Helen Pluckrose

On the good side, I have formed a more systematic point of view on Theory by reading the book, which helped in framing the whole story.

On the improvable side, I would have preferred more actual data on prevalence on these views in academia (and activism) and on how nuanced they get (the takeaway from reading the chapters seems to be "90% academics in these disciplines are extreme Theorists"", which seems improbable).

I'm also not sure many of the quotations cited in the book are as damning as they are thought to be (with the notable exception of the later chapters, especially from the "educators").

It also feels like the celebration of liberalism (which I agree with) is too handwavy, especially coming from someone who is complaining about the theoretical incoherence of Theory: flaws are recognized, yes, but the topic is far from explored with a remotely comparable depth.

Finally, I would have greatly appreciated a more critical discussion of Foucault and Deridda in the initial chapters: ideas, yes, but also what was good, what was bad, and why.… (altro)

I think Critical Theory and many of its derivatives are pretty cool, because they give some great overviews of society's power structures and a great lens for understanding why a supposed meritocratic society always seems to push certain people away from power.

I was looking forward to reading this book because I'd love to hear the holes in Critical Theory... what is it getting wrong? What could be improved?

Unfortunately, that's not what this book provides. I'd say it provides a very detailed and willful misunderstanding at best... if someone told the authors "we should feed the starving children of the world", I feel the authors would interpret this to mean "we should deny food to everyone else who is currently well-fed" and would go on to list all the charities that feed children and point out the charities' silence around the well-fed, presenting it as evidence of their malicious intent.

Actually, yeah. Pretty much every chapter is the above, only about a specific marginalized group.

The other recurring theme is this idea that somehow, Critical Theory has clear and unified suggestions on what to do about social problems, and that's to control thought. I'm not sure there's anyone who suggests this, but the authors argue as though that were the case.

There's a HUGE difference between a queer person saying "huh, I feel this way because society has prescribed gender roles that I don't conform to... cool, that helps me understand myself, the world, and my place in it a bit better" vs "thinking the concept of gender is a thoughtcrime". It's strange and fascinating to me that the authors so consistently take the former and mentally twist it into the latter.

All that having been said, the authors do give an attempt to explain some of the subject matter evenhandedly once in a while, which I did appreciate, but by-and-large this book is a critique of something that's not real -- it critiques a version of Critical Theory that doesn't exist.

It's fascinating and telling to see the mental hoops the authors needed to jump through to so thoroughly twist the messages, but that's probably the most valuable part of the book.… (altro)

An unpleasant book attacking an unpleasant trend “post-modernism.”

I’m an old-fashioned liberal science-lover, more or less. I don’t really understand post-modernism (and this book only helped a little) but whenever I run across it I feel like I can almost smell it, and I don’t react well to it. I’m so averse to post-modernism that even reading a book disputing it was difficult.

It’s too bad because post-modernism theory is such a clearly influential set of ideas, especially with intellectuals and young people. One good thing I got from the book is how -religious- post-modernism is, it’s more a creed than a philosophy.… (altro)