Podcast appearances and mentions of James A Lindsay

Épisode particulièrement déjanté du Trio Économique où l'on parle d'une étude sur les confinements liés à la COVID, où 33 % des scientifiques questionnés affirment avoir lu une étude... qui n'EXISTE PAS ! L'étude en question avait été sciemment inscrite dans la liste des sources pour vérifier si les « experts » en question prenaient le temps de lire le questionnaire ou s'ils ne faisaient que répondre n'importe quoi. Cela nous amène sur une longue discussion sur les canulars en science, notamment avec Vincent qui raconte l'histoire du Bathtub hoax d'Henry Mencken et Frank qui rappelle l'affaire Sokal. En 2018, l'affaire Sokal fait d'ailleurs des petits avec Helen Pluckrose, James A. Lindsay et Peter Boghossian qui réussissent à faire publier des articles parodiques dans des revues « scientifiques » américaines comme Se&ualit* and Culture et Gender, Place and Culture. Les auteurs ont ainsi démontré qu'une partie du monde universitaire, en particulier en sciences humaines, était largement dominée par l'idéologie. Dans la partie BONUS PATREON, Ian et Frank font la lecture de deux des articles parodiques les plus loufoques ainsi que des commentaires des membres du comité d'évaluation. Le premier s'intitule : « Réactions humaines à la culture du v!0l et à la performativité queer dans les parcs canins urbains de Portland, Oregon ». Le second : « Entrer par la porte arrière : défier l'homohystérie et la transphobie masculines hétéros3xu3lles grâce à l'utilisation de jouets s3xu#ls pénétrants et réceptifs ». LIENS https://twitter.com/PhilWMagness/status/1754181249042903538/photo/1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathtub_hoax#:~:text=5%20External%20links-,Content%20of%20hoax,gone%20unnoticed%20the%20previous%20week https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affaire_Sokal https://www.amazon.ca/-/fr/ALAN-D-SOKAL/dp/2738105033 https://www.amazon.ca/-/fr/JEAN-BAPTISTE-BOTUL/dp/2842054245 https://www.lefigaro.fr/international/2018/10/04/01003-20181004ARTFIG00359-etats-unis-trois-auteurs-piegent-des-revues-intersectionnelles-avec-des-articles-bidons.php https://newdiscourses.com/dildos/ https://newdiscourses.com/dog-park/ Visiter notre Patreon pour des podcasts sans publicités avec quelques extras : www.patreon.com/isenechal Notre page Facebook : ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.facebook.com/ISenechal⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Notre compte Twitter : ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://twitter.com/PiluleRouge_CA⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Notrecompte TikTok : ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.tiktok.com/@iansenechal⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Ian & Frank : ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://open.spotify.com/show/6FX9rKclX7qdlegxVFhO3B ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Les Affranchis : ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://open.spotify.com/show/61ZraWorXHQL64KriHnWPr?si=e0ca97a8510845c6⁠ --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/letrioeconomique/message

We are back with some of the finest minds in the dissident internet to ask, discuss, and possibly answer the question that is on everyone's minds, is Dr. James A. Lindsay a Friend, or, a FED? --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/2bitpodcast/message

Marti shares a presentation she did for The Good Book Club on maintaining relationships across difference divides. Clips of another podcast were shared. Here is a link to the full podcast episode from Neil Sattin's YouTube channel: https://youtu.be/O5PYe0XIMhY List of books referenced: Feeling Good and Feeling Good Together by David Burns Braving the Wilderness by Brené Brown Bridges by David Ostler How To Have Impossible Conversations by James A. Lindsay and Peter Boghossian The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt   To join or find out more information about The Good Book Club: email thegoodbookclub@mail.com   Practice listening at 3practices.com or bridgeslds.com https://wherewillyougo.net/  is Marti's podcast and can be found on podcast apps as well. 

James A. Lindsay is a mathematician, cultural critic, and co-author of the book Cynical theories together with Helen Pluckrose. He rose to internet fame through the Grievance studies affair. If you want to know more it can be found on James' s youtube-channel New Discourses. For more info: https://bit.ly/DK_JamesLindsay STÖTTA DEKONSTRUKTIV KRITIK på: SWISH 0046768943737 paypal.me/ARONFLAM DKs Patreon: bit.ly/ARONFLAMDK Bitcoin: 3EPQMEMVh6MtG3bTbGc71Yz8NrMAMF4kSH Edited by Marcus Blomgren Intro by: Intractable by Kevin MacLeod is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution license (creativecommons.org/licenses/...) Source: incompetech.com/music/royalty-... Artist: incompetech.com

