Requiring one to answer, "Are you for CRT or against CRT?" (or "align with," "accept," etc.) as though it were a tightly defined logical unit with every truth a theorem, is a tactic, a polemic maneuver that makes no sense when discussing social and legal theory. 1/
2/ And this kind of wholesale requirement to accept or reject only applies to cultural bogeyman. You are not, for example, required to "accept or reject" capitalism, but you are required to "accept or reject" Marxism.
Isn't it weird to say, "are you for or against Legal
Isn't it weird to say, "are you for or against Legal
3/ Realism??" or "are you for or against symbolic interactionism??"
We simply don't think that way about broad theoretical traditions, with various different approaches and continued internal debate, like all social and legal theories.
We simply don't think that way about broad theoretical traditions, with various different approaches and continued internal debate, like all social and legal theories.
4/ Unless the goal is to demonize an ideology or movement in order to culturally weaponize it to defeat perceived opponents.
It's time for folks to either learn to listen, discuss, and conversate charitably with those they consider pagan opponents, or grow up intellectually.
It's time for folks to either learn to listen, discuss, and conversate charitably with those they consider pagan opponents, or grow up intellectually.
5/5 "When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways." (1 Cor. 13:11)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
