What is Reddit's opinion of
Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity―and Why This Harms Everybody?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
By popularity on Reddit, this product is:
84 reviews of this product found across Reddit:
Just bought Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay's book the other day!
It also comes in Kindle and Audible audiobook too.
For those that want a fair analysis of CRT and other contemporary frameworks like it, check out the book Cynical Theories by Pluckrose and Lindsay. They do an excellent job of describing the underpinning philosophy behind these movements and take care to point out some of the things CRT and the like actually do get right.
Those of you who think you have a good grasp on CRT would do well to check it out so you can have a more grounded understanding in the philosophy behind it.
Those of you who are critical of CRT would do well to check it out so you can actually know what you’re critiquing and not just throw around criticism so casually.
Oh, real quick, if you ever want to take a dive into the ideology I'm talking about without sitting down to a very boring helping of critical theory textbooks there's finally a digestible book on the topic here.
I've got a degree in that sorta crap (god forgive me) and it's nice to finally be able to point people to something singular rather than rant about French assholes and semiotics. It's not a perfect book on the topic, but it's close enough I think.
Non, sinon la CAQ ne serait jamais au pouvoir. J'ai lu Cynical Theories, je suis moi-même anciennement formé en sciences sociales, et l'extrême gauche à laquelle tu fais référence n'est pas au pouvoir. Il faudrait pour que cela survienne que QS soit élu. Heureusement, c'est loin d'être le cas.
Même le parti libéral ne va pas aussi loin. Et si tu regardes les partis élus dans les provinces canadiennes, très peu adhèrent à ces idées. Il ne faut pas confondre "les gens qui chialent bruyamment" et le parti au pouvoir.
>This is a super important topic to me that I feel really strongly about, because it's literally how the world around us actively works and oppresses people all around us in day to day things. I really cannot understand being so willingly ignorant about it.
It isn't literally how the world around us actively works, though. The ideas you're talking about are assertions made by a political religion, not a theory of how reality actually works. Descriptions of reality are known as 'scientific theories'. But the ideas you're passionate about come from various Critical Theories
Critical Theories imagine a utopia and then criticize everything that doesn't fit in with that utopic vision, thinking that if they criticize all the bad things, then only the good will remain, leaving humanity liberated from oppression. It's just rebranded Marxism, but instead of class it's about various identity categories within sexuality, gender, and race.
Since it's just Marxism rebranded, it won't work. But in the process of finding that out, a lot of relationships will be damaged by people who have a need to think of themselves as "a good person" (<--this is you).
>The thing is, this isn't a reflection of all of his attitudes - he is inclusive of everyone in practice and he would acknowledge and condemn most -ist behaviour that he became aware of happening to his loved ones. He just doesn't believe any of it is systemic and isn't interested in learning more.
So he's kind to people in actual practice, but has a different mental model of how the world works? How can you justify giving him a hard time for being kind in reality but without believing in the same exact concepts as you?
Yes, there’s an awesome book called Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity―and Why This Harms Everybody. Get it on audible or read the physical book. They really break down what’s going down from a liberal perspective into this social justice, aka “woke” perspective and how it got to this point. Has plenty of citations from the primary sources from the social justice literature. Please read it and spread the good word on the fundamentals of the social justice philosophy so understand what it’s about. I see a lot of people saying the same tropes about wokism but they don’t really know what the literature on it is saying
Just because you want to play the whole "My side's shit doesn't stink" like a true believer doesn't mean there isn't a huge pile of it. Doesn't take much to hit up the activist spaces IRL and see it's all the same jockeying for power and sorting people into sinners and saints based on what they can't change. Or the same "do as I say and not as I do" from the powerful of both right and left.
Totally recommend Cynical Theories by a team of academics who successfully demonstrated the extent of groupthink and ideological lockstep in the humanities, a They are NOT right wing and that's clear. However, they exposed some huge issues and people got butthurt.
Ditto.
It's not me that has changed my values, it's that "woke" culture postmodernist idiots are drinking the Critical Theory Kool-Aid and throwing common sense out the window.
I can not overstate how eye opening it is to read the book Cynical Theories on this subject. You should also follow a lecture on post-modernism by Stephen Hicks.
>the idea that anything can be unnatural is a human theoretical construct
Of course. Just like the whole of reality is a human theoretical construct. Critical Theory is anti-rational, anti-philosophical drivel.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Cynical-Theories-Scholarship-Everything-Identity/dp/1634312023
Maybe you should read this...so you can keep up with the conversation.
>I can already hear some men shrugging this kind of findings off and saying it’s all bs. Wouldn’t be surprised
Maybe that is because people like you have spent the last few years making absolutely everything about gender and race, so now nobody takes anything you say seriously any more. It's called "crying wolf."
Not sure what you are saying. We are still waiting for a workers revolution in Europe.
The problem with CT isn't its predictive failures, but its basic disengagement with realism. It is intentionally dishonest. This, basically.
hey thanks. i'm currently reading this book as a counterpoint to all the critical theory stuff (which, it claims, is based on post-modern thought) i've seen seeping into popular dialogue. it's obviously biased, but i'm wondering if "real" philosophers would take issue with it? kinda how ayn rand is a joke in philosophical circles.
I maybe will. I actually read one about Ethnicity and family therapy from Monica McGoldrick. I suggest you to read Cynical Theories. Just so you can learn where all people (and yes, we exist) that oppose this kind of view are mistaken.
​
> This frightens me.
You shouldn't be frightened by other ways of thinking. After all, you work with people and there are all kind of people and we ain't orcs that have only one opinion on complex matter, nor you are so smart that you solved the World most complex questions so you know the only truth (and I ain't one also lol).
It's not possible to have honest conversations with members of the cult of critical race theory, you do not receive reality without a lens you have been indoctrinated into having.
Study up: https://www.amazon.com/Cynical-Theories-Scholarship-Everything-Identity_and/dp/1634312023
Read the original post.
It's specifically talking about people who hold these beliefs, but also hold the view that people of colour can't be racist.
In real world contexts, this may be justified depending on an individual's situation.
But in academic settings - statements like "Europeans are the source of slavery" are absurd and objectively false.