In this bumper edition, we begin a projected trilogy of episodes on James Lindsay, Twitter's favourite anti-Critical Race Theory obsessive and bullying prick.  This time, we track the earlier part of James' career as a professional reactionary, leading up to the embarassing 'Conceptual Penis hoax' of which James still seems inexplicably proud.  Daniel demonstrates (to a Jack still groggy from all the AstraZeneca nanobots coursing through his brain) that James was pretty much always the obnoxious douchebag he is now, but simply needed to learn through experience (of being called on his bullshit) how to successfully present his obnoxious douchebaggery as a profound quest to save Western civilisation from standpoint epistemology or something. Content Warnings.   Podcast Notes: Please consider donating to help us make the show and stay independent.  Patrons get exclusive access to one full extra episode a month. Daniel's Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/danielharper Jack's Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/user?u=4196618 IDSG Twitter: https://twitter.com/idsgpod Daniel's Twitter: @danieleharper Jack's Twitter: @_Jack_Graham_ IDSG on Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/i-dont-speak-german/id1449848509?ls=1   Show Notes: James Lindsay [Twitter] https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames James Lindsay [Wikipedia] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_A._Lindsay James Lindsay's PhD Dissertation, [Combinatorial Unification of Binomial-Like Arrays] https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/723/ Joe Rogan - Exposing Social Justice with Peter Boghossian & James Lindsay https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlqU_JMTzd4 CPAC 2021: James Lindsay on How Critical Theories Work to 'Tear Apart' the Values of America https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ad5ldf8jXI8  Serious Inquiries Only (formerly Atheistically Speaking) https://seriouspod.com/ AS83, Category 5 Shitstorms, with James Lindsay http://atheisticallyspeaking.com/as83-category-5-shitstorms-james-lindsay/ AS84, James LIndsay Part Two http://atheisticallyspeaking.com/as84-james-lindsay-part-2/ Peter Boghossian "Proud of Being Gay" [Tweet] https://web.archive.org/web/20150501060350if_/https://twitter.com/peterboghossian/status/527862167152758784 James Lindsay, [Not Pride and Not Prejudice: Is "Pride" Right for Uses Like "Gay Pride?"] https://web.archive.org/web/20170717143654/http://goddoesnt.blogspot.com/2014/10/not-pride-and-not-prejudice-is-pride.html "Knowing him, and having bothered to discuss it with him more thoroughly, Peter's point is that the term "pride" carries certain meanings (here: in reference to achievement, in particular) that may make it somewhat inappropriate to apply to a concept like "gay pride." As he has done in the past--controversially with groups wedded to certain other terms and ideas connected with them--he has asked for a disambiguation of the term "pride" in this context. Perhaps unsurprisingly, though for some legitimate reasons, there was a rather substantial blowback to his request to carefully consider the terminology being employed as dispassionately as possible." Greta Christina, [Peter Boghossian, and What Gay Pride Actually Means] https://the-orbit.net/greta/2014/11/01/peter-boghossian-and-what-gay-pride-actually-means/ "Okay. Fine. As a fully licensed and registered LGBT person, I will spell out to Peter Boghossian what, exactly, “gay pride” means. (Actually, to be precise, I will point out what “LGBT pride” means.) "LGBT pride does not mean being proud of having been born lesbian, gay, bisexual, or trans. "It means being proud of having survived. "It means being proud of living in a homophobic, biphobic, transphobic society — a society that commonly treats us with contempt at best and violent hatred at worst — and still getting on with our lives. It means being proud of flourishing, in a society that commonly thinks we’re broken. It means being proud of being happy, in a society that commonly thinks we should be miserable. It means being proud of being good and compassionate, in a society that commonly thinks we’re wicked. It means being proud of fighting for our rights and the rights of others like us, in a society that commonly thinks we should lie down and let ourselves get walked on — or that thinks we should be grateful for crumbs and not ask for more. It means being proud of retaining our dignity, in a society that commonly treats us as laughing-stocks. It means being proud of loving our sexuality and our bodies, in a society that commonly thinks our sexuality and our bodies are disgusting. It means being proud of staying alive, in a society that commonly beats us down and wants us dead." AS191: Everybody Is Wrong About God, with James Lindsay http://atheisticallyspeaking.com/as/ AS192: Everybody Is Wrong About God, Part 2 http://atheisticallyspeaking.com/as192-everybody-is-wrong-about-god-part-2/ David Chivers, ["Book Review: James A. Lindsay's Everybody is Wrong About God"] https://thehumanist.com/arts_entertainment/books/book-review-james-lindsays-everybody-wrong-god/ "Given that Lindsay feels most people don’t intellectually believe in God anymore, his next main inquiry is an exploration of what people do mean when they say they “believe” in God. He argues that most of these people are actually articulating a more subtle need for community, comfort, and a set of morals, which they then equate with God. God is the embodiment of their ideas on what makes a good life. But once personified, they confuse their ideas of what makes for a good life with the actual individual they have created and then stubbornly argue for the existence of the said character, i.e. “God.” "Lindsay calls on atheists to recognize this phenomenon and change their arguments accordingly, addressing the needs that God personifies for the person rather than the actual belief in God. This is the next step of “post-theism.” Society must find ways to fulfill those needs in a secular way. Once those needs are addressed and met in those other ways, the need for “God” will quickly and naturally fall away." AS237: James Lindsay and Eli Bosnick on Social Justice http://atheisticallyspeaking.com/as237-james-lindsay-eli-bosnick-social-justice/) AS238: Eli and James, Part 2 http://atheisticallyspeaking.com/as238-eli-james-part-2/ AS239: Eli and James on Trigger Warnings http://atheisticallyspeaking.com/as239-eli-james-trigger-warnings/ Crisis and Trigger Warnings: Reflections on Legal Education and the Social Value of the Law https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4076&context=cklawreview "Abstract: In the same moment that law schools are embracing neoliberal strategies in response to the economic crisis caused by declining admissions, students in the classroom have begun to agitate for advance content notices (or “trigger warnings”) to alert them to any potentially trauma-inducing course materials. For faculty who have already adopted a defensive posture in response to threats to eliminate tenure, this demand feels like an additional assault on academic freedom; one that reflects a distressing student-as-consumer mentality. From this vantage point, students are too easily cast as another group of adversaries when, in actuality, students are straw targets who have little power compared to the real threat—the unchecked corporatization of legal education. This essay attempts to redirect faculty outrage back to the proper mark by decoupling the trigger-warning movement from the broader phenomenon of the neoliberal law school. It presents an alternate reading of trigger-warning mandates: as a student critique of legal pedagogy that demands access and opportunity for all students to fully engage in classroom discussions that can be difficult and are often painful. Trigger warnings give lie to the myth that law is based on dispassionate and objective legal analysis. Seen this way, trigger warnings invite students to become partners in the production of knowledge, while allowing faculty to maintain intellectually rigorous classroom environments. Faculty cannot afford to view students as antagonists. Instead, students should be enlisted