人性堕落的深渊前,社会毫无防备。比如,自由受到了滥用,成为了一种对年轻人施加道德暴力的工具,电影里充斥着色情、犯罪和恐怖。然而这种放任却被当作自由的一部分,因为理论上,人们也有不去看的自由,两者能够达成平衡。事实证明,若完成按照法律条文组织社会,社会在面对恶的侵蚀时将束手无力。


法条(尤其在美国)已经宽松到了不但鼓励个体自由,还鼓励一些个体犯罪的地步。对于犯罪这一阴暗的领域,我们还有什么可说的?罪犯在众多公众保护者的支持下能过逃脱惩罚,获得不应有的宽恕。当一个政府开始对恐怖主义发起战斗,公众舆论立刻指责其侵犯了恐怖主义者的公民权。此种事例还有很多。


自由向恶的倾斜已逐渐发生,但很明显,这一趋势恰恰主要起源于一种人道主义的仁慈的观念—人性本善。世界属于人类,生活中所有的问题都是由错误的社会制度导致的,社会制度必须被纠正。说来也奇怪,虽然西方已经实现了最佳的社会条件,犯罪活动却并没有消失,甚至数量更甚于贫穷而无法治的苏联。(我们国家的囚营中有数量巨大的被押者。他们被称作罪犯,但他们中大多数从未犯下过任何罪行;他们只是试图当这个毫无法纪的国家采用法律体系之外的途径对付自己时作出抵抗)。”


5.媒体的方向


对于西方的媒体,索尔仁尼琴认为,它们的自由很多,影响力很大,却极为肤浅和不负责任。它们没有把自己的影响力用作正途,而是背叛了社会。他说道:


“媒体也享有最广泛的自由(我将用媒体这个词来指代所有的媒体)。但媒体把这种自由作何使用呢?


同样,这里主要的考虑是不违背法律条文。媒体对事实的扭曲和偏袒不负有道德责任。一个媒体工作者对读者或历史负有何种责任?如果他们通过不实的信息或错误的结论误导了公众观点或政府,这些媒体工作者和报社会不会公开地承认和改正犯下的错误?不会,这不可能发生,因为这会削减销量。一个民族可能成为这样的错误的受害者,但是犯下这些错误的媒体工作者却总能免于追责 。人们几乎可以确保,这些媒体人士很快又会写出相反的东西来,却同样地理直气壮。


因为必须给出即时和可靠的资讯,有时就需要用臆测、谣言和假设来填满空白,这些虚假信息从来得不到矫正,而是存在于读者的记忆中。每天不知道有多少仓促、不成熟、肤浅和带误导性的判断就此得以传播,不经确认而蒙惑读者。媒体既能刺激公众意见,也能误导它。于是我们就看到恐怖主义者被当成英雄赞扬,或者属于国防的秘密被公开披露,或者我们会看到媒体打着”人人都有权了解一切”的口号无耻侵犯名人的隐私。然而这是一个错误的口号,体现了一个错误的时代:人们同样有不知情权,而且它更为珍贵。这种权利使人们美好的灵魂免受流言蜚语和高谈阔论的骚扰。有意义的人生不需要过度信息的羁绊。


冒失和肤浅是二十世纪的心疾,这一点在媒体界比在其他任何领域都反映得更严重。媒体界对问题的深入分析避之不及,却止于煽情的套话。


然而,如其所示,媒体已经成为西方国家内最大的一股力量,超越行政,司法,立法之上。人们不禁要问:谁选举了这些媒体?它们又对谁负责?在共产主义的东方,媒体工作者无非是国家职员罢了。但是在西方国家,谁又赋予了西方媒体工作者这些权力?这种权力将维持多久?又是怎样的一种特权?