Helen Pluckrose's new book which explains CRT theories in their original and modern contexts explains a lot with respect to how academic activists are using them.
https://www.amazon.com.au/Cynical-Theories-Scholarship-Everything-Identity/dp/1634312023
Spread this far and wide: Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity―and Why This Harms Everybody by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay
Liberals are not "moderate right" and progressives are not "center left".
From the very left of center we have books like this: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1634312023/ref=cm\_sw\_r\_tw\_dp\_x\_rc9uFb52TXPJF
Critical race theory is designed to be a racist theory of power and privilege that creates racism and racist attitudes in white people and minimizes or ignores the racism of others.
Not being familiar with the way in which the discipline subverts the meaning of the term is a red flag. Let me recommend Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity―and Why This Harms Everybody.
>Parce que ça ne veut rien dire, et j'ai à maintes reprises expliquer pourquoi. Mais toi tu es trop attaché à tes "experts" qui disent ce que tu veux entendre pour engager une discussion. Tu as choisi de mauvaise foi de jouer dans l'insulte et dans les sophismes.
Menteur, tu n'as jamais expliqué ça, tu as dit que c'était inutile de se fier à 60 ans d'études la dessus parce que c'était des crosseurs, des menteurs, des gens de gauches pis des féministes.
​
>Menteur. Ton action prouve que tu fais tout le contraire.
Menteur. Aucune action n'a été effectuée ici. Juste de l'argumentation inutile.
>Sinon, il est impossible de commencer nulle part. Ça ne veut pas dire qu'elles sont vraies, elles peuvent être erronées, mais dans le raisonnement, elles sont considérées comme vraies sans besoin de démonstration.
Wow, merci de redire exactement ce que j'ai dit tout en étant encore moins clair que moi. Une chance qu'on t'a!
Mais bon, on va passer par dessus le fais que tu contredis ton message d'avant ou tu disais:
>Dans un raisonnement logique, il y a les prémisses un ce qui est considéré comme vrai sans besoin de démonstration
Mais tu viens de dire le contraire, elle peuvent être fausses, donc elles doivent être démontrées.
Es-tu certain de suivre ton propre fil?
>Tiens, le gars que j'ai utilisé comme source a publié plusieurs livres et son livre le plus récent sur les thèses que tu supportes est #1 sur Amazon. Du coup, selon ton argument, ça veut dire qu'il a raison et que t'as tort. T'inquiète pas, je ne m'attends pas à ce que tu l'admettes, tu vas trouver une autre excuse, tu es trop prévisible.
Encore un appel à l'autorité! Mon dieu, une chance que tu argumentes pas avec toi même, tu te ferais pas faire long feu!
She's not alone in panning critical race theory. The 2020 book:
> Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity―and Why This Harms Everybody https://www.amazon.com/Cynical-Theories-Scholarship-Everything-Identity_and/dp/1634312023
by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay traces the evolution of critical race theory from its roots in postmodernist theory and explains its many limitations.
In the online publication New Discourses, Pluckrose and Lindsay provide what they call a "Principled Statement of Opposition to Critical Race Theory." Here is an excerpt:
> In light of the present turmoil, we’re happy to show you this as an excerpt from our book: an example of a principled statement of opposition to the ideology beneath the present mayhem. The statement below applies to the postmodern critical theory called Critical Race Theory, which deals with ideas of race and racism and is covered in great detail in Chapter 5 of Cynical Theories. It reads as follows:
> We affirm that racism remains a problem in society and needs to be addressed.
> We deny that critical race Theory and intersectionality provide the most useful tools to do so, since we believe that racial issues are best solved through the most rigorous analyses possible.
> We contend that racism is defined as prejudiced attitudes and discriminatory behavior against individuals or groups on the grounds of race and can be successfully addressed as such.
> We deny that racism is hard-baked into society via discourses, that it is unavoidable and present in every interaction to be discovered and called out, and that this is part of a ubiquitous systemic problem that is everywhere, always, and all-pervasive.
> We deny that the best way to deal with racism is by restoring social significance to racial categories and radically heightening their salience.
> We contend that each individual can choose not to hold racist views and should be expected to do so, that racism is declining over time and becoming rarer, that we can and should see one another as humans first and members of certain races second, that issues of race are best dealt with by being honest about racialized experiences, while still working towards shared goals and a common vision, and that the principle of not discriminating by race should be universally upheld.
> We believe making and committing to statements like this can start to make a difference that can walk our societies back from the edge and are glad to share them. We’re grateful to everyone who gives them thought. We’re also grateful to people who will take them up as a template for moving forward together toward building a more unified community.
This is in no way an endorsement of Jeanette Schade or of her views or position on critical race theory or any other subject of any kind.
Thanks for the video. Ended up going a bit down the rabbit hole. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Cynical-Theories-Scholarship-Everything-Identity/dp/1634312023
This seems like an interesting read.
Weird ain't it, that we're slowly becoming accustomed to how frequent these sayings are becoming?
So frequent some real scientists had to write a book about it https://www.amazon.com/Cynical-Theories-Scholarship-Everything-Identity_and/dp/1634312023
And even wrote fake papers that got published in these pseduo-scientific fake journals masquerading as actual science. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair
I hope this is sarcasm, critical race theory, what a pile of manure.
https://www.amazon.com/Cynical-Theories-Scholarship-Everything-Identity_and/dp/1634312023
Yes, just try to have a good time. And keep trying to understand everything.
As for being woke, it's not what it's cracked up to be... https://www.amazon.co.uk/Cynical-Theories-Scholarship-Everything-Identity/dp/1634312023
Já acontece: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1634312023/
While this is far from an unbiased source, the book Cynical Theories does a good job of explaining what Critical Theory is, where it originated, and how its philosophical roots in postmodernism work. I think it also does a good job of explaining why CT is such a big problem, and is doomed to degrade rather than improve the world.
If you are interested, DM me and I can send you either a PDF or an audiobook.
I was going to leave a TL;DR on critical theory, but it turned into an essay. I feel like everything I wrote is important so I'm leaving it, but my apologies for leaving such a long response.