as allies in our efforts to challenge the orthodoxy of market-based solutions to the legal education crisis." Katie J.M. Baker, "Teaching Rape Law in the Age of the Trigger Warning." https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/katiejmbaker/teaching-rape-law-in-the-age-of-the-trigger-warning "You're in a Harvard Law classroom, which is supposed to be this advanced, high-minded environment, and when we got to rape, the conversation totally devolved into bullshit," one Harvard Law graduate said. "I don't need to pay Harvard tuition to hear men be dumbasses." "Criminal law is a required class, so even students who want to practice tax law or litigate intellectual property cases must participate in "rape week." It also means that professors who aren't necessarily experts in the field sometimes teach it. For many students, that's where the problems start. "Some hate when professors insist on using the Socratic method, a common law school teaching practice in which students are cold-called and mercilessly questioned, because a rape survivor might have to argue an accused rapist's case. Others don't understand why professors engage with students who make insensitive remarks about victims such as "What if she looked older than 12?" or "Is it still rape if it wasn't consensual but he really thought it was?" instead of shutting them down. Some law students even told BuzzFeed News that they chose to skip their "rape week" classes completely rather than seethe in silence." AS296: Life in the Light of Death, with James Lindsay http://atheisticallyspeaking.com/as296-life-light-death-james-lindsay/ SIO44: Debunking the Conceptual Penis Stunt with Eli Bosnick https://seriouspod.com/sio44-debunking-the-conceptual-penis-stunt-with-eli-bosnick/ SIO45: James Lindsay, Co-Author of the ‘Conceptual Penis’ Hoax Paper https://seriouspod.com/sio45-james-lindsay-co-author-of-the-conceptual-penis-hoax-paper/ Very Bad Wizards https://www.verybadwizards.com/ VBW Episode 116: Pain, Pleasure, and Peer-Reviewed Penises https://www.verybadwizards.com/116 VBW Episode 118: We Don't Love Them Hoax https://www.verybadwizards.com/118 The conceptual penis as a social construct https://www.skeptic.com/downloads/conceptual-penis/23311886.2017.1330439.pdf "We conclude that penises are not best understood as the male sexual organ, or as a male reproductive organ, but instead as an enacted social construct that is both damaging and problematic for society and future generations. The conceptual penis presents significant problems for gender identity and reproductive identity within social and family dynamics, is exclusionary to disenfranchised communities based upon gender or reproductive identity, is an enduring source of abuse for women and other gender-marginalized groups and individuals, is the universal performative source of rape, and is the conceptual driver behind much of climate change. "An explicit isomorphic relationship exists between the conceptual penis and the most problematic themes in toxic masculinity, and that relationship is mediated by the machismo braggadocio aspect of male hypermasculine thought and performance. A change in our discourses in science, technol-ogy, policy, economics, society, and various communities is needed to protect marginalized groups, promote the advancement of women, trans, and gender-queer individuals (including non-gendered and gender-skeptical people), and to remedy environmental impacts that follow from climate change driven by capitalist and neocapitalist overreliance on hypermasculine themes and exploitative utilization of fossil fuels." Skeptic Magazine [writeup] https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/conceptual-penis-social-contruct-sokal-style-hoax-on-gender-studies/ "Assuming the pen names “Jamie Lindsay” and “Peter Boyle,” and writing for the fictitious “Southeast Independent Social Research Group,” we wrote an absurd paper loosely composed in the style of post-structuralist discursive gender theory. The paper was ridiculous by intention, essentially arguing that penises shouldn’t be thought of as male genital organs but as damaging social constructions. We made no attempt to find out what “post-structuralist discursive gender theory” actually means. We assumed that if we were merely clear in our moral implications that maleness is intrinsically bad and that the penis is somehow at the root of it, we could get the paper published in a respectable journal." Charmaine Chua, The Slow Boat to China https://thedisorderofthings.com/2015/01/05/the-slow-boat-to-china/ "The captain tells me that the Ever Cthulhu, like all other ships, never stops for a break. It continues traversing the globe’s surface in 45-day rotations, reaching one end of its route and turning around almost immediately. Container ships are monuments that move, and 100, 000 of them ply the oceans at any given moment. In 2014, the Ever Cthulhu traveled a total of 103,000 sea miles — halfway to the moon. All that distance, all that steel, all that power. Yet, even ships as large as these require very little human labor: a few seamen to navigate, engineers to monitor the ship’s internal workings, others to keep watch, clean, fit, change the oil. The Ever Cthulhu itself has a crew of 22 men – four German, one Polish, seventeen Filipino, and one passenger: myself. Across the world’s ocean, 1.5 million invisible seafarers toil on three to nine month contracts to bind the world together through trade, though they remain, for the most part, isolated in their cabins and mess rooms, retained on precarious short-term contracts, and kept away from their families – indeed, from most of the world. The third mate, a young Filipino, tells me that all his sacrifices are worth it for a salary that pays much more than he could possibly hope for on land. In some sense then, as a container of both aspiration and drudgery, one might think of the ship more as a space than an object; a floating island of both hard labor and the possibility of better futures. "This trans-pacific passage is of particular interest to me because it is by far North America’s largest trade lane, and accounts for nearly twenty million TEUs in U.S. trade alone. This U.S.-China market is dominated by large U.S. retailers such as Wal-Mart, Target, Best Buy, and Home Depot – companies notorious for cutting labor costs by using the enhanced mobility of labor to shift work to third parties, erecting cruel hierarchies in both their Chinese factories and U.S. stores. Transoceanic shipping is, in large part, responsible for these widening inequalities: since shipping operates beyond the territorial spaces governed by labor regulations, it allows corporations to do away with the hard-fought democratic and labor rights struggled for and earned within local labor contexts. The internationalization of the supply chain, in other words, is aided by increasing innovations in the speed and efficiency of the shipping market. As a result, circulation has been folded into the production process, becoming a field of experimentation for value-generation in its own right. Of course, there are highly uneven aspects to this story of logistics. Even as members of the International Longshore and Workers Union [negotiate their contract under embattled circumstances](http://www.maritime-executive.com/article/PMA-vs-ILWU-Negotiations-Jeapordized-Ports-Congested-2014-11-04) on the west coast of North America, indentured truck drivers [struggle against overwhelming legal barriers](http://www.dissentmagazine.org/blog/port-truck-drivers-on-strike-dispatch-from-los-angeles-long-beach-ports) to unionization in Oakland and LA, port workers in mushrooming Chinese ports can scarcely dream of ILWU wages or safeguards, and factory workers around the world toil under the poverty line. The world of logistics looks very different indeed from the perspective of Taiwan, California, or the Ocean."   You're Wrong About podcast on Political Correctness: https://www.buzzsprout.com/1112270/8355175-political-correctness Samuel Hoadley-Brill on James Lindsay and CRT: https://conceptualdisinformation.substack.com/p/james-lindsay-v-critical-race-theory?r=7v05d&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&utm_source=copy  