对来自于媒体被严格统制的东方的人而言,他还会感到另一种惊讶:他们逐渐发现西方媒体界整体有一种趋同的倾向,这是一种潮流。它们的看法大都是有规律可循的,已被接受的定式。它们商业利益也许是一致的,总的来看,它们没有在相互竞争,而是在相互联合。媒体有极大的自由,但受众没有。因为报纸总是着重强调那些和他们自己的观点相符,与主流不公然抵触的观点。”


6.思想上的时髦


对于思想领域,索尔仁尼琴认为,对于主流思想的趋之若鹜阻碍了独立思考的精神,使国民盲目,偏颇,自大。他说道:


虽然没有审查制度,但在西方国家中,主流思想却被小心地和非主流思想分离开了。没有什么被禁,但是不合主流的思想鲜有机会得以在期刊上发表、出版成书或在大学内流通。法律上你的研究是自由的,但也受到时潮的制约。西方没有东方式公然暴力,但思潮的筛选和趋众的需求时常阻碍独立思考的人们把他们的贡献融入公众生活。有一种集群的危险趋势,消减了成功的发展。我已收到一些十分聪明的美国人的来信,也许来自某个偏远小学院的教师。假若不是因为媒体对他们不感兴趣而导致他们的声音无法在国内传播,他们可能为国家的复兴和拯救做出更多。这引发了强烈的大众偏见、盲目,在我们这个飞速发展的时代非常危险。比如说有一些对当代世界时局自我欺骗式的阐释。它仿佛僵化的外壳笼罩着人们的思维。东欧和东亚十七个国家的声音都无法洞穿它。只有时局发生重大震荡才能击破它。”


7.社会主义


索尔仁尼琴认为,社会主义在西方阴魂不散,民众眼高手低,因为当前的社会没有达到理想水平就去鄙视它,去追求危险的社会主义。他说道:


“尽管在过去几年西方世界受困于严重的通货膨胀,但其经济发展道路依然是全球公认的典范。然而,西方民众对于他们的社会(状况)并不满意。他们非难甚至鄙视这个未能达到人类自身成熟水平的社会。于是,许多执此观点的批评家转而投向了社会主义,而这样的趋势是相当错误和危险的。


但愿在座的各位不要怀疑我对西方体制提出个人批评的动机,这断不是为了让社会主义取而代之。这种取代曾在我的国家变为现实,亲身经历之后,我绝不会为社会主义说话。著名数学家、俄科学院院士伊戈尔?沙法列维奇先生曾著有《社会主义》一书。该书深刻的分析指出:任何性质、任何程度的社会主义都将导致人性的彻底毁灭甚至人类的灭亡。这本好书两年前在法国出版,迄今为止没有任何人对其观点提出异议。此书不久也将在英美面世。”


8.鼠目寸光


这里,索尔仁尼琴认为,西方国家的决策层聚焦于实际的利益,而舍了弃道德的原则,只顾短期的好处,而忽视长远的忧患。比方说,在二战中,西方国家本可以凭借自己的力量打败纳粹德国,却非要和苏联合作,结果给自己培植了一个更强大,更危险的敌人。再比如,冷战时期,美国又指望打拢中国制约苏联,这么做虽然在短期对美国有利,但是长远来看,中国会成为美国的一个新的劲敌,甚至会让美国成为大屠杀的牺牲品。索尔仁尼琴这样说道:


“许多从你们这个社会涌现出的知名人物,例如乔治-凯南(译者按:George Kennan 美国政治学家,在1946年任驻苏联代办时向美国政府提出”遏制”政策),说:我们不能把道德准则运用到政治上。于是我们混淆了正与邪,对与错,同时为这个世界上彻头彻尾的邪恶势力之最终胜利开道。而与之相反的是,只有坚守道德准则才能帮助西方世界对抗共产主义缜密的世界战略,舍此无它。任何现实的或偶然的想法都会不可避免地被战略所取代。而当这个问题上升到一定程度之后,循规蹈矩的想法催生麻痹;而它使人无法认识到任何事件的大小与意义。


尽管有着充足的信息(又或许正是因为这样),西方世界很难正确地理解现实。部分美国专家会提出一些极幼稚的揣测:例如认为安哥拉会成为苏联的越南;或者阻止古巴在非洲的远征军的最好办法是特别殷勤地向古巴示好。凯南对他自己国家的建议—-开始单方面裁军—-也是一样。多么希望你们知道克里姆林宫里那些最年轻的官员是如何嘲笑你们的政治奇才的!就像菲德尔-卡斯特罗—-他肆无忌惮地蔑视美国,把军队从你们国家的眼皮底下派遣去远征。


