The whole “article” is like meta-reactionary though. From what I’ve read I agree that Stanford training sounds ridiculous. But this entire post is just the auth

The whole “article” is like meta-reactionary though. From what I’ve read I agree that Stanford training sounds ridiculous. But this entire post is just the author doing the very thing she’s accusing others of doing: > Building on the now-popular term “woke,” I have come to call this ideology, wokecraft. I use the metaphor of a spell because among believers are people in fields that rely on logic, reason, and science but who nonetheless appear unable to see that many of wokecraft's definitions — including new definitions of racism and antiracism — are tautological, and many of its foundational concepts (such as white fragility, white privilege, and microaggressions) are unfalsifiable. Is “wokecraft” not tautological and unfalsifiable? And all of her examples seem intended to speak to ideology over science - “toxic” masculinity, Israel’s “right to exist”, etc. There are lots of deliberately chosen and emotionally-loaded phrases in this writing. That’s the hallmark of ideology over science.