🌸🦋 @deepak_choppa - Twitter Profile

29 days ago

bell hooks said that White people will meet a Black person who completely challenges every racial stereotype that they have, but rather than giving up the stereotypes, they create a special category for that person and say, things like “Well, you’re not like other Black people”, instead of saying, “My ideas of Black people were too narrow”. This is called “subtyping” and it leads to the survival of negative stereotypes because the new category individual who’s supposedly “not like the others” is mentally isolated from the group. What this shows is that bigotry is all about protecting an existing hierarchy and it doesn’t matter much whether a person is exposed to other people or not. Which is why meeting intelligent, kind, accomplished, or complex Black people does not dismantle prejudice if someone is emotionally invested in keeping the stereotype intact. Exposure to facts and figures doesn’t change the situation either. Someone can know the statistics on crime, education, poverty, or discrimination and still keep racial stereotypes because the stereotype preserves a sense of superiority and avoids confronting historical responsibility. This is part of why bell hooks further argued that racism is emotional and ideological more than just purely ignorant, which is then why facts by themselves usually do not overcome a worldview that a person is motivated to preserve.

499

20K

6K

5K

914K

Deepak_Choppa retweeted

ɠɧıʂɧ

@rirokpik

about 1 month ago

Having a black partner or a black child doesn't mean you can't be racist. All it means is you find black people attractive. And guess what, the slave master's did, too. We are not fucking our way to liberation. Never use these lines again.

96

7K

2K

429

102K

Deepak_Choppa retweeted

Aaron Kheriaty

@AaronKheriatyMD

6 months ago

Science is a method, or more accurately, a collection of various methods, aimed at systematically investigating observable phenomena in the natural world. Rigorous science is characterized by hypothesis, experiment, testing, interpretation, and ongoing deliberation and debate. Put a group of real scientists in a room together and they will argue endlessly about the salience, significance, and interpretation of data, about the limitations and strengths of various research methodologies, and about the big picture questions. This is because, contrary to how it is often presented to the lay public, science is not an irrefutable body of knowledge. It is always provisional, always fallible, always open to revision. Scientism is the philosophical claim—which cannot be proven scientifically—that science is the only valid form of knowledge. Anyone who begins a sentence with the phrase, ‘Science says…’ is likely in the grip of scientism. Genuine scientists don’t talk like this; they begin sentences with phrases like, ‘The findings of this study suggest,’ or ‘This meta-analysis concluded…’. Scientism, by contrast, is a political, or even a religious, ideology. ‘It has been evident for quite a while that science has become our time’s religion,’ Georgio Agamben observed, ‘the thing which people believe that they believe in.’ When science becomes an ersatz religion—a closed and exclusionary belief system—we are dealing with scientism. The characteristic feature of science is warranted uncertainty, which leads to intellectual humility. The characteristic feature of scientism is unwarranted certainty, which leads to intellectual hubris. The assertion that science is the only valid form of knowledge is itself a metaphysical claim, smuggled in quietly through the backdoor. Scientism needs to hide this self-refuting fact from itself, so it is necessarily mendacious: dishonesty is baked into the system, and various forms of irrationalism follow. Because scientism cannot establish itself through rational argument, it relies instead on three tools to advance: brute force, defamation of critics, and the promise of future happiness. https://t.co/dJo62izHbC

71

815

279

260

47K