但是,最残酷的错误随着对越战的误解产生了。有些人渴望所有的战争都能尽快停止;另一些人认为越南或柬埔寨理应有空间实现民族自决(或者共产党自决),正如我们今天特别清晰地看见的那样。但是美国反战组织的成员们在这么做的同时,却也背叛了远东国家中种族屠杀的遇难者,背叛了在那些惨遭奴役的3000多万人。听到那儿传来的哭喊了吗,那些狂热的和平主义者们?他们意识到自己今天的责任了吗?还是说他们装作听不见?美国的知识阶层丧失了勇气,导致危险进一步逼近美国。但是没有人意识到这一点。你们那些短视的政治家,草草地在越南签下停战协议书,似乎给美国带来了一刻的无忧无虑;但是现在,一个百倍于越南的阴影正逼近你们。小小的越南已经成为一个警告和一个让这个国家鼓起勇气的机会。但是如果羽翼丰满的美国在共产党控制着的半个越南承受了彻底的失败,西方世界又如何寄望在未来屹立不倒?


我在许多场合都可以说,民主国家在20世纪还没有独自赢得任何重要的胜利;它总要依赖欧陆强有力的盟友,并且不去质疑其哲学和意识形态。在二战对抗希特勒中,西方世界的力量显然足以击败希特勒。但他们没有选择这样做,而是为他们自己培养了另外一个敌人。目前看来,这是一个更可怕、更强大的敌人,因为希特勒从来没有像苏联一样有如此多的资源和人口,充满诱惑力的意识形态,以及如此众多来自西方世界的支持者—-他们很可能成为一支新的第五纵队(译者按:Fifth column 意指内奸或叛徒。出自西班牙内战)。


现下西方已经有些声音要求从第三个权力中心获得保护以对抗下一次全球冲突(如果有下一次的话);这么说来,这面盾牌就是中国。但是无论是哪个国家,我都不希望这种向中国寻求保护的结果会发生。首先,这注定又是一次与邪恶的联盟;另外,虽然这会给美国暂时的安全感,但随后当全幅美式武器装备的中国以及它的十余亿人民一起调转枪口对准美国,美国自己就会成为一次大屠杀的牺牲品,就像柬埔寨一样。


9.意志力的丧失


索尔仁尼琴还认为,西方国家丧失了意志力,幻想维持现状,没有进取之心。他说道:


“并且—无论多么强大的武器都不能帮助西方世界,除非它能克服自身意志力的丧失。一旦心理上软弱,武器就会成为失势一方的负担。自我保护就必须有赴死的准备;而在物质条件优越的环境中成长起来的社会内却极少有此种牺牲的准备。什么都不剩了,只有让步、争取时间以及背叛。于是在耻辱的贝尔格莱德会议中,自由西方的外交官们软弱地放弃了他们的底线,这条底线是身陷囹圄的赫尔辛基观察团的成员们即使牺牲也要坚守的。


西方的思想正在变得保守:无论代价多大,世界局势必须像现在这样保持下去,不应该有任何变化。对维持现状的幻想令士气低靡,但这是一个社会发展将至尽头的征兆。只有瞎了的人才不会看见那些海洋已经不属于西方,而受西方支配的土地正在缩水。两场所谓的”世界大战”(它们目前看来还算不上世界范围)意味着小而进步着的欧洲从内部自我毁灭,进而成为自己的掘墓人。下一场战争(不一定非得是核战争,我自己就不相信会有核大战[就不相信非核战不可])很有可能把欧洲文明永远埋葬。


你们的历史如此有价值,你们对自由的认识如此之高,并且显然对其投入如此之深,在面对这样巨大的危险时怎么可能丧失自我保护的意志力到如此严重的程度?”