*****
The tl;dr on Critical Theory is related to postmodernism. Postmodernism is based around the idea that objective truth exists, but is entirely inaccessible to us as subjective humans. Because we have no way of knowing whether our most foundational beliefs accurately reflect the objective world, no one epistemology (or way of separating truth from fiction) can be measured to be better or worse than another. In this view, the scientific method is simply one epistemology along side, say, native American religious epistemologies that say truth is determined by what god X, Y and Z do. The only reason you accept the scientific method epistemology is because of cultural reasons, and not because it's any more accurate than the religious epistemology, for example.
If you only accept your epistemology because of cultural reasons, that must surely mean that your epistemology is nothing more than an expression of cultural power. White male figures are most prominent in the history of the Age of Enlightenment, and continue to be very successful in scientific / STEM fields, so enlightenment values and ways of knowing the world, including the scientific method, must therefore be nothing more than an expression of white male cultural dominance.
Critical Theory, and Critical Race Theory, takes this set of logical conclusions and decides that, in the interest of creating a fair world, we must correct for overvaluing white male grand narratives (including what they see as the white male narrative of the scientific method), and push systems based on it back down to be equal with other racial grand narratives, such as a Black epistemology or a Hispanic epistemology or an Indian epistemology, and so on. They seek to create equality of outcome (hence their use of the term "equity" instead of "equality"), because any deviation between population level success must be purely due to certain grand narratives being valued over others, since all narratives / cultures / epistemologies are equal.
Critical Race Theory is also much more hands-on than pure postmodernism is; it's almost like an "applied postmodernism". It includes a set ways to examine any system with winners and losers and to determine how it's prejudiced for / against classes of people based on how well they tend to succeed in that system.
*****
In my opinion, postmodernism is dead wrong, and takes philosophy's failure to prove with certainty that our experiences mirror the objective world way too far. I'm sorry this turned into such an essay, but the question of "What is Critical Theory" is deep if you want to understand why it has the conclusions it has.
Pluckrose/Lindsay: Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity―and Why This Harms Everybody, 2020. 978-1634312028 (https://www.amazon.com/Cynical-Theories-Scholarship-Everything-Identity_and/dp/1634312023).
Hicks: Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault (Expanded Edition). 978-0983258407 (https://www.amazon.com/Explaining-Postmodernism-Skepticism-Socialism-Rousseau/dp/0983258406).
Murray: The Madness of Crowds: Gender, Race and Identity, 2019. 978-1635579987 (https://www.amazon.com/Madness-Crowds-Gender-Race-Identity/dp/1635579988).
You need to read this book: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Cynical-Theories-Scholarship-Everything-Identity/dp/1634312023
This 50 min video by one of the authors is also a decent place to start:
https://newdiscourses.com/2020/03/james-lindsay-truth-critical-methods/
https://www.amazon.com/Cynical-Theories-Scholarship-Everything-Identity_and/dp/1634312023
This will make them mad lol, edit. Not out untill Aug 25 the tho
Cynical Theories von Pluckrose und Lindsay
Würde dir glaube ich wirklich gut tun das zu lesen.
This was such a hard book to read, especially the first 4 chapters.
I will direct you to a book by James Lindsay and Helen Pluckrose which I found quite horrifying and enlightening about this social phenomenon.
Please don’t become one of them.
Jak wspominać o książkach to polecam:
https://www.amazon.com/Cynical-Theories-Scholarship-Everything-Identity_and/dp/1634312023/
https://www.amazon.com/Counter-Wokecraft-Manual-Combatting-University/dp/B09LH2L3B6/
(i "lżejsze" https://www.amazon.com/Social-justice-Important-Wrong-Reader-Friendly/dp/1634312236/)
James Lindsay is a pioneer in CRT criticism, he wrote the book on it. Worth checking out - he's on Twitter too -" ConceptualJames"
>Helen Pluckrose
Have you ever read a work by Helen Pluckrose? She is one of the critics of social justice wokeness. She is one of the foremost critics of CRT.
https://www.amazon.com/Cynical-Theories-Scholarship-Everything-Identity_and/dp/1634312023
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair
I really see no reason to engage in further discussion with you when you literally claim that people hold positions opposite to what they actually do.
Never has someone exemplified "Ignore is strength" better than you just did.
Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity―and Why This Harms Everybody https://www.amazon.com/dp/1634312023/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_glt_fabc_D26PW7D5FTEAPZB1RAGK
Ah the ol' "fraudulent papers" spin. Are you going to mention that fact that many of these hoax papers (who's entire purpose was expressly to expose the kind of fake scholarship that critical theory is based upon), were not only accepted into the journals, but won awards for being top level "scholarship". I never thought I'd see the Grievance studies affair being spun and dismissed in this way by people in the IDW sub of all places.
He also co-authored a book on the topic of critical theory for what its worth: Cynical Theories.
Uggg I knew engaging with you was going to be a mistake. Ill give it one more shot.
We are not calling any minority community Woke. Woke is a label for the branch of philosophy which we think is harmful to those groups as well as everybody else. Most liberals will agree with the same core issues as the woke. This is about solutions and the liberals think the woke solutions are bad/racist/divisive.
Wokism is fractured by definition into many different critical theories. They all take the same philosophical stance. It is an anti-enlightenment movement. Most people who are anti-woke are in favour of enlightenment humanism or liberalism. There are of course conservatives and "Vulgar Marxists" too but they are far less common. Most conservatives in the USA draw their values more from Liberalism than for Burkean Conservatism.
If you think Wokism and liberalism are similar then you are just not versed on the topic. If you are are going to post these types of arguments I would suggest you take some advice from a pillar on my side.
“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”
Either learn about the issues and have an honest debate for why your side is good or keep out of it. It is hard to tell if you are aware of the arguments for both sides or not. If not here is a good book to get up to speed
If you are not into reading there is a ton of stuff on youtube. The most concise explanation of the political landscape I have seen is this.
Okay, second reply to give you a bit more substance.
To start off, I have a BA in philosophy and a law degree. I graduated in 2010, and much of the evolution of of identify studies classes has really happened since then. So as much as I'd like to give you a full accounting of the evolution of postmodern theory into modern identity studies, I'm not the best person to do it.
I am, however, a big fan of Steven Pinker. And about a year ago he tweeted a review of a book called Cynical Theories, which I then read. It connected the dots between what I'd learned and studied in school with more modern - well, orange libleft - trends in liberal arts education.
