Here goes another one of my signature threads on the incredibly bulletproof #AntiWoke online echo chambers can be, focusing again on @wokal_distance. And before you remind me I have better things to do, remind yourself I am fully aware of this fact; I simply have no self-respect.

Tweet 3 is on the right track but misses the point. A metanarrative, as conceptualized by Lyotard, is a grand, totalizing, theory of everything: a theory that ends the infinite regress of epistemic justification. Lyotard's examples include Hegelian and Marxist theories of history

Re 4: Rather, postmodernism does not believe in the truth of any metanarrative.

And no, no, no, rejecting metanarratives does NOT mean denying the existence of absolute truth, and it does not necessarily lead to relativism, though it can suggest a banal sort of constructivism.

Yes, father, we are very clear on these things you tell us to believe. They make us feel better. Stupid relativists!

Wokal: The postmodernists CANNOT AVOID RELATIVISM!

Philosophers: Oh, gee whiz. Big, if true. What's your argument for that?

Wokal: IT IS IN FACT WHAT HAPPENED!

Philosophers: Hm. But surely, if it's true that none of these thinkers ever espoused relativism, and they in fact made it a point to clarify that they weren't relativists, there must be some more charitable reading available.

Wokal: No, seriously, I swear, they were wrong.

https://twitter.com/wokal_distance/status/1320874116274999296?s=20 Here Wokal introduces an article by Angela Harris that acknowledges a tension within critical race theory between "modernist" and "postmodernist" lines of thought.

Apparently Harris, in these screenshots, EXPLICITLY says she wants to "dissolve the concepts of neutrality and objectivity...to make a new system of law with new paradigms."

This sounds like a wrong answer to an SAT reading comprehension question. https://twitter.com/wokal_distance/status/1320879322547195905?s=20

What Harris is CLEARLY arguing is this: on the one hand, we must always remain committed to the ideals of objectivity and neutrality and the Enlightenment liberal project; but on the other, we must be eternally wary of the fact that imperial forces contaminate these pure ideals.

@ConceptualJames and @HPluckrose -- this guy is stealing your entire grift. Come collect your checks.

Ugh, Jesus, here we get middle-school level analysis of Sandra Harding and a reference to her as "Ms. Harding"

Failure to understand that Sandra Harding is in absolutely no way at all advocating any kind of epistemic relativism

Here Wokal interprets semantic and pragmatic arguments for embracing the terminology of "objectivity" as though it's some sort of admission of deceit. https://twitter.com/wokal_distance/status/1320898241001447424?s=20

This is not relativism, this is scientific anti-realism and pragmatism. Some of the greatest scientific minds of all time have vehemently defended these ideas. https://twitter.com/wokal_distance/status/1320899915002773505?s=20

Here we have some unfortunate @jasonintrator slander coupled with yet another case of a severe deficit in twelfth-grade reading comprehension skills.

Probably the closest thing to a coherent point I have yet to see from @wokal_distance -- credit where credit is due.

So... that's it. I think this thread was even more useless than the last one I dissected. I'm genuinely concerned for everyone who thinks Wokal taught them something valuable in this thread, and also for the general lack of literacy among the anti-Woke. I need a drink. [fin]