这些就是索尔仁尼琴指出的问题。为什么会出现这些问题呢?索尔仁尼琴认为,造成这些问题的是世俗社会和人本主义。人们不信上帝,失去了精神追求,一味追求物质,整个社会就成了物质至上的社会。而在物质至上的社会中,极左的思想便所向无敌,”自由主义不可避免地被激进主义所取代,激进主义必须降伏于社会主义,而社会主义却无法阻挡共产主义的到来。”他还认为,社会主义是人本主义的自然产物,因为马克思就说过:”共产主义是自然化的人本主义”,而共产主义的口号也都是关于人和人的俗世幸福的。为了解决这些问题,索尔仁尼琴认为,西方需要重拾宗教以及宗教责任,重拾精神上追求,超越物质主义。


在我看来,索尔仁尼琴并没有给出可行的解决方案,他对近现代文明的看法也过于负面和简化,但是他对西方社会的观察确实很敏锐,他提出来的问题是也都很值得思考的问题。例如,在民主社会中,如何制约媒体的力量,抑制媒体行业的垄断?如何在保证新闻自由的情况下对新闻媒体进行追责?如何在一个商业发达的社会中让民众保有朴素的公民美德,学会在享有自由的同时承担责任?在学术界,如何避免学者追寻时髦,不去追寻真理,而是故作深奥地玩文字游戏的这种现象?后现代理论,种族批判理论,政治正确,取消文化,身份政治这一系列危害社会的东西都是从学界出产的,为什么学界会出产这么多病态观念?在和平稳定的年代,如何让人们保持居安思危的意识和对共同体的热爱?在一个宗教丧失其影响力的世俗社会,如何让人们拥有富足的精神生活和超越物质的价值追求?如何避免中左和中右和思想被极左和极右的思想取代?这些问题是自由民主的社会无法回避的,如果中国建立了民主政治的话,我们迟早也要面对这些问题,这也是这篇演讲的的现实意义所在。


演讲的视频:m.youtube.com/watch?v=WuVG8Snx


演讲辞的中英文文本则在这可以在这里找到:majinxin.com/2009/08/09/speech
我对该网页中的部分中文文本进行了修改,使其更适合阅读。

FSF India has made a statement on RMS @fsfi :)
I'm so glad that my country some reasonable people who aren't afraid to speak the truth.

unlike the cowardly egomaniacs at @fsfe , OSI , Gnome etc.

This really highlights the fact how the woke mob hivemind liberals in the west like to scream inside their bubble and think they're the ones setting the moral standards for the entire world.

This is what 'supremacy' really means.

#rms #fsf

fsf.org.in/news/board-statemen

Given the parroting nature of this article and the "social justice" peanut gallery, I guess people are not allowed to grow or change. Operating under the premise that people can't have faults or own up to past mistakes does not help build movements or communities. This toxic "cancel culture" behavior has infected all areas of FOSS with many communities losing their best talent for BS reasons, with the quality of software suffering as a result.

As for RMS getting into "a position of power", this is the biggest joke with him getting exactly one board seat with one vote.

At this point, I don't feel welcome anywhere in FOSS; I'm close to telling everyone to FUCK OFF and just walk away. This BS is not worth the time, effort and negligence that it has inflicted to FOSS and society at large. I've always kept my political views, opinions and thoughts to myself in *any* professional setting and it seems like that is not enough. #FOSS #FreeSoftware #RMS #FreeThought

https://www.zdnet.com/article/the-fsf-doubles-down-on-restoring-rms-after-his-non-apology-apology/

“人必须接受自己的出生,一如接受自己的死亡:这就是成熟。” —威廉·莎士比亚

I'm really happy to see how the situation played out. Not only did he get to stay on the board, but to see such an overwhelmingly stronger support for him then dissenters gives me hope.

Its not that I like or dislike RMS, but the argument against him was so beyond absurd that it is concerning that it got momentum at all. But of course to listen to the detractors you'd think he supported sexual assault or something. Lets just hope these sort of people who will lie and exaggerate a situation in some false sense of "social justice" never become the majority, there are too many people like that already and it is getting in the way of achieving any real lasting social justice when these people are crying wolf louder and louder every day.

fsf, current events 

@wizzwizz4, Just read this article...

More than once I have heard that Stallman is not the nicest person in the world, but I think he does not need to be, it is impossible to please everyone.

He's a stickler for his views, and from what I've heard and read, he's pretty hard to negotiate with because he always stands his ground.

But, should we "execute" a man for his innocuous statements?

