Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 08/24/2025 11:15:10 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
Yeah but they’re not gonna drop the stupid. The stupid behind all of those words is they’re problem.
So do I.
“In reality, most Democrats do not run or govern on wildly out-of-touch social positions.“
SEE!!!??? Stupid!
Heh... just ask AI to write a job posting incorporating all of those terms.
You'll never hear that ear crap from Trump because ... Stephen Miller.
pursue life, liberty and happiness.
dont you get it?
they want a police state so everyone can pursue life liberty and happiness
mask our intentions until we have more control
got it
Comes off like Jane Goodall telling her colleagues how to avoid spooking the apes.
“In reality, most Democrats do not run or govern on wildly out-of-touch social positions.”
They are trying to figure out how “not to run” on out of touch positions. They are not trying to figure out how to GOVERN differently.
They will govern the same old way. Most DEI, e.g., is driven by Democrat executive orders or conditions in federal grants requiring DEI. Forcing men into women’s sports has been the official position of the DOJ civil rights division until Trump.
Blue states are just as bad. The official requirements for stupid, woke policies are legion. The cancer has crept into the administrative state of red states in some cases.
They will change their messaging and just keep governing the same way using old but less stupid words.
This will not change absent chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation.
I was thinking that would be quite an experiment. So I did ask perplexity.ai, using terms from the article and most words from my post. It took perplexity.ai about 2 seconds (rather alarming):
me: Could you create a statement of purpose, of under 700 words, that uses all (or most) of the following words....:
Certainly! Here’s a statement of purpose (under 700 words) using most of your requested terms:
In pursuing advanced study, my purpose is to critically examine, challenge, and subvert norms and systems of oppression that have perpetuated violence—especially environmental violence, housing insecurity, food insecurity, and barriers to participation for the unhoused, pregnant people, birthing and inseminated persons, and those who immigrated. My commitment lies in engaging critical theory and intersectional epistemologies to expose the taxonomizing apparatus that sustains privilege and upholds heteronormative patriarchy, often centering cisgender voices while othering LGBTQIA+ and subjugated knowledges.
The existential threat to climate, the planet, democracy, and the economy necessitates confronting the Overton Window that too frequently defines what is “acceptable” discourse, thereby triggering microaggression, invalidation, and assaults on marginalized stakeholders. I am committed to dialoguing across difference, holding space and creating safe spaces informed by radical transparency and the progressive stack, where those most impacted by violence and oppression—including persons experiencing body shaming, deadnaming, cultural appropriation, and housing insecurity—are centered rather than further marginalized.
Postmodernism inspires my rejection of universalizing narratives and reductionist taxonomies. Instead, I seek the liberatory potential of transnational, intersectional approaches against normativity. Using heuristic inquiry, I interrogate the ways in which social hierarchies, progressive stacks, and the structural normalization of privilege function as barriers to small “d” democracy and authentic stakeholder engagement. I believe in amplifying the voices of the unhoused, those experiencing food and housing insecurity, pregnant people, chest feeding parents, and those who immigrated, recognizing their lived experiences as vital forms of knowledge production.
My goal is to challenge the violence embedded within the ambient environment and to confront microaggression and invalidation in all forms. I recognize the necessity of dialoguing across intersections and holding space for the experiences of those routinely subject to othering—creating opportunities to deconstruct the Overton Window to allow room for new, emancipatory discourses. I reject the pervasiveness of body shaming and the policing of gender identities, advocating instead for radical transparency and the creation of environments where lived experience is valued above the interests of the taxonomizing apparatus.
Words that match their glasses.
LOL thanks. Think it will get tenure?
Certainly! Here is a statement of purpose under 700 words, using most of your terms, written from a critical perspective:
As someone engaged in dialogue with contemporary social justice discourses, I approach the language of subverting norms, confronting systems of oppression, and deploying critical theory with cautious skepticism. Postmodernist frameworks, the progressive stack, and the concept of safe spaces have shifted the Overton Window, yet these heuristic devices often function as taxonomizing apparatuses—categorizing individuals into ever-finer segments that risk triggering microaggressions of identity invalidation, othering, and division rather than genuine liberation.
While intersectional epistemologies and the centering of subjugated knowledges profess to unlock liberatory potential against normativity and the alleged environmental or societal violence of privilege and cisgender heteronormative patriarchy, their practical effect is frequently the reinforcement of new systems of control. Terms such as “chest feeding,” “birthing person,” “deadnaming,” and efforts to radically police language within safe spaces and dialogue are often presented as antidotes to harm. Yet they may instead generate barriers to participation and foster an atmosphere where dialoguing devolves into taxonomic scrutiny rather than mutual respect—particularly for stakeholders who feel constantly subject to ideological litmus tests and accusations of body shaming or micro-assault.
Rather than promoting small “d” democracy, many advocates of these frameworks risk perpetuating new systems of exclusion—employing the progressive stack to determine worthiness, centering groups but inadvertently othering persons who immigrated or those not fluent in the favored lexicon of oppression. Indeed, the ritual invocation of environmental violence, food insecurity, housing insecurity, or privilege can sometimes constitute a form of discursive violence, displacing nuanced lived realities in favor of performative radical transparency.
The language of “holding space” and “safe space” is purported to create environments of radical openness, yet often seems to amplify trigger warnings and elevate microaggressions to existential threats, undermining frank debate and intellectual risk-taking. The constant focus on cultural appropriation, transnational awareness, and intersectionality shifts attention away from core universal values and toward endless taxonomies that subvert the possibility of solidarity.
Moreover, in the drive to deconstruct normativity and privilege, the apparatus of critical theory too often enacts a sort of reverse othering, wherein “cisgender” and “heteronormative” individuals are cast as perpetual oppressors. The ideal of “radical transparency” morphs into relentless public confession, reinforcing social surveillance and conformity, while the call to amplify “subjugated knowledges” creates a climate inhospitable to dissent and genuine diversity of thought.
In addressing material concerns like the unhoused, those experiencing food insecurity, or birthing and inseminated persons, we must be wary of reducing individuals to identity markers, or viewing personhood solely through the prism of systems of oppression. Instead of genuine dialoguing, the prevailing discourse taxonomizes, polices language, and sets up heuristic frameworks that increase, rather than decrease, barriers to participation.
Ultimately, while the stated goal of these movements is the expansion of liberatory potential against normativity, the result is often the creation of new hierarchies, the reification of group boundaries, and the narrowing of the Overton Window around accepted dogmas. To avoid enacting fresh violence—environmental, social, or intellectual—we should be prepared to question the intersectional and postmodernist apparatus itself, fostering instead a truly open dialogue that respects complexity, rejects body shaming and othering in all forms, and remembers that the most radical transparency is found in earnest human engagement, not endless self-taxonomizing.
Yes, if more followed, which it could mass-produce. Imagine debating such!
Vote for this —> Don’t say the word “normies”.
George Orwell predicted this in his prophetic 1984 and dubbed it newspeak.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.