Peter è un filosofo americano che lavora all'università di Portland. Ha un orientamento politico liberale e di sinistra, ma questo non gli impedisce di rendersi conto che molti studi accademici, legati al femminismo intersezionale, sono sempre più radicali e intrisi di bias ideologici.Così, insieme a due suoi amici, James A. Lindsay, matematico, e Helen Pluckrose, caporedattrice di una rivista umanistica, decide di provare a sottoporre degli studi falsi e grotteschi, con tesi estremiste, a diverse riviste scientifiche.

Allie Beth Stuckey interview with Neil Shenvi on Critical Theory.   Neil Shenvi - from a Christian perspective.   James Lindsay - secular academic.   Christopher Rufo - secular cultural researcher whose research prompted the federal ban on teaching critical theory in government institutions and organizations contracted by the government.   Book - secular perspective, “Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity—and Why This Harms Everybody” by Helen Pluckrose and James A. Lindsay.   Article: How to Talk to Your Employer about Anti-Racism.   Critical Theory reduces all relationships to power. Who has it and who doesn't. Oppressor vs. oppressed. White people vs BIPOC.   Response: Jesus teaches us to love because he first loved us. And you exercise influence through loving service wrapped in grace and truth.   Matthew 20:25 - Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave—just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”   Critical Theory reduces all people to their skin color, or identity group, as their primary identity (the most definitive thing to know about you).   Response: Jesus tells us our primary identity is that we are made in the image of God, of infinite value and unconditionally loved by our Creator.   Galatians 3:26 - So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.   Federal ban on teaching critical theory in government institutions and contracted organizations. Summary: You shall not demean, stereotype or scapegoat people based on their race or sex.   This provision then lists “divisive concepts” that cannot be included in workplace training, including DEI training:   one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex.  the United States is fundamentally racist or sexist.  an individual—by virtue of his or her race or sex—is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.  an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex.  members of one race or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race or sex.  an individual's moral character is necessarily determined by his or her race or sex.  an individual—by virtue of his or her race or sex—bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex. any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex. meritocracy or traits, such as a hard work ethic, are racist or sexist, or were created by a particular race to oppress another race.   Tenets of Critical Theory: Critical theory emphasizes group identity over individualism. Individual identity is inseparable from group identity as ‘oppressed' or ‘oppressor.'   “My schooling gave me no training in seeing myself as an oppressor… I was taught to see myself as an individual whose moral state depended on her individual moral will.” – Peggy McIntosh, “White Privilege and Male Privilege,” in Andersen and Collins, Race, Class, and Gender: An Anthology, p. 72.   Critical theory defines oppression as the exercise of hegemonic power—the ability of a group to impose its values, norms and expectations of society. Oppressor groups subjugate oppressed groups through the exercise of hegemonic power.   “Concepts of hegemony enable us to appreciate how dominant groups manipulate symbols and images to construct ‘common sense' and thereby maintain their power.” – Jacob P. K. Gross, “Education and Hegemony: The Influence of Antonio Gramsci” in Beyond Critique: Exploring Critical and Social Theories in Education, p. 57, 65.   Smithsonian Infographic—the National Museum of African American history and culture which is a component of the Smithsonian Institute a federally funded organization    Critical theory dismisses ‘reason' and ‘evidence' as self-serving justifications for oppression. Scientific method, evidence, statistics, etc. are tools of the oppressor.   A quote from Delgado's “Critical Race Theory: An Introduction” says, “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 theory sees intersectional ‘lived experience' as an epistemic advantage. ‘Lived experience' is more important than objective evidence in understanding oppression— i.e.,the lower one is on the intersectional hierarchy of the higher one's perspective on truth. To question the oppressed persons lived experience is evidence of racism.   “The idea that objectivity is best reached only through rational thought is a specifically Western and masculine way of thinking – one that we will challenge throughout this book.” – Margaret L. Andersen and Patricia Hill Collins, “Reconstructing Knowledge,” in Anderson and Collins, Race, Class, and Gender, p. 4-5.   Our fundamental moral duty is freeing groups from oppression. Cancel culture or call out culture - make oppression visible. Civil discourse, exchange of ideas, freedom of speech, mutual understanding, etc. is not a value. You don't have an individual voice. You are a mouthpiece for your identity group.    The goal is not to “win” the argument through civil discourse. It is to overpower or silence the argument by any means necessary.   A posture for us from scripture: Romans 12:9-21: Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves. Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord. Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer. Share with the Lord's people who are in need. Practice hospitality.   Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited.   Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. On the contrary:   If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.   Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.   Submit Q&A Questions and episode suggestions here.   Watch the podcast video here!

