interesting, i only read out of it that being too famous is kinda crappy but i was seeing it from the inbox hell side, rather than the plebs are better side see, i have argued the point with her before also that small follow list is better, i add a few now and then and then trim them back, rarely getting much over 50, and my feed is happiness she is very chatty though, but i don't mind, as a child my mother tells me that i would not stop talking and she would just smile and nod and sometimes pay attention

Correct. I got got the same vibes.

Honestly, I think she was just memeing/posting something funny. At least that is my understanding. o.o

Yes, but it was only funny because there's some truth to it.

I mean, he didn't say that my critique wasn't true. He's saying that I shouldn't be allowed to voice such a critique and should be punished for it. I get that he's protecting his friends, but this screed attacking me for being a member of some obscure woke academic movement is a step too far. Not every complaint about elitism is part of some Californian social justice movement. 🥴

it's one that is instantly visible to anyone who isn't in the in group also

The call to mute Laeserin is honestly the most woke act and mindset I've seen here today. I don't like critical theory either, but taking a funny stand against people who don't engage on #nostr and still have insanely high numbers of follows isn't exactly an application of CT.

Almost everything she says in that post is true. The woke framing is what I object to.

For not knowing what it is, you wield it adeptly. This note is a case in point. Ad hominem attacks and attribution of motives are not good faith arguments, but they are effective at humiliating and silencing your opponent.

coexist/ makes life interesting

I've been trying to catch up on this discussion, but I'm failing to see the woke framing you're attempting to call out in @Laeserin's posts. Can you more precisely articulate where you are seeing woke critical theory?

You should be ashamed of yourself for this drivel. 1. If you're a Christian, you're supposed to address concerns with a fellow Christian first. 2. If you don't trave any clue that Stella is a Christian, you're just a disconnected narcissistic douchecanoe EXACTLY of the sort that Stella is decrying. 3. WTF are you doing trying to bring in critical theory into this? Nothing she wrote is anything of the sort and she didn't even know WTF you were talking about and had to look it up and have it explained to her. That's so effing lame. Get over yourself. (I'm salty you insulted my friend. I'm salty you'd attempt to bring critical theory into this when it isn't. I'm salty and embarrassed as a Christian saying this treatment of a fellow Christian. Stop being a whiney little turd, man up, and do the right thing. Gross. GROSS!)

WTF is woke about that post? I really, really don't see how you're catching that from what she wrote and how she wrote it.

let it go bro

Gotcha, thanks for the explanation. The flaw I've seen in this line of discussion (and I may not have seen all of it), is that you seem to be conflating a technique with an agenda. Critical theory uses the analytical toolset of postmodern hermeneutics that seeks to identify and amplify alternative perspectives as a means of questioning a prevailing narrative or school of thought. This is distinct from the worldview presented by Critical Theory, which views all language as an instrument of power and thus is inherently skeptical of any and every traditional, dominant, or widespread narrative. Wokeness and Critical Race Theory are particular instantiations of this broader philosophical movement as applied to Western--and specifically American--politics. Identifying the rhetorical tools of postmodern hermeneutics and pointing those out is perfectly fair. It is not, in my opinion, a particularly strong rhetorical device, and identifying such a weakness helps your interlocutor further develop her arguments, which in turn may produce more fruitful dialogue. The fallacy that I observe, @hodlbod, is that you are seeing postmodern hermeneutical rhetoric and imputing to @Laeserin the worldview of Critical Theory as a result. That is a non sequitur. In fact, anyone who's followed Laeserin for any amount of time would know that she is an orthodox Catholic, which requires an adherence to tradition and authority antithetical to Critical Theory. Thus we need not immediately assume that she is attempting to advance some sort of woke victim ideology. I think you have fair critiques to offer, but perhaps they were not offered in a constructive spirit. Everyone is getting rather uppity over this whole conversation on little provocation. I don't think that's necessary.

Fine philosophical distinctions are difficult for me. But I do think the employment of language as power and the subversion of established structures of power are relevant here, because what's happening is the "othering" of a class of people. I also agree that CT is antithetical to Christianity, which is why a Christian shouldn't use it. But people aren't consistent, and that's ok. This was never intended to be a character assasination.

That may be occurring, but a Christian virtue ethic requires us to consider the intentions of an act as well as the content of the act itself. I'm just trying to point out a nuance, lest we see something that looks like CT and make unfair character judgements as a result. As always, Nostr is a free place, anyone can follow or mute who they want depending on the value provided by the individual's posts and interactions.

back @ u