The first half of the book is a relatively judgment-free sort of scholarly family tree of the big names and concepts in modern identity studies going back to Foucault. It's nicely focused on the academic lineage too, mostly avoiding slinging mud over the controversies surrounding many of the academics it mentions.
The second half . . . well, I agree with its politics, but it could've used a bit more editing and focus. It's still a good read.
Take this for what it is: a biased book recommendation from some random asshole on the Internet. But I think Cynical Theories is a pretty charitable reading of the academic history, and certainly more thorough than I can put in a reddit comment.
There are answers, but they're not that simple.
https://www.amazon.com/Cynical-Theories-Scholarship-Everything-Identity_and/dp/1634312023
It's already happening and they are using woke ideology (CRT) to do it.
Columbia University:
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/mar/16/universities-columbia-encourage-racial-segregation/
NYU:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/08/segregation-returns-to-campus/
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/498992-racial-segregation-us-universities/
Williams College:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/05/american-colleges-segregated-housing-graduation-ceremonies/
Even Bill Maher has addressed this as a concern.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9g60j8iJz0
It's ok to be uninformed about America, we're British that's fine. But don't just dismiss it... It's great to read the headlines that woke = good people but when you actually read into what their ideas are it's really concerning.
This is a really good book if you're interested in actually learning about this stuff:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Cynical-Theories-Scholarship-Everything-Identity/dp/1634312023
>What is critical theory?
Critical Theory is a form of post-modern philosophy. If you try to understand it on its own terms, it will be incomprensible. In order to comprehend it, you must allow yourself to be brainwashed by it. That is quite deliberate.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Cynical-Theories-Scholarship-Everything-Identity/dp/1634312023
>Have you heard that language is violence and that science is sexist? Have you read that certain people shouldn’t practice yoga or cook Chinese food? Or been told that being obese is healthy, that there is no such thing as biological sex, or that only white people can be racist? Are you confused by these ideas, and do you wonder how they have managed so quickly to challenge the very logic of Western society? In this probing and intrepid volume, Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay document the evolution of the dogma that informs these ideas, from its coarse origins in French postmodernism to its refinement within activist academic fields. Today this dogma is recognizable as much by its effects, such as cancel culture and social-media dogpiles, as by its tenets, which are all too often embraced as axiomatic in mainstream media: knowledge is a social construct; science and reason are tools of oppression; all human interactions are sites of oppressive power play; and language is dangerous. As Pluckrose and Lindsay warn, the unchecked proliferation of these anti-Enlightenment beliefs present a threat not only to liberal democracy but also to modernity itself.
​
>How does your thinking change of this is true?
I am dismissing that piece because it was written in the language of Critical Theory. The moment it started talking about gender being a colonialist construct, I stopped reading.
No, race, gender and species are not "colonial constructs".
If you want to understand where this meaningless babble comes from, see: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Cynical-Theories-Scholarship-Everything-Identity/dp/1634312023
I strongly recommend you give this a read:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Cynical-Theories-Scholarship-Everything-Identity/dp/1634312023
Critical theory is absolutely about rejecting liberalism. Or at least, that’s the general trend of the current iteration. Check out James Lindsay for more on this line of thinking. If you want to go further down the rabbit hole, the book he co-wrote with Helen Pluckrose goes over the philosophical roots of critical theory in exacting detail.
>) I was of the mindset that class solidarity should take precedence over other social justice issues. This isn't to say they're unimportant, just that they tend to distract us.
They aren't merely a distraction. They are totally alienating the exact demographic that socialism initially set out to defend: the traditional working class, who tend to be socially conservative. Not Christian fundamentalist sort of conservative, but non-class social justice issues aren't their priority, and they are alienated by modern woke culture, which is primarily driven by middle class people. That's the problem - they see feminist activists claiming to be oppressed by the patriarchy, but it is quite clear that the people claiming to be oppressed aren't oppressed at all. They are actually quite privileged, which is exactly why they are more concerned about "social justice" than they are about economic justice.
> She vehemently disagreed with this. She's from the EU, and noted that women didn't get the right to vote (in national elections) until 1944 (France), 1945 (Hungary), 1946 (Romania), 1948 (Belgium), 1971 (Switzerland), 1976 (Portugal), and 1977 (Spain).
Sure. But it is 2021, not 1977. Women have the vote now, right across the western world. That battle has been won. Meanwhile, economic inequality keeps getting bigger. That battle has been lost.
> Her point was that prioritizing labor movements over other social inequities lead to greater social inequity. She's of the opinion that a class revolt can only succeed if labor movements fight alongside other social justice movements.
I believe she is completely wrong. A class revolt can only succeed if the woke/IDpol culture accepts that their concerns must take second place to economic justice. The problem is that wokeness is detached from reality. And the reason comes down to philosophy - a particularly bankrupt branch of philosophy known as "Critical Theory": https://www.amazon.co.uk/Cynical-Theories-Scholarship-Everything-Identity/dp/1634312023
> I pointed out that identity politics tends to divide the working class, rather than uniting them (at least in the U.S.).
Not just the US. Everywhere in the western world. Identity Politics is a middle class movement.
> Anyway, I'm interested to hear your thoughts and to know how you think epistemology fits into this, what you mean by your 2 premises, what you mean by "metaphysical materialism," etc. At first glance, I imagine it's a critique of the propaganda MSM machine in the U.S., but I'm not sure. Care to elaborate?
By metaphysical materialism I mean the belief that reality is made of matter, and nothing else. Materialism should have died when quantum mechanics appeared. It belongs in the 19th century. And yet it is unquestioningly believed by most scientists - it has been turned into a sort of religion. And yet it is wrong. Logically false. Probably the best example of where this needs to go is Thomas Nagel: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Mind-Cosmos-Materialist-Neo-Darwinian-Conception/dp/0199919755
Why does this matter? I believe the whole of our society is based on this premise that the material world is all that matters. People have been reduced to meat machines. Accepting that materialism is logically false (here is my version of the logical refutation: https://new.reddit.com/r/Metaphysics/comments/jidq3r/refutation_of_materialism/) opens the door to a completely new "epistemic deal". A peace treaty between science and spirituality, and a new understanding of truth. The scientific/skeptic/atheist side of the deal is to accept materialism is false, which opens the door to all sorts of things that materialism rules out. But there needs to be two sides to this deal, and this is where we run into Critical Theory and Woke culture. CT and wokeness is detached from scientific reality. It believes everything is a social construct. Gender isn't real. You can be a woman if your experience tells you you are a woman, even if you have a penis. The patriarchy is real if you feel oppressed, regardless of whether there's any actual evidence for its existence. So the other side of the deal is to acknowledge scientific realism - that there is a mind-external world, and that science works because our best scientific theories reflect it. In other words, everybody agrees to take science very seriously indeed. People with penises and Y-chromosomes ARE MEN.