Helen’s book, co-written with James A. Lindsay, Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity—and Why This Harms Everybody (2020) can be found here: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Cynical-Theories-Scholarship-Everything-Identity/dp/1634312023. Helen’s writing for Areo magazine can be found here: https://areomagazine.com/author/hpluckrose/ For more on the Sokal Squared hoax, which Helen perpetrated, alongside James Lindsay and Peter Boghossian see: https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studies-and-the-corruption-of-scholarship/ You can follow Helen on Twitter @hpluckrose Further Notes Alexander Pope, Epistles to Several Persons: Epistle II: To a Lady on the Characters of Women (1743) (I misremembered the title as An Essay on Woman): https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/44893/epistles-to-several-persons-epistle-ii-to-a-lady-on-the-characters-of-women Kimberle Crenshaw, “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color” (1991): https://www.racialequitytools.org/resourcefiles/mapping-margins.pdf Walt Anderson, The Fontana Postmodernism Reader (1996) For more on the Evergreen story, see my interview with Benjamin Boyce: https://soundcloud.com/twoforteapodcast/27-benjamin-boyce and this video series by Mike Nayna: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FH2WeWgcSMk For the Ravelry knitting group scandal, see: https://quillette.com/2019/02/17/a-witch-hunt-on-instagram/ Herbert Marcuse “Repressive Tolerance” (1965): https://la.utexas.edu/users/hcleaver/330T/350kPEEMarcuseToleranceTable.pdf Antonio Gramsci, Prison Notebooks (1929–35), for the concept of hegemony Andrea Lynn Lewis and Liam Kofi Bright’s letter exchange on Critical Race Theory: https://letter.wiki/conversation/322 Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt, The Coddling of the American Mind (2015) Isabel Wilkinson, Caste: The Lies that Divide Us (2020) Akala, Natives: Race and Class in the Ruins of Empire (2019) Jonathan Rauch, Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought (1993) Timestamps 2:40 Helen reads a passage about how people can stand up for liberalism without having to go down the woke route 5:35 Cultural and moral relativism 9:14 How postmodernism developed into critical theory: knowledge, power and discourse 19:45 The two evolutions of postmodernism: in the late 1980s and 2010s and the rise of identity politics 25:42 Being woke 26:59 The impacts on wider society and politics 30:08 Why social justice isn’t neo-Marxism or cultural Marxism 34:50 The influence of critical theory on academe 38:00 What is the relationship between critical theory as theory and critical theory as practice 41:37 How people are being affected in the workplace 49:01 How much should we focus on economics and how much on identity 53:03 Freedom of speech 56:15 Why is it called “theory”? 57:08 Why should we take the danger of critical theory seriously and not just see it as a moral panic? 1:00:15 Trump’s announced ban on Critical Race Theory in federal training 1:05:25 Helen’s crimes against food 1:07:35 Collective guilt, identity politics and standpoint epistemology 1:15:51 The responses to Helen as a whistleblower 1:21:09 Helen reads from the introduction to the book