“Equity”



Equity and equality are not the same thing. Equality means “arranging the system so that citizens are treated equally.” “Equity” means “adjusting shares so that outcomes are made equal from one citizen to another.” It arises from what is known as “social equity theory,” and it means engineering equality of outcome.


“Equity” justifies its “essential” necessity by identifying any disparity in outcome that comes out on average in the negative for the “protected classes” defined by Theory (so, not white and usually not Asian, e.g.) as the result of bigotry. This results in DIE approaches using the worst-possible means of measuring when “Equity” has been achieved and when it lacks. On-average differences, according to Critical Social Justice Theory, are “inequities,” and these must imply discrimination and bigotry in a systemic sense, and therefore must be adjusted for. This demand for “Equity” is taken to be true even if there is no evidence of (or strong evidence against) any discrimination whatsoever (asking for this evidence is also taken as evidence of racism because it suggests something overrides the experience of “lived realities”).


This is where “systemic racism” (to name just one form of systemic bigotry) becomes relevant, serving as a kid of “bigotry of the gaps” catch-all explanation for all differences that Theory would call “oppression.” The underlying belief in the Theory is that everyone must be intrinsically the same, therefore any differences on average must be the result of overt or hidden discrimination, especially when the relevant causes aren’t known or knowable. The DIE Theorist’s job is to find the “hidden” discrimination, especially since the overt parts have been eliminated in law for decades.


That hidden discrimination might be found in the organization itself (which will be charged with it, no matter how much it bends backwards to do the opposite) or in the vague workings of society, culture, education, representation, language, feelings, or anything ever experienced. Women being “assigned” the female sex at birth, for example, is often construed as sufficient to have begun “socializing” (what Critical Theory calls brainwashing by society) them into a set of beliefs and attitudes that lead them to feel unsuited to work in certain industries, like technology and on oil rigs (wait, no, not the second one). From there, everything that goes into their entire experience as as girl, then woman, is part of the “systemic” bigotry (here, sexism and misogyny) that “must” be the cause of this result. “Equity” wants to make up for it through social engineering, but not so much on the oil rig.


The objective of “Equity” is to create perfectly “Equitable” outcomes in high-status employment sectors (and basically nowhere else). On a superficial reading, as we will see, this means that employment statistics in high-status jobs, especially where cultural production or potential harms are concerned, will have to match exactly the prevailing demographic percentages in the population, even though this is literally impossible without large-scale social engineering including forced quotas. (Random stochasticity, that is, noise in the system, should make perfect alignment with prevailing demographic percentages extremely improbable, after all, even if the system were perfectly free of difference and discrimination of every sort.) That means that “Equity” implies using identity-based quotas and vigorous social engineering to achieve them. Because outcomes have to be perfectly equitable for “Equity” to have been achieved, it genuinely represents something close to an ethno-communist totalitarianism if it were put into full practice.


Bear in mind that “Equitable” outcomes require discrimination. In Ibram X. Kendi’s bestselling book How to Be Antiracist, he makes no bones about this point; it’s not like it’s some secret Theory is trying to keep from us. Kendi writes, “The defining question is whether the discrimination is creating equity or inequity. If discrimination is creating equity, then it is antiracist. If discrimination is creating inequity, then it is racist.” It is on this line of thought precisely that we have recently seen the California State Legislature vote to remove the anti-discrimination verbiage from its state constitution. “Equity” would require us to discriminate against “dominant” groups and in favor of “oppressed ones,” as Theory has defined it, so achieving “Equity” means doing identity-based discrimination, potentially endlessly because they’ll be virtually impossible to achieve just due to random fluctuations in population dynamics.


Even creating “Equitable” outcomes like perfect parity won’t be enough, however, because Critical Race Theory is also what might be described as “ethno-historical.” Thus, even if there are no current disparities to be found (and there always will be because they can also be made up at the level of culture or subjective feelings), in any cases where there are historical ones to appeal to, those will have to be made up for too in order to achieve “Equity.” Thus, applying “Equity” from a Critical perspective results something like a combination of affirmative action and reparations, in one form or another.