None of this has much to do with politics. It's about truth. It's a new deal for people to be able to agree about what we know, what we don't know, and how we know it (or don't know it). I believe that this is the first step in a complete reconfiguration of politics and society. It opens the door to a new sort of meta-ideology, where there is room for both science and spirituality, and we've got an epistemic foundation where people can agree about truth and knowledge.
Then we can start on the next level, which is ethics, economics and politics. At the moment everybody is just shouting at each other - talking past each other.
Hope that made some sort of sense.
First, look up the definition of "cant," then read this to get a sense of the language problem in academia:
https://www.amazon.com/Cynical-Theories-Scholarship-Everything-Identity_and/dp/1634312023
A "lobby" is a group of political activists. I distinguish between this and individuals. Political action groups are not "all powerful" but do have a great deal of influence. I also use the term to describe loud public advocates of woke re-education. I will not explain to you what I mean by "woke re-education," but you might begin by looking at the "Gender Unicorn" and recent efforts to allow biological men into women's sports and the hodgepodge of dubious concepts collectively known as "critical race theory": https://www.amazon.com/Critical-Race-Theory-Third-Introduction/dp/147980276X/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=critical+race+theory&qid=1615993905&s=books&sr=1-1
Quem quiser estudar mais sobre a maior ameaça ideológica contra a Humanidade no presente, recomendo este livro: https://www.amazon.com/Cynical-Theories-Scholarship-Everything-Identity_and/dp/1634312023
Are you aware of this book: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Cynical-Theories-Scholarship-Everything-Identity/dp/1634312023?
>TLDR: Anonymous apologists remind me that the Blue Team's "unrepresentative crazies" are the only ones allowed to talk about race under their real names.
This is an exaggeration (Counterexamples: 1, 2, 3, 4). There are a lot of liberals who are openly woke-skeptical. They're not about to chase Ibram X Kendi out of polite society, but they're also not going along with literally everything that he says either.
>A progressive like Sarah Jeong can denigrate my racial group on Twitter in a way that would absolutely not be tolerated in regard to any other, and still be hired by the New York Times. The progressive left maintains an entire media ecosystem where the assorted failings of my racial group are a topic of frequent discussion. They have done absolutely nothing to earn any benefit of the doubt.
So there's obviously a double standard when talking about race, but in terms of the sheer venom or mendacity, I don't see this as dramatically different than the prominent right-wing media personalities (e.g. Sean Hannity). Both parties have their mudslingers. I'm not asking you to like these people*,* just to understand that the partisan environment is larger than they are.
> Like hey, don't listen to most of our media or any of our academics, just trust me, everyone important totally disagrees with them even though you'll never hear any of them say so lest they be ruined. It's borderline surreal.
See counterexamples above. I don't want to downplay the fact that progressives have taken over a lot of important institutions-- multiple schools, news publications, companies, and the governments of several cities. But in national politics stage, yes, liberals have held the line. And I can see liberals beginning to self-consciously organize in a way that will make it easier to speak out against progressive moral claims within institutions in the future.
Meanwhile, on the red side, it's astounding to me the extent to which Trump personally, by virtue of holding the presidency, has captured right-wing news media, religious institutions, and the executive branch of the federal government.
For the longest time, I thought it was just really complex, and I didn't have the academic background to really understand it. What crystallized everything for me was reading "Cynical Theories", particularly the chapter on Queer Theory. The simple answer is -- not making sense is a *feature*, not a bug. It's the whole goddam point. Clear definitions are avoided, contradictions are embraced, and the ideology is spread through pseudo-moral brow-beating rather than through any actual relationship to reality.
If you're interested, here's a wall of text with some of my own thinking on the topic at the moment. (I'd be really interested to get other honest, good-faith perspectives too; I'm just totally disillusioned with this postmodern bullshit.)
First, some definitions: separating something called "sex" from something called "gender" makes sense to me; I'd further split out "gender" from "gender roles". Basically "hardware" vs "firmware" vs "software". "Sex" is defined by what gametes an individual has the biological "hardware" to produce, "gender" is the set of biologically evolved factors influencing reproductive strategy (instinct, hormones, "firmware") and a "gender role" is the socially evolved "software" to be a "man" or "woman" depending on the ideals of a given culture.
Sex makes sense as a strict binary -- while it can be impacted by genetic variation (this is a pretty great thread on the topic), ultimately sex is tied to reproductive function, and humans reproduce through the combination of male and female gametes. Different peoples' hardware can be more or less effective at producing functional male or female gametes, and may display more or less pronounced secondary sexual characteristics, but there is no "intersex gamete". Gender is a bit looser -- the a healthy gene pool will have a diverse set of genetic strategies available to keep the species going (this gets to some overlap with "sexuality", but that deserves its own category -- but it's worth noting that the prevalence of same-sex attraction indicates successful genetic survival strategies are not strictly limited to those favoring individual reproduction). Whatever reproductive strategies are currently most effective will be more common in a given population -- but like any evolved characteristics, variation allows a population to flow to a new strategy as external factors change. Gender Roles have a fascinating interplay with Gender -- the spectrum of ideas a society has for what characteristics make an ideal mate is driven by the distribution of genetic difference between male and female segments of the population while simultaneously impacting which of those characteristics are selected for in the next generation.