Our guest this week is law professor Bruce Pardy, discussing his recent column in the Financial Post where he identifies Critical Theory as one of the causes of the current social upheaval.  Knowing the basics of Critical Theory will help you understand why it's often impossible to succeed by using reason and logic when arguing with the radicals.Bruce Pardy in the Financial Post, Jun 26, 2020: Apocalyptic science: How the West is destroying itselfQueen's University: Bruce Pardy, ProfessorYoutube, Mar 11, 2020: Bruce Pardy at the Runnymede Society--The Civil War Inside the Law and the Side the Law Schools Are OnHelen Pluckrose, James A. Lindsay and Peter Boghossian in AREO Magazine, Oct 2, 2018: Academic Grievance Studies and the Corruption of Scholarship New Discourses WebsiteAmazon.ca: Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity—and Why This Harms Everybody by Helen Pluckrose and James A. LindsaySupport the show (https://www.jccf.ca/donate/)

Mike Nayna is a filmmaker living in Melbourne. His 2015 short, Digilante (recently picked up by The Atlantic), took a critical look at viral cancel culture and how the moral intentions of social justice warriors can go terribly wrong. He is currently working on a film about the "grievance studies" affair — a project of James A. Lindsay, Peter Boghossian, and Helen Pluckrose, who wanted to shine a light on poor scholarship in certain "social justice"-centered academic fields, such as gender and critical race studies. The three scholars submitted fake papers to academic journals to expose how easy it is to get “absurdities and morally fashionable political ideas published as legitimate academic research.” A number of the papers were published, including a 3000 word excerpt of Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf, rewritten in the language of intersectionality theory. Watch this episode on YouTube. Become a patron for early access to episodes and special content, not available to the public. The Same Drugs is on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/the-same-drugs/support

