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!
James seems to think the heart of my criticism was “you don’t understand Foucault.” In fact, Foucault came up in just one sentence of my review, which is approximately 5000 words in length.
I went out of my way to be gentle with James, in the hopes that I could get a debate out of him. All I ever got was a big fat block. It’s a shame, even his fans wanted to see us go at it! Well, at least he wrote 19,000 words on another topic instead.
Why was Jimbo so unwilling to respond to the criticisms raised by myself and @olivertraldi? According to him, it’s because we “spend an inordinate amount of time treating [him] like shit publicly.” Now, that may be true for me now, but it wasn’t then!
Time for a fart joke.
James subtweets me, again claiming I don’t believe in objective truth! Very strange behavior, unless you’re looking to do whatever it takes to distract your fans from your own cowardice. The next day he butchers the notion of epistemic oppression, capitalizing on another excuse.
This is especially revealing when one considers the fact that “the Dotson portion” of my review is without question the most damning of Pluckrose and Lindsay’s scholarly ineptitude. It’s important for Jimmy to sweep this under the rug!
A couple days later, more sophistry is being exposed on the TL (shoutout @LitAnscombe & @caitlinmoriah) and James is just QTing away, showing his bare ass to everyone. He must have quite a bit of confidence in his fanbase’s ignorance/stupidity.
After Jimbo lectures his minions about the importance of flooding Amazon with 5-star reviews, we get the bizarre claim that there haven’t been any academic reviews of the book? As if... as if Cynical Fucking Theories is going to be reviewed in Philosophy & Public Affairs?
This is one of my favorite parts of the saga. James goes fucking HAM with the scare quotes, baby. He links my academia.edu page (😂) and makes accusations of hypocrisy while exemplifying hypocrisy par excellence!
Well, Helen & James promised us a response to the substantive objections against Cynical Theories sometime within the first few months post-publication. It has now been over nine months, and we have still yet to receive any serious engagement with the criticisms. Telling.
[fin]
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Honestly, this is a remarkable demonstration of the strawman fallacy. Kudos to @sullydish for giving us such a clear antithesis of basic rhetorical etiquette.
@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.