Some people's gender firmware isn't totally matched to their physical hardware, which I completely believe can be pretty distressing for them. To my knowledge, physically transitioning is currently the best way we have to alleviate that dissonance, and others allowing them to socially transition (e.g. using their preferred name/pronouns) makes sense as well. Insisting, full stop, "trans women are women" in the context of, say, sports divisions created to allow women fair competition with those of similar biological characteristics does not. Creating better space in society for trans people is absolutely worth working on, and it's really unfortunate that the most vocal people on the subject at the moment attack any deviation from the party line as bigotry, particularly when the party line doesn't seem to be primarily interested in actually solving the problem.
I hate ascribing motives to others, and in the overwhelming majority of cases I'm sure people honestly think that they're advocating on behalf of trans people, but functionally, queer activism is really not driven by what is best for the people who need it. Instead, it seems to appropriate their struggle in service of the postmodern goal of tearing down linguistic categories. I know one person who has actually transitioned, and I'm happy to use their preferred, gender-neutral pronouns -- I also know a number of women who insist on the same pronouns, despite being otherwise completely typically female. It's hard to see that as anything but woke tribal performativity. It's completely normal to have lots of variation within gender; reducing pressure to conform to dominant social ideas of gender roles is a completely different thing than attacking the existence of the sexual binary altogether.
Hi Kevin,
I'm sure you're aware of growing social tensions, a lot of it focused around an almost religious ideology rooted in what is being called Critical Race Theory. This is where a lot of the modern "diversity, equity, inclusion", or "DEI" initiatives come from. The Pittsford town supervisor recently criticized these initiatives for what they are, which were promptly and unsurprisingly labeled as "racist" by a town board member.
Bret Weinstein (who has previously interviewed Justin Amash) recently discussed this in detail with guests on how this affects voting choice in the upcoming election. One of those guests has repeatedly given talks, written books, research papers, recorded podcasts, and has an entire website dedicated to breaking down and teaching the average person about this ideology and how toxic it is.
I bring all this up because this ideology is becoming an increasing issue within the city, which is sometimes exacerbated by city hall. It fuels the rift between public opinion and law enforcement, and makes topics such as "antifa" and "Black Lives Matter" increasingly contentious topics of discussion. Given the diversity of NY25, do you have any thoughts on this matter or ideas on how to bridge this growing divide amongst constituents?
The moment you see the word "deconstruct" then alarm bells should go off. This is inspired the by intellectual garbage known as "Critical Theory".
See: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Cynical-Theories-Scholarship-Everything-Identity/dp/1634312023
Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity―and Why This Harms Everybody https://www.amazon.com/dp/1634312023/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_qOiGFb5PRFDJE
>Illiberalism seems to losely relate to authoritarianism and bigotry.
Intersectional feminism is authoritarian and bigoted. The whole of identity politics is.
> social sciences and movements that concern themselves with social justice seems like a huge stretch.
I don't have a problem with legitimate social sciences. "Movements that concern themselves with social justice" is another matter. It depends on how they go about their business. I have no problem with liberal feminism.
> Can you point me to where proponents of Critical Theory claim to invalidate the scientific method?
They don't claim to invalidate the scientific method. They claim that science is just another "metanarrative", with no legitimate epistemic privilege. That is how they end up believing sex and gender aren't binary.
> I'd like to read more about this.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Cynical-Theories-Scholarship-Everything-Identity/dp/1634312023
> Are these value judgements on your behalf or actual claims made by proponents of CT?
they are actual claims made by the proponents of CT
The closest thing to a Mr Critical was Michel Foucault, with Jacques Derrida as his sidekick. Their ideas ultimately derive from Nietzsche and Wittgenstein.
The latter two ended up justifying a radical sort of skepticism about our ability to discover or speak about objective truth, of any sort. Foucault and Derrida turned this into a thing about power - about the power of language games, and the need to disrupt and deconstruct language and knowledge structures in order to free marginalised groups from oppression. But the real problems started in the 60s and 70s when people like Judith Butler then started claiming that even though science can't tell us any objective truths about reality, we can know things like "The Patriarchy" are real, because we directly experience being oppressed by them. So, only women can know that, not men.
It is all explained in this book: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Cynical-Theories-Scholarship-Everything-Identity/dp/1634312023
And here is 300 pages of academic text (vs. a YouTube grifter) about why CRT is dangerous and not even linear, if you are interested in real knowledge. (I know the task of reading a book is daunting for YouTube watchers).
Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity―and Why This Harms Everybody https://www.amazon.com/dp/1634312023/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_5mkFFbZMP5T0S
By the way, my argument was not a strawman. Learn your fallacies here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
I gave you factual statements and logical testimony.
I really suggest you learn more about CRT. Do some actual reading.
Short reason: it's more racist than the KKK, more sexist than Jack the Ripper, and holds its ideas dogmatically in the face of contrary evidence.
Longer, MUCH longer, but properly detailed reason: Read Cynical Theories by Pluckrose and Lindsay, if you want to know. Or go to https://www.reddit.com/r/NewDiscourses/ to get an intro to Lindsay's personal take.
Oh good! In that case, the following post about a recently-published book should not be deleted. My question is what do you think of the book?
I am a liberal feminist. That is, I believe in gender equality through equality of opportunity, but I also hold dear liberal values in general (including honest debate and free speech). I am also a scientific realist. That means I believe there is an objective, mind-external reality, and that science works because our best scientific theories reflect that reality (not perfectly, but approaching it).
The book claims that the intellectual roots of modern woke culture are shallow, corrupt and immoral. Put simply, there's something called "Critical Theory", which is an offshoot of philosophical postmodernism. Postmodernism involves "radical skepticism" - including skepticism about the existence of an objective reality, and therefore of scientific truth. That's quite bad in some ways, but relatively harmless - the original postmodernists accepted that postmodernism undermined all objective truth claims, so didn't make any of their own. What Critical Theory then did was to make the following observation: "Even though there is no objective reality or truth, I feel oppression. Therefore oppression is objectively real. " It is like Descartes "Cogito ergo sum", except instead of "I think therefore I am", it is "I experience oppression, therefore oppression is real."
This means it literally denies the reality of science and an external world, but affirms the reality of patriarchal oppression (other branches of CT are based on the foundational reality of other forms of "systemic oppression").
50 mins lecture by one of the authors here.
Also see this.
