CTBOU77czpY.txt

Speaker 1:          00:00          So I got out a textbook, it was called race class and gender and it's, it's an anthology that's used in cultural studies courses in women's studies courses and it's Sorta the goto texts. So I'm told and I'm reading it and I turned it and I would turn to page 14 and I can tell you it's page 14 because I was so astounded by what I found and it said, uh, we. Oh, it says objectivity as found through rational thought is a western and masculine concept that we will challenge throughout this text. Yeah, right. Yeah. Yeah. And I said it's too bad. It's too bad that you're shocked by that because the want to go for irrational pc types have been saying exactly that since the 19 seventies. Like, that is exactly. Make no mistake about it. This is why mcclachi is wrong. This isn't, this isn't something they're secreting in.

Speaker 1:          00:52          This is the dead statement. Oh yeah. They said, um, the, the whole notion of logic and coherence and empirical data for that matter, the very nature of evidence. Let's question, let's question the definition of evidence because the underlying idea. Remember, the underlying idea here is that all hierarchies are predicated on power, so if the reason that I put forward something as evidence isn't because it's evidence, it's because it's evidence that I get to have that position of power, and so if you're a postmodernist and you say, well, I'm going to question your evidence, what you think you're saying is you're going to question my claim to that arbitrary power. The whole idea that there's evidence outside of claims of arbitrary power. The postmodernist dispensed without the 19 seventies. That's Derrida. That's exactly what he said it all. This time I've been trying to get samples of thousands so that I could say, this is a little bit.

Speaker 1:          01:46          We can say something God just in generalized. No, no. That just demonstrates how thoroughly entrenched you are in the reining patriarchal ideology, I guess, and I was just hoping to get beyond anecdotal. There's no beyond that. There's no beyond anecdotal. That's become a methodology. That's audible. It's called auto. Ethnography is a technical term for it and auto ethnography is the publication of a journey of a, of a private diary essentially in a hypothetically reputable, reputable academic journal. It it's only because of in the last three or four years that these things have been happening and I said, well, where do they get this? How do they, how do they find these thoughts? Yes. Well, we don't. We don't want to fall into the mistake of making, of making the assumption that this hasn't been thought through. People are not just misunderstanding what evidence is. That isn't what's happening at all.

Speaker 1:          02:43          When they say they want to question the definition of evidence, that's exactly what they mean when they say we want to question the definition of evidence because the definition of evidence currently supports the scientific power structure in chemistry say, and that's fundamentally dominated by let's say white men. We can go after the definition of evidence itself and that's how we're going to bring it down and so the next people on the hit list are going to be the biologists. They're already under attack from the social justice. It said that mathematics is whiteness, you know? Yeah, yeah, definitely. I didn't know that mathematics could have a race. Yeah, but thing. The thing is there's nothing logical about these claims. Once you accept this central axioms, the axioms are straightforward. The world is a battle ground of power hierarchies. That's what it is. There isn't anything else outside of that, and each power hierarchy generates its own internal narrative including rules for what constitutes evidence that support and buttress the structure of that hierarchy and because the hierarchy's exclude, then it's in the best interests of the people who are excluded to invert the hierarchy, and of course they also regard that as just even though that's part of the incoherence of the entire argument, that's where they have to turn to to Marxism, but make no mistake about it.

Speaker 1:          04:01          This isn't. This isn't accidental. It isn't. People misunderstanding what constitutes evidence. Not at all.