Search Results
7/3/2025, 6:04:57 PM
>>714382439
>These people aren't even liberal. A better description of them is Anti-Conservative/Republican/American/White.
They are spun off from French critical theory (post-modernism or post-structuralism). People like Foucault and Derrida and Lyotard, who influenced feminists like Judith Butler and Crenshaw.
They are anti-liberal, anti-enlightenment, anti-rationalist, anti-science.
>These people aren't even liberal. A better description of them is Anti-Conservative/Republican/American/White.
They are spun off from French critical theory (post-modernism or post-structuralism). People like Foucault and Derrida and Lyotard, who influenced feminists like Judith Butler and Crenshaw.
They are anti-liberal, anti-enlightenment, anti-rationalist, anti-science.
7/2/2025, 4:19:48 PM
>>714274005
Different movements. Enlightenment produced liberals, and an off shoot of them are socialists and marxists. They share all the same values and goals, just massively disagreed about economics, so they went their different ways.
Marxists started seeing major problems, which is why the Frankfurt school in the 30s tried to reform Marxism by adding Freud and cultural focus to the mix.
By the 60s and 70s, the last bastion of Marxism among the academics was France, and they had enough and picked up Nietzsche as an intellectual sugar daddy. They were also responding to the then popular Structuralism of the 60s, so they were called Post-Structuralists.
Post-structuralists (sometimes called post-modernist philosophy):
>anti-enlightenment
>anti-rationalism
>far left politically
>radical skepticism
Humanities departments, especially cultural, English, and feminist studies, picked up Post-structuralism, in the 80s. 1990s they created new feminist theories like Queer theory, Intersectional feminism, and Critical Race Theory, heavily inpsired by post-structuralism.
Different movements. Enlightenment produced liberals, and an off shoot of them are socialists and marxists. They share all the same values and goals, just massively disagreed about economics, so they went their different ways.
Marxists started seeing major problems, which is why the Frankfurt school in the 30s tried to reform Marxism by adding Freud and cultural focus to the mix.
By the 60s and 70s, the last bastion of Marxism among the academics was France, and they had enough and picked up Nietzsche as an intellectual sugar daddy. They were also responding to the then popular Structuralism of the 60s, so they were called Post-Structuralists.
Post-structuralists (sometimes called post-modernist philosophy):
>anti-enlightenment
>anti-rationalism
>far left politically
>radical skepticism
Humanities departments, especially cultural, English, and feminist studies, picked up Post-structuralism, in the 80s. 1990s they created new feminist theories like Queer theory, Intersectional feminism, and Critical Race Theory, heavily inpsired by post-structuralism.
7/1/2025, 2:06:17 PM
>>714163996
>lol if you think every single Marxist isn't singularly preoccupied with understanding the causes of the failure of the socialist project. Your entire understanding of leftism relies on shallow soundbites and stereotypes.
No, my critique is that they don't challenge their real underlying worldview, just apply it to other issues. They failed so hard, they just moved onto continental philosophy and cultural issues, which conveniently made their theories abstract and unfalsifiable.
It doesn't matter how many times the far left reformats their ideas, as long as they're needlessly paranoid, operate on a binary oppressor vs. oppressed, cynicism, conspiratorial worldview, radical skepticism, not willing to open up and accept criticism, dogmatism, and ignoring literally every expert in the world over their own schizo texts, it's doomed to failure. It doesn't matter if it's Queer theory, Marxism, Critical Race Theory, etc. The specifics don't matter, as long as the framework is flawed, it will produce flawed results.
Oh and literally no research or hypothesis testing, or hell even statistical analysis. It's all just essays all the way down.
You really hate the idea that i have a good grasp on marxist and post-structuralist ideas, because despite all the words they're not complicated.
>lol if you think every single Marxist isn't singularly preoccupied with understanding the causes of the failure of the socialist project. Your entire understanding of leftism relies on shallow soundbites and stereotypes.
No, my critique is that they don't challenge their real underlying worldview, just apply it to other issues. They failed so hard, they just moved onto continental philosophy and cultural issues, which conveniently made their theories abstract and unfalsifiable.
It doesn't matter how many times the far left reformats their ideas, as long as they're needlessly paranoid, operate on a binary oppressor vs. oppressed, cynicism, conspiratorial worldview, radical skepticism, not willing to open up and accept criticism, dogmatism, and ignoring literally every expert in the world over their own schizo texts, it's doomed to failure. It doesn't matter if it's Queer theory, Marxism, Critical Race Theory, etc. The specifics don't matter, as long as the framework is flawed, it will produce flawed results.
Oh and literally no research or hypothesis testing, or hell even statistical analysis. It's all just essays all the way down.
You really hate the idea that i have a good grasp on marxist and post-structuralist ideas, because despite all the words they're not complicated.
Page 1