The message of this book is this: Feminism and related woke idiocy aren't stupid. They are deeply cynical, proudly irrational and incoherent, regressive and immoral. The book points out that the victories won by feminists in the last century were won on the back of liberalism and rationalism, not post-modernist relativism, anti-liberal suppression of open dialogue, and certainly not denial of scientific reality and rationalism.
For anyone interested, this is worth a read. Its by the people who did the grievance studies hoax
https://www.amazon.com/Cynical-Theories-Scholarship-Everything-Identity_and/dp/1634312023/ref=sr_1_1
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/new-sokal-hoax/572212/
"Some form of identity politics"?
Identity politics has a very clear root. It came from somewhere, and that somewhere is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory. Critical theory has one over-riding goal, and that is to provoke a social revolution which displaces white, western men from their perceived place of structural power.
IDpol is, by design, discriminatory against that demographic.
I am rather surprised that people here do not understand this history. If you want to learn more about it, read this book: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Cynical-Theories-Scholarship-Everything-Identity/dp/1634312023
Any training based on Critical Race Theory will only further divide people. Any training built on that should not be funded by any of our taxpayer dollars.
James Lindsay and Helen Pluckrose are at the forefront of shining a light on the monumental damage that critical race theory is doing to western society.
Go read Robin DiAngelo's White Fragility and Kendi Ibram's How to be an Antiracist to see what the two biggest proponents of critical race theory propose in their own words.
I/O psychology as a science is based on data.
People here are failing to understand that what DiAngelo and Ibram propose is not supported by any empirical data.
Critical race theory presents a hypothesis that is not falsifiable or contestable. It asserts a claim that racism is inherent in all societal structures and it calls for authoritarian structural reforms as well as anti-capitalism in order to push redistribution in the form of "equity". It is a form of marxism that focuses on racial disparities instead of original marxism focusing on wealth class differences.
Any training based on critical race theory is not what the federal government should be spending a cent on.
Take a look at this book by Pluckrose and Lindsay: Cynical Theories to see why critical race theory is not what should be used to create any training.
https://www.amazon.com/Cynical-Theories-Scholarship-Everything-Identity_and/dp/1634312023
I am sadly not surprised that "academics" here are spewing accusations of Russian bots and insults as soon as they see Trump is involved. People need to understand this is about the vast problems of critical race theory and not about Trump as a person or what you personally think of him.
I sadly have come to expect this blind Trump hatred clouding rationality from many working in academia. I even previously left working in academia because this mad political bias against those who believe in political conservatism and against people who don't completely disavow Trump has reached a fever pitch in our academic institutions.
Since the George Floyd incident, there has been a rash of corporate trainings about so-called "anti-racism" based on racist theories from critical race theory. I have no doubt that the executive branch, which is largely like a set of enormous corporations with no responsibility to earn their own income, has had many workplaces follow this fad.
Critical race theory is racist, unscientific, and anti-American.
If you want details about critical race theory and what's wrong with it, James Lindsey and Helen Pluckrose are excellent sources. Here is an hour-long talk by James Lindsey on the subject. Here is a their new book on this and similar theories.
> i like that in their minds a racist police system kills black people a bit more than white people, but still kills white people most overall. rather than a system that y'know doesn't kill white people and mostly kills black people almost like the problem is police killing people.
This is incoherent.
Thusfar in 2020, the police have shot and killed 661 people, 18% of which have been black. However, that same ~13% of people have also -- if established pattern holds (no 2020 data yet) -- committed ~30% of all violent crime.
This is easily the answer why they are just slightly more frequently killed.
Notice, if the data was "30% of all killed, but only commit a statistically neutral amount of violent crime" they might have a point about "police targeting" -- which would warrant inspection. BUT, even that wouldnt justify "systemic racist targeting" -- there might be another explanation even then.
What's gross however, is that there isnt ANY objective scenario that could warrant the claim they're making. And, they certainly dont have any objective evidence to support(!) their claim.
HOWEVER, the data actually shows that they're killed LESS then you would expect given the rates of violent crime commission.
The fact is that they're delusional.
Why? They're being fed lies by a post-modernist, intersectional critical theory woke cult which is in the grips of an outright moral panic -- these lies are being pumped out of the grifting humanities departments of academia who seek to secure their place when it is valueless. It is the consequence of pressure put on their budgets starting ~30-40 years ago; a reaction by those departments who were seen as 'non-industrially useful'.
When their budgets were threatened, they became scared. Their reaction? To wage war on the institutions they were in; to call everyone racist, to execute pogroms, witch hunts and hallucinations to make themselves the savior of the institutions. Disagree with them? Well! You must(!) be racist! You dont think so? Oh! Youre secretly subconsciously racist! Dont see the white-supremacy? You're silence is violence and perpetuating the system! Anything less than committing to a life-long, internal inspection of your 'allyship' and 'complicity' -- and a willingness to publicly submit to the ideology, in a workplace training, a school-sponsored struggle-session, a sign? a raised fist while you are peacefully eating at a restaurant -- are you sufficiently submissive.
A blatant Kafka trap.
Bottom line: there is not systemic racism in the USA.
Well there is also the concept of left wing fascism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_fascism
> ...infatuated with post-modernist or anti-Enlightenment theories, opening up the opportunity for cult-like, irrational, anti-democratic positions that combine characteristics of the left with those of fascism...
Which sounds a bit like the rioters
Either way we should reject it from either side
If anyone wants to learn about how post modernist theory has infiltrated the West I recommend the following book https://www.amazon.com/Cynical-Theories-Scholarship-Everything-Identity_and/dp/1634312023
There's a new book coming out which might explain some things.
https://www.amazon.com/Cynical-Theories-Scholarship-Everything-Identity_and/dp/1634312023
>Non, tu as débuté par dire que le fait que le racisme systémique était connu et étudié depuis les années 60, pour toi, ne voulait rien dire. Tu as dit que c'était un appel à l'autorité, tu as dit que c'était pas fiable de se fier à des « experts » bla bla bla. Donc, du revers de la main, tu as repoussé toute la connaissance qui ne faisait pas ton affaire.
Parce que ça ne veut rien dire, et j'ai à maintes reprises expliquer pourquoi. Mais toi tu es trop attaché à tes "experts" qui disent ce que tu veux entendre pour engager une discussion. Tu as choisi de mauvaise foi de jouer dans l'insulte et dans les sophismes.
