https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TM--QQAKlfY

Helen Pluckrose on Social Justice, Lived Experiences vs. Data, & Countering Ideological Pressure

Helen Pluckrose seems fine. This broad orgins podcast is a great way to start.

Helen is [successfully] doing that which her targets have done first.

Creating what I called in the 90s “a textmachine”, a discursive method and practice of which academia and scholarship are but a small part, with an authororial platform (I am jealous), (which nowadays we might attribute to a large languge model (LLM) or chatbot) when they copy the style/framework.

Yes, in the 70s as a democratising process this effort was began in consciouness raising when done in groups or groupwork, that lead to both reform, ideology and cult. However this goes back into the paleolithic. Pluckrose is criticising the non-grounded forms of these processes, i.e. emotional gnosticism.

The truth that she deals with in critique and in support for others suffering from it, is more anciently known as either:

1. Pharisee-ism, when form is more important (rites, rituals, routines & hierarchy/castes) in approaching godhood (good worlding), or as,

2. Dogmaticism, when the intentional state of a person is more important than the mere form, I.E. holding correct ideological precepts or beliefs will get you to paradise. Both can be seen as forms of “what would Jesus do” one is just more focussed on minding one’s mind, the other is more mindful about practises.

Neo-pyrrhonism suggests both these approaches (i.e. the way of moving or thinking) are unbalanced regardless of the accuracy of the beliefs, or the wholesomness of the moves.

I don’t care about what she is concerned about because I am a native anarchist in constant critique of both those types of formal and dogmatic types, and those pressures just don’t work on me. Even if I see it in the workplace.

For example (as an anarchist/liberal) I react against the framing of pomo discourses as some sort of pathology or conspiracy or programme, when they might just be regarded as a mistake. We always make mistakes, why call them something else. Calling them something else allows one to nurture a platform, it is intersting her career in writing start because epublishers contact her (more jealousy perhaps) as they have an idea of what works in the market.

This is a similar process to how pomo discourses spread via academic platforms. (I do not regard it as a consipiracy, perhaps just another mistake.) (Pot calling kettle black).

‘Pomo’ and Pluckrose contain many useful tools.

I am about to produce a reading of an author, the main originator of the “man the hunter” thesis in human evolution, because it contains useful stuff, and if I had not read it, because of the stupidity of the “man the hunter” thesis I would not be aware of those ideas or tools or frameworks.

This does not mean I am a believer in Robert Ardrey. Even if you find his name in my citations. Regardless patterns of behaviour are useful.

Thus I am suggesting that the framework of “no pomo for me” (generally) is can be doctrinal if not dogmatic.

At least where is it lets someone see me as something I am not (relativist, postmodernist). As this is a constant misapprehension of my writing and I have never sucessfully dealt with it then I can burden some of this load, but as I said aboce, in being slightly or mildly autistic and I am monottropically engaged, I do not care enough to change my authentic style, even if no publisher will ever approach me with an offer.

Helen Pluckrose seems fine. I am also a liberal humanist, with an anarchist bias.

That’s why I supported the voice, it acknowledge the prior ownership/sovereignty/worlding here. This is a liberal value btw. (yes, the anarchist bias or Proudhon in me, see property is theft, or liberty). Letting it be framed by recent Victorian notions of race, allows the ideologues to win. Letting in be framed by race (for or against) is an act of censorship. That is was called the ‘voice’ only highlights the crime.

The mistakes employers are making are the same mistakes they make when they implement any bureacratic form and think they are immune to bureacratic stupidities because they are not a government bureacracy. The mistakes are the result of ‘worlding’ but in an unbalances way.

Narcissists love both types of formalism and dogmaticism, because as concierge/gatekeepers and enforcers that can use rules to generate narcisstic supply, and then also shape the rules in their own image--- in which they enjoy enforcing such stupidities.

Stupidities can be reduced if we police our narcissists.

Helen Pluckrose seems fine. We are very close.

I’ll try the idenity trap next.