Show thread

“Inclusion”



“Inclusion,” when understood Critically, is easily the most sinister of these three ideas (“Equity” is just kind of stupid and communistic and “Diversity” just has a tricky definition). “Inclusion” is genuinely insidious and twisted because inclusion means “welcoming,” but in DIE even being welcoming gets interpreted through the increasingly familiar Critical lenses of power dynamics and protected classes.


In the DIE program, an “Inclusive” environment is one that cannot create feelings of “exclusion” or “marginalization” for any protected classes or their “authentic” (that is, Theoretically consistent) voices. That is, “Inclusion” means limiting speech to agree with Theory up to and including physically excluding dissenters, disagreement, and even anyone who represents “dominant” identity groups, even by “adjacency” or “complicity.”


Truth needn’t even be relevant for these complaints. For example, the new bid by some realty companies not to refer to the largest bedroom and bathrooms as “master” bedrooms and bathrooms is a kind of “Inclusive” thinking. Even though the term originated in 1926 in a Sears catalog, and thus has nothing to do with slavery, the very idea that some people might associate the term “master” with slavery means the term has to be stricken from real estate. We see this with makeup companies removing “whitening” and “lightening” lines. We see this with college students and even workers demanding black-only spaces or asking for a minimum of white people being around lest the presence of dominant group members make them feel uncomfortable. We see it, at least perhaps, with the now-famous anti-racist scholar Ibram X. Kendi deciding changing his name from Ibram Henry Rogers to Ibram Xolani Kendi.


In fact, we see this notion of “Inclusion” behind almost every attempt to restrict speech, representation, and action to the narrow set of each of these that positively ensures absolute psychological comfort for all members of protected “minoritized” classes at all times. Given that “Diversity” requires hiring people who are trained to find egregious offense in everything, including microaggressions and wild interpretations, “Inclusion” becomes a wide-open license for utter control of speech, representation, and behavior, even down to the level of physical presence in a space or organization. This includes literal calls for re-segregation under a label of “desegregation.”


So, when some organization says it is essential to increase “Inclusion” within its halls, what it means is that there can be allowed absolutely no dissent from the Critical Theory party line. Why? Any disagreement would make people who embrace the relevant Critical Theory, which they will have synonimized with their personal identity, feel “uncomfortable.” Disagreement subjects them to idea-based “harms” or “traumas,” and the mere presence of people who disagree reminds them of how “dominant” groups “take up too much space.”


This is not an exaggeration. Because the relevant Critical Social Justice Theory literally explains that every disagreement with it is an attempt to “preserve privilege,” every disagreement is comprehensible in that Theory only as a hostile act against “marginalized” and “oppressed” groups. Thus, “Inclusion” means only allowing people to think, act, and speak in accordance with the shifting and often nonsensical demands of the Critical activists who are embedding themselves in the organization through the requirements of DIE.

Show thread

“Diversity”, “Inclusion”, “Equity”


“Diversity”



Because Critical Theories of identity view the person and their (identity) politics as intrinsically intertwined, “Diversity” doesn’t mean what anyone thinks it means. It means “Diversity” as the Critical approaches to “identity studies” in Critical Social Justice (like Critical Race Theory) understand it. It has a very specific meaning in Critical Theory. It means only having more diverse representation of different “lived experiences of oppression.” That is, it means having people with different ethnic backgrounds and the same grievance-oriented approach to thinking about those backgrounds and aggressive and highly sensitive identity-politicking style regarding them. That’s what you’re bringing in when you go for “Diversity”: Identity-driven Critical Theorists, i.e., work-avoidant complainers, troublemakers, and busybodies who will problematize every aspect of your organization until it is compliant with their impossible and often-nonsensical political demands.


We think “diversity” means people with diverse backgrounds, but the Critical Theory twists this definition into a very specific interpretation. Specifically, in Critical Social Justice, “Diversity” means something like “people with ‘diverse’ ethnic origins who all have the same Woke political understanding of the ‘social positions‘ they inhabit and the world in which those have context.” The programs for “Diversity” insist those people, not merely people from different backgrounds, have to be hired to achieve “Diversity.” The Critical system of thought maintains that everyone else lacks the “authentic” (i.e., Critical) view and thus fails to support the right kind of “Diversity.”