> Je suis prêt à remettre en question ma position
Menteur. Ton action prouve que tu fais tout le contraire.
> Mais c'est complètement faux! Les prémisses ne sont JAMAIS considérés vrai sauf si c'est un argument académique, sauf si l'argument en soit est le sujet de conversation. Dans une prémisse, il peut se cacher des millions de choses.
Les prémisses sont le DÉBUT du raisonnement, elles sont les présuppositions au début d'un raisonnement logique. Pour être le début, il faut qu'elles soient considérées à prime abord comme vrai dans le cadre du raisonnement. Sinon, il est impossible de commencer nulle part. Ça ne veut pas dire qu'elles sont vraies, elles peuvent être erronées, mais dans le raisonnement, elles sont considérées comme vraies sans besoin de démonstration. T'es soit vraiment pas capable de suivre une discussion ou t'es de mauvaise foi et tu prends plaisir à dire des conneries pour me forcer à y répondre.
> Tu veux dire en rejetant de la main 60 ans de connaissance sans tenir compte d'aucune nuance? T'as du en publier toi des livres avec ta puissance cognitive!
Encore une fois, le sophisme de l'appel à l'autorité. Parce que tout le monde sait que la crédibilité d'un propos se chiffre en nombre de livres rédigés et vendus!
Tiens, le gars que j'ai utilisé comme source a publié plusieurs livres et son livre le plus récent sur les thèses que tu supportes est #1 sur Amazon. Du coup, selon ton argument, ça veut dire qu'il a raison et que t'as tort. T'inquiète pas, je ne m'attends pas à ce que tu l'admettes, tu vas trouver une autre excuse, tu es trop prévisible.
Lol if anyone wants to actually learn about CRT it’s founding and problems I would recommend Cynical theories. It promotes liberalism as an alternative to CRT. Liberals like myself have a big problem with it too. https://www.amazon.com/Cynical-Theories-Scholarship-Everything-Identity_and/dp/1634312023/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=cynical+theories&qid=1624624687&sprefix=cyn&sr=8-1
Thanks, I have read 'White Fragility' and 'How to be An Anti Racist". I have major problems with both of the narratives within these books. Have your read "Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity―and Why This Harms Everybody". The authors (liberal) make a well-researched counterargument to the post-modernist movement currently undermining the principles of liberalism.
I believe intention matters and I also don't fall prey to the shaming that many on the far left attempt to do in order to tell me how I 'should' act.
OMG, you're Woke! No thank you!
You read Robin DiAngelo's book and failed to see a problem with her "logic"? OOPS!!
You need to familiarize yourself with the scholarly work of Dr. James Lindsay and Helen Pluckrose. If you can find the time to read White Fragility, then you've proven you have the time to read Cynical Theories (Amazon, book website).
Please do. No sensible person wants ANY collaboration between Wokeness & Atheism as any kind of movement.
I would strongly advise you to read this book: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Cynical-Theories-Scholarship-Everything-Identity/dp/1634312023
Or look up the authors. They exposed several subjective science fields as total propaganda and bullshit that tries to defy objective science. Anyone who lacks the critical thinking to spot these fields for what they are is not playing with a full deck as far as I'm concerned.
Hey and guess what, CRT was made specifically as a divide-and-conquer strategy borne out of French postmodernist theory, and it turns out and it's working. First of all, and what I think most people would agree to be against is lies; CRT is all lies, it's not scholarly whatsoever because there's no conversation. The peer-review, if any, is from other woke academics, it's a circle jerk of epic proportions. Are you aware of "Cynical Theories"? Basically 3 REAL academics completed a doctorate in Critical Theory in several months, wrote multiple published papers and even won awards for those papers which were all a farce to prove how insane Critical Theory actually is. https://www.amazon.com/Cynical-Theories-Scholarship-Everything-Identity_and/dp/1634312023
I'm not arguing that most Republicans understand it, but I AM arguing that most self-described liberals DO NOT understand CRT or what "anti-racist" actually entails.
This is a very one-sided, uncritical description of CRT (the irony of which is not lost on us). To use their own framework of analysis, the moderator seems to be wielding their moderatorial privilege by advocating for people to adopt the mod's biased view of this issue, given from a position of authority on this subreddit.
While some (if not most) aspects are correct, there are many omissions. The mod's post fails to mention how, for instance, standpoint epistemology and positionally are largely non-rigorous approaches to creating knowledge, how postmodern-esqe modifications to language are used for substantially manipulative and borderline nefarious ends, and how intersectionality arbitrarily constrains itself to only politically relevant criteria in an arbitrary and unscholarly fashion. This is by no means an exhaustive list of the flaws in CRT and other forms of applied postmodernism.
Much of the research underpinning CRT is not in fact research, but political activism. An excellent illustration of this is the Sokal Squared Hoax, in which three academics wrote blatantly fake academic papers with obvious flaws and submitted them to academic journals that are widely regarded in their fields. Many of these papers were accepted, not because of their excellent scholarship, but because they hit the right political notes. This highlights the erosion of the integrity of these fields, many of which rely exclusively on critical theories (including CRT) as a foundation of their legitimacy. It's a sandy foundation at that.
In the coming days, the Academic Leadership Series is diving into the CRT chapter of our summer book, Cynical Theories by Helen Pluckrose & James Lindsay, two of the authors from the Sokal Squared Hoax. We encourage everyone at MSU to read the book, as it illustrates in remarkably unbiased fashion, the past, present, and future of critical theories, allowing the reader to assess the merits of the frameworks without it being pitched by a reddit moderator with a vested interest in having you agree with them.
We think this is a serious issue that our university and many others are dealing with. Sociology, anthropology, women's studies, African/African American studies etc. are actually important fields that have the potential to make meaningful contributions to the academic sphere. These efforts are hampered when institutes of higher learning adopt orthodoxy and prohibit critique of the approved intellectual frameworks. Much like we've seen at the rock, it's crucial to maintain this free discourse, even if it makes people upset. In the words of a well renowned Canadian psychologist, "In order for you to be able to think you have to risk being offensive"
​
Boycott your DEI Training.
Popular alternatives to Cynical Theories: How Activ...