Glenn sits down with both James A. Lindsay, an author, and mathematician as well as Peter Boghossian, an assistant professor of Philosophy at Portland State University. These two men along with their associate Helen Pluckrose spent 10 months writing 20 hoax papers that illustrated and parodied what they call "grievance studies" and submitted them to "the best journals in the relevant fields." Out of these 20 papers, seven of them were accepted, four were published online, and three were being processed. Being dubbed as "Sokal Squared", this hoax has been applauded by several scholars for unmasking what they called academe's leftist, victim-obsessed ideological slant and low publishing standards. If you're worried about the state of culture in this country, if you're curious of the inner workings of the world of academia, and you're fed up with the increasing authoritarian ideology from the left or from the right, this podcast is for you.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In 1996, Dr. Alan Sokal, a physics professor, wanted to test the intellectual rigor of “postmodern cultural studies.” To do so, he wrote an article titled “Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity.” This article was full of absolute nonsense—but Dr. Sokal believed it would be accepted by an academic journal anyway. And he was right. This hoax—called the “Sokal Affair” or “Sokal Hoax”—caused an uproar in academia because it questioned the validity of social science commentary on scientific inquiry. Fast forward to 2017. Three academics, editor Helen Pluckrose, mathematician James A. Lindsay, and philosopher Peter Boghossian, did something similar but bigger. And with a similar purpose—they wanted to test the intellectual rigor of academic journals in the fields of gender, queer, race, and fat studies—what they call as a whole, “grievance studies.” They wanted to see if they could produce absurd articles using the catch-phrases and biases they observed in cultural studies academic journals—and get them published. Of the 20 nonsense articles the trio wrote, 7 passed peer review and were published, and one even received recognition. Seven more were on the verge of publication before their hoax was uncovered. This academic project has been dubbed “Sokal Squared” as a nod to Dr. Alan Sokal’s hoax article from 1996. While it may sound like this topic is only of interest to academia, the authors believe it is relevant—in fact, crucial—for everyone to understand the implications of what is going on in universities and academic journals because the knowledge produced there affects us all. We spoke with all three of the “Sokal Squared” hoaxers, or “academic whistleblowers” as they would say, for today’s program. We should have the extended conversations with our guests posted by the evening of March 2, 2019.

James A. Lindsay holds degrees in physics and mathematics, with a doctorate in the latter. His previous books include Dot, Dot, Dot: Infinity Plus God Equals Folly and Life in Light of Death. He has been in the news for submitting, along with Peter Boghossian and Helen Pluckrose, a series of hoax papers to peer-review (seven of which were published) in fields that categorise as “grievance studies”. SHOW NOTES: sigmanutrition.com/episode274

James A. Lindsay is a co-author of the Grievance Studies, a project designed to expose the politicized corruption within social justice geared humanities scholarship by creating bogus academic papers and submitting them to academic journals in the areas of cultural, queer, race, gender, fat, and sexuality studies. He and Bridget have a fascinating discussion about the dogmatism of atheists, the Feminist Glaciology paper that radicalized him, the assault on science, the fascism creeping in from both sides – the left and the right, and why everything we think we know about reality might be wrong. James explains post-modernism and why fitting in matters ten times more to people than being right. Bridget expounds upon why the idea that language is violence and a tool of oppression that must be regulated, strikes terror into her heart. And together they lament the isolation and loneliness of thinking for yourself in today’s culture of ideological tribalism. This is a brilliant deep dive into why intersectional social politics are a toxic way to look at the world and lead to competitive victimhood, the corruption in scholarship that’s fueling the whole social justice, progressive, activist universe, and the doomsday cults of the far left and the far right. For questions, comments or topic requests contact us at: walkinswelcomequestions@gmail.com

James A. Lindsay is a co-author of the Grievance Studies, a project designed to expose the politicized corruption within social justice geared humanities scholarship by creating bogus academic papers and submitting them to academic journals in the areas of cultural, queer, race, gender, fat, and sexuality studies. He and Bridget have a fascinating discussion about […]Sponsored by HoneyBook Join the conversation and comment on this podcast episode: https://ricochet.com/podcast/walk-ins-welcome-bridget-phetasy/james-lindsay-discusses-punking-the-dogmatic-religion-of-extreme-social-justice/.Now become a Ricochet member for only $5.00 a month! Join and see what you’ve been missing: https://ricochet.com/membership/.Subscribe to Walk-Ins Welcome w/ Bridget Phetasy in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.

In the last Podcast of 2018, Editor of Circus Bazaar Magazine Shane Alexander Caldwell sits down to discuss Applied Postmodernism & Grievance Studies with James A. Lindsay.James Lindsay Twitterhttps://twitter.com/ConceptualJamesJames Lindsay's Amazon pagehttps://www.amazon.com/James-A.-Lindsay/e/B009BBX7BI/ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_4?qid=1544693608&sr=1-4Academic Grievance Studies and the Corruption of Scholarshiphttps://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studies-and-the-corruption-of-scholarship/You can discover more about Circus Bazaar Group Worldwide by visitingCircus Bazaar Magazinewww.circusbazaar.comCircus Bazaar Productionswww.circusbazaarproductions.com Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Shane talks with James A. Lindsay author of Everybody's Wrong About God and outspoken atheist voice who holds degrees in physics and mathematics and writer & researcher Helen Pluckrose, known for her focus on the history of religion, ideology and narratives as well as postmodernism and intersectional feminism. Outro music by Tooth Lures A Fang.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Shane talks with James A. Lindsay author of Everybody’s Wrong About God and outspoken atheist voice who holds degrees in physics and mathematics and writer & researcher Helen Pluckrose, known for her focus on the history of religion, ideology and narratives as well as postmodernism and intersectional feminism. Outro music by Tooth Lures A Fang.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

