Honestly, this is a remarkable demonstration of the strawman fallacy. Kudos to @sullydish for giving us such a clear antithesis of basic rhetorical etiquette.
Here we get the claim that “critical theory” rejects fallibilism, objectivity, accountability, and pluralism. None of this is true.
Then Sullivan claims that because “critical theory defines itself” as questioning certain things, it’s aiming to destroy liberal modernity.
There are so many mistakes in this paragraph I don’t even know where to start. From the third sentence on, almost every claim is false.
For the love of God, Andrew; apply some of that Enlightenment rational thinking and show us some fucking EVIDENCE for these preposterous claims, would you? It’s too bad there isn’t any...
Oh good, here comes Andy to rescue us from our concern that he has sketched a strawman. Prove us wrong, please!!!
His rebuttal to this objection: “I honestly don’t think so. Rather, my depiction is accurate.”
Man’s never heard of a burden of proof in his fucking life, has he?
Here Sullivan gets closest to an accurate description of CRT — only to claim that this is “what CRT is not.” Compare it to Charles Mills on what CRT is. If only Sullivan relied on serious scholarly sources on CRT, he’d realize he should be “among its strongest defenders.”
I am pretty sure the 1619 Project did NOT insist that “white supremacy” was the *definition* of the US. If that were the case, there would be no point trying to educate the next generation about our racist history in hopes that they might be able to overthrow US white supremacy.
I just... what the fuck? Huh? WAt?!?!?
Hey Andrew, I agree with this! Surely then you will support a robust program of employment rights? Or have you not thought out this contradiction between your opposition to cancel culture and commitment to right-wing economic policies like at-will employment?
I walk away from this article knowing one thing: Andrew Sullivan is less of a liberal than CRT heavyweight Charles Mills. And he hasn’t got a fucking clue what CRT is. (Okay, so two things then.)
[FIN]
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Everyone should know @ConceptualJames & @HPluckrose are responsible for feeding the entire reactionary anti-woke ecosystem dogshit interpretations of scholarship. They’re seen as top IDW experts.
James’ first strategy is to poll his followers to ask whether he should address my critiques, calling me a “griefer who knows better than everybody.” One of his followers thinks this would be helpful; many seem to agree. James resorts to complaining about how much work it’d take.
His next move is to claim that, in fact, my review isn’t actually reasonable criticism; it just LOOKS like it is. He follows this up by accusing me of being unsure about the sum of 2 + 2 — despite the fact I never weighed in on this Conceptual Controversy!
@CathyYoung63's recent piece for @ArcDigi claims that, compared to James Lindsay's PragerU video on Critical Race Theory, my "defense" of CRT "isn't much more convincing." The problem? I never wrote a defense of CRT. cathy.arcdigital.media/p/the-fight-ov…
What I did write was a blog post (conceptualdisinformation.substack.com/p/james-lindsa…) explaining how the boogeyman James is selling is a complete strawperson representation of CRT, according to which critical race theorists think all human interactions are racist. Rick Roderick puts it best:
So the only sense in which I gave a defense of CRT: I criticized CRT's critics. A subtle distinction, but an important one.
Here I will do the same. First: these phenomena aren't things CRT is meant to explain. The theory of gravity can't explain why people go vegan -- so what?
Jamil introduces us and kicks off the discussion by asking us to define CRT.
Dr. Wu: CRT is "a subschool of political thought that has its academic roots in theories such as Marxism, Neo-Marxism, the Frankfurt School, radical feminism, critical theory, and postmodernism."
I used to hold @cvaldary to a higher standard than many anti-CRT voices in the culture war, and I'm afraid I can't say that's true anymore.
This article is flooded with falsehoods from the first sentence, which identifies CRT as "a social science." newsweek.com/black-people-a…
Valdary claims CRT "has been popularized by people like Ibrahim [sic] X. Kendi and Robin DiAngelo" & that in practice CRT has manifested as "demonization of white students." It's clear from the framing she means K-12; I'd love to know which curricula include law review articles.
Valdary thinks the most fundamental problem with CRT is deeper still: "It stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of the complexities of our social and political realities, reducing them to a single factor: racism."
I am unaware of any CRT scholar ever doing any such thing.
I recently stumbled upon this panel on the topic of Critical Race Theory (what else?) hosted by The Manhattan Institute and was shocked by the lineup. Why the hell was Chris Rufo in the same conversation as Harvard Law professor Randall Kennedy?!?!
What I saw blew me away. 🧵
For folks who don't know, Randall Kennedy was the first scholar to publish a full-throated critique of CRT. He and Derrick Bell were colleagues at Harvard for some time. Bell took his criticism seriously, but also noted how politically damaging it was to the movement:
The first 45 min of this "panel" consisted of @jasonrileywsj & @JohnHMcWhorter casually shooting the shit about how bad CRT is. When Prof. Kennedy was introduced, I was expecting more of the same. To my pleasant surprise, however, the conversation was turned entirely on its head.
Since they can’t identify, point by point, where my debunking of James on CRT goes wrong, the noble knights dedicated to preserving the scholarly reputation of Jimmy Concepts have decided to attempt to influence potential readers via a coup of the comment section.
“Surely he was raised by lesbians in a privileged intellectual silo. And b4 Sam thinks this is from some anon homophobic account and uses it to further his twitterversies I'm gay as fuck and have a lesbian mom.”
Most convincing thing I’ve ever read, tbh
Is it just me or do all these comments and names have too much in common for them to all be from different people?
Clearly I’ve struck a nerve, either way. It seems some people are very invested in getting me to stop exposing James’ fraudulent bullshit. Gonna have to do better.