Under these Critical Theories, if you happen to be some particular identity (e.g., “racially black,” as Nikole Hannah-Jones, creator of the New York Times Magazine “1619 Project” seemingly inadvertently put it), then your voice is only authentically Black (“politically Black”) if it speaks in terms of Blackness—a radical black-liberationist political mindset—as that is understood by Critical Race Theory. Otherwise, the black person in question is said to be suffering internalized racism (a form of socially brainwashed false consciousness that prevents him from knowing his own best interests) or is race-traitorous. Therefore, a “racially black” but not “politically Black” hire wouldn’t constitute a proper Black “Diversity” hire because the “Diversity” perspective requires having taken up the right black-liberationist politics of Critical Race Theory. Literally anything else supports “white supremacy,” which is the opposite of “Diversity,” and thus doesn’t qualify. The person’s identity is their politics, and this is why we see prominent black figures being cancelled for not holding the proper “politically Black” line.


How can this be? These Identity Theories operate on the premise that different identity groups have a different essential experience of “systemic power” dynamics and thus different “knowledges” and “lived realities.” When the relevant identity is racial, each race is said to possess certain “racial knowledges” that can only be obtained in one way: by the “lived experience” of oppressed for being that race and learning to interpret those experiences through Critical Race Theory. Only someone who represents those experiences faithfully, meaning as the relevant Identity Theory says they must be, has an “authentic” voice that speaks from that social position. Thus, in the Theory underlying DIE training, only Critical Theorists of multiple “oppressed” identities can possibly count as satisfying “Diversity” because that’s what “Diversity” really refers to.


What this means in your organization is having to hire people who have been trained into an exquisitely sensitive form of offense-taking and whose primary work effort will be problematizing everything they can read racism into. And make no mistake, the Theory says the racism must be and always is present (“the question is not ‘did racism take place?’ but ‘how did racism manifest in this situation?’” –Robin DiAngelo). The “Diversity” hire is there to help make sure it’s found and “made visible.” Diversity training is meant to make this way of thinking and the resulting cancel culture it creates standard operating procedure in your organization. At a bare minimum, the increased focus on “Diversity” initiatives will constitute a drain of valuable resources that make your organization less productive and less competitive. At worst, your organization will fracture in a Hobbesian way around these divisions like The Evergreen State College.


Therefore, when we see a call for more “Diversity” in hiring, that means hiring more Critical Theorists who have a wider variety of identity statuses but identical politics about identity in general. It’s a call to hire more Critical Theorists. You should only take that on if that’s what you really want because you’re not getting anything that points to the usual ideas of diversity.


Now we can answer our question about what this DIE work is “essential” to achieving, then. Taking on DIE is “essential” for fomenting and effecting your organization’s part in the Critical revolution. This will be achieved by finalizing Gramsci’s long march through the institutions and forcing the Critical narrative on everyone so as to establish and perpetuate its nascent hegemony. That is, DIE is essential to a sociopolitical takeover of liberal society by radical neo-Marxist activsts.

《不请自来的物联网时代》 不管你需不需要,几乎所有家电都能联网的时代正在我们走来。没有冠以“智能”的电视机早就销声匿迹,而大部分所谓的智能电视机还有广告,部分品牌则将没有开屏广告作为卖点。配备了摄像头和麦克风的智能电视容易遭到滥用已是众所周知,它们会将收集的信息发送到厂商的服务器,你根本不知道它们收集了哪些信息。好消息是,大部分物联网设备使用的是 Wifi 连接,我们至少还可以通过路由器控制它们的行为。但厂商也有应变之道:直接嵌入蜂窝调制解调器和 SIM 卡,解决不在线的问题。这种现象将会越来越多,它们将会完全脱离用户的有限控制。除了将它们关在法拉第笼内,消费者将无能为力,隐私、监视、跟踪将会无处不在。这就是不请自来的物联网时代。 | solidot.org/story?sid=67379

Show more
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves. A STEM-oriented instance.

An inclusive free speech instance.
All cultures and opinions welcome.
Explicit hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.
We federate with all servers: we don't block any servers.