James A. Lindsay holds degrees in physics and mathematics, and author of books such as 'Dot, Dot, Dot: Infinity Plus God Equals Folly', 'Everybody Is Wrong about God' and 'Life in Light of Death.' James Lindsay and Peter Boghossian have written and published a sokal-style hoax paper called 'The Conceptual Penis', and we talk about the implications. Follow James Lindsay on Twitter: https://twitter.com/GodDoesnt Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JamesALindsay/ Contribute on Patreon www.patreon.com/lalodagach Podcast available on YouTube www.youtube.com/lalodagachpodcast Also available iTunes, Stitcher, GooglePlay and TuneIn Follow Lalo Dagach twitter.com/LaloDagach www.facebook.com/lalodagachpage/ Follow Lalo Dagach Podcast twitter.com/LaloPodcast www.facebook.com/lalodagachpodcast/

In this episode, Bo Bennett and Peggy Knudtson speak with author James A, Lindsay about his new book, Everybody is Wrong About God. Later, Kim Ellington speaks with Derek Colanduno, director of the Skeptical track at DragonCon. James A. Lindsay is an author and outspoken atheist voice who holds degrees in physics and mathematics, including a doctorate in the latter. Motivated by a love of knowledge and learning, along with his life experience of growing up and living in the Southeastern United States--on the buckle of the Bible Belt, as they say--he writes and speaks in an attempt to clarify our religious and cultural landscape and by doing so to help heal the related harms.

In the depths of the internet there is many an article discussing the infinity of God. Its authors argue that God is infinite and endless and knows no bounds (what the difference is among those attributes is not usually explained). Imputing infinity to God is nothing new – one rarely (if ever) hears of a god that is deemed finite. In his new book, Dot, Dot, Dot: Infinity Plus God Equals Folly (Onus Books, 2013), James Lindsay argues that declaring God to be infinite is no help to the arguments of believers. Infinity is a concept that almost everyone except mathematicians misunderstands, which doesn’t stop apologists from using the adjective to label their god. Arguing against Platonism, Lindsay explains that infinity is an abstraction, and that abstractions are not equal to reality. He has no objection to the notion of God as an abstraction, but decries the point of view that this necessarily implies existence. Words and numbers are abstractions which we use every day, but no one would argue that they are real they way that a table is real. Human beings, Lindsay argues, invented these abstractions in order to make sense of the universe, and they are limited to the human mind. Apologists who use the concept of infinity as a way to argue for their god are, as the author puts it, “confuse the map for the terrain.” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In the depths of the internet there is many an article discussing the infinity of God. Its authors argue that God is infinite and endless and knows no bounds (what the difference is among those attributes is not usually explained). Imputing infinity to God is nothing new – one rarely (if ever) hears of a god that is deemed finite. In his new book, Dot, Dot, Dot: Infinity Plus God Equals Folly (Onus Books, 2013), James Lindsay argues that declaring God to be infinite is no help to the arguments of believers. Infinity is a concept that almost everyone except mathematicians misunderstands, which doesn’t stop apologists from using the adjective to label their god. Arguing against Platonism, Lindsay explains that infinity is an abstraction, and that abstractions are not equal to reality. He has no objection to the notion of God as an abstraction, but decries the point of view that this necessarily implies existence. Words and numbers are abstractions which we use every day, but no one would argue that they are real they way that a table is real. Human beings, Lindsay argues, invented these abstractions in order to make sense of the universe, and they are limited to the human mind. Apologists who use the concept of infinity as a way to argue for their god are, as the author puts it, “confuse the map for the terrain.” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In the depths of the internet there is many an article discussing the infinity of God. Its authors argue that God is infinite and endless and knows no bounds (what the difference is among those attributes is not usually explained). Imputing infinity to God is nothing new – one rarely (if ever) hears of a god that is deemed finite. In his new book, Dot, Dot, Dot: Infinity Plus God Equals Folly (Onus Books, 2013), James Lindsay argues that declaring God to be infinite is no help to the arguments of believers. Infinity is a concept that almost everyone except mathematicians misunderstands, which doesn’t stop apologists from using the adjective to label their god. Arguing against Platonism, Lindsay explains that infinity is an abstraction, and that abstractions are not equal to reality. He has no objection to the notion of God as an abstraction, but decries the point of view that this necessarily implies existence. Words and numbers are abstractions which we use every day, but no one would argue that they are real they way that a table is real. Human beings, Lindsay argues, invented these abstractions in order to make sense of the universe, and they are limited to the human mind. Apologists who use the concept of infinity as a way to argue for their god are, as the author puts it, “confuse the map for the terrain.” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices