James Lindsay Explains Critical Theory

[@ChrisWillx]

Listen to this episode in full by subscribing on Apple Podcasts or Spotify - link.chtbl.com/modernwisdom Get my free Ultimate Life Hacks List to 10x your daily productivity → chriswillx.com/lifehacks

[@derrickbell24]

-- Was it Critical Race Theory when Republican U. S. Senator John Neely Kennedy went on Fox News in July and said, "America was founded to maintain white supremacy. Not freedom, not rule of law, not equal opportunity, not personal responsibility, but white supremacy?”

[@seeker3507]

@@derrickbell24 No, it was what's called a RINO: republican in name only. Same people who created the Lincoln Project that miraculously is only funded by far-left democrat donors. RINOs, or leftists in right wing clothing, are a combination of: 1 blackmailed 2 bribed 3 leftist infiltrator politicians who are not truly right wing. And yes, it was CRT if a fake republican says some stupid fringe-left nonsense like the idea that the primary purpose of creating America was to perpetuate white supremacy lmao Didn't the idea of white people only come about in last 100 years? Nevermind the facts I guess lol

[@prschuster]

Critical Theory is so obsessed with power dynamics that they see individuals as mere extensions of the privileged or marginalized groups that they belong to.

[@065Tim]

Because it's an atheist theory, it can only assign value to people by reducing them to a power level. Like Marxism reduces people to class, CRT to race.

[@craigb4913]

Too much critical theory, not enough critical thinking out there.

[@billmelater6470]

@sarah freethinking notrump noleftysjw I think the distortion is that the Progressive's are not actually Liberal. We don't use the word "Liberal" correctly anymore in the US. In truth, the Progressive movements were wholly anti-Liberal, favoring heavy State action and market interference which is causing much of the strife and division we see today. There is nothing Liberal about voting yourselves or other people money such as we see with the Bernie Bros or any of the UBI supporters. That money must be taken by those who did not work for it from those who did work for it. This is wholly opposite of the Liberal values and negative rights the nation was founded on. Part and Parcel with the Progressive mindset is that of State education, the Welfare State, and myriads of regulatory barriers to control the market and therefor individual behavior. Where many "Conservatives" are at fiction with themselves is there desire for market protectionism and Liberty as when you get down to the core of each issue, are mutually exclusive. there is also the ardent defense of police among them which with current issues, they are more or less correct, but it is hard to warn them that the thing blue line flag won't look so friendly when the people wearing badges come to try and disarm the populace at the behest of a leftist government. Many also blindly defend and "conserve" Progressive programs such as Social Security and other State programs that came out of WWII and have so allowed themselves to be blinded by what is presented as Patriotism when in actual fact, it is some of the most un-American devices we have ever been saddled with. All in all, I agree with you for the most part. Neither party will ever take the nation to where it should be, where it was meant to be; a minimal government with idea of maximizing the Liberty of the individual. Myself, I will be voting Trump, even for all his faults. Whether I vote or not, my consent is never actually necessary. The outcomes will still be imposed on me whether I like it or not. You are free to disagree, but as I see it, the differences between D and R are indeed much farther apart than they once were and simply put, the choice for me seems clear. He is indeed very easy to dislike, but the D's have become far, far more unlikeable in their blind hatred as well as their support for Critical Theory programs and organization.

[@emperorhadrian6011]

Critical thinking is just logical thinking through the lens of critical theory.

[@craigb4913]

@@emperorhadrian6011 funny you just proved my point without even realizing it. Critical thinking is about objective analysis & open-mindedness. "Critical theory" is about applying that one lens to most issues & society. I wouldn't expect a proponent of critical theory to grasp that distinction, but I appreciate you proving my point, albeit, inadvertently.

[@ArchAngel435]

t.me/Europa_The_Last_Battle

[@ryanvenjoyer]

@craig B *This*

[@cinemar]

Critical theory is critical of everything other than its own theory.

[@ArchAngel435]

t.me/Europa_The_Last_Battle

[@charlese2833]

Insight 🏆

[@allseeingry2487]

Postmodernism: the fact is there are now facts. Paradoxical nonsense.

[@JohnSmith-iu3ui]

We must use the critical theory to destroy the critical theory , in the same way Thanos used the ‘stones to destroy the stones’.

[@prithvib8662]

"The problem with post-modernism is it's not even wrong" - Noam Chomsky citing someone else

[@DetectiveThursday]

The irony is that critical theory is never allowed to be used on itself.

[@Wingedmagician]

Detective Thursday how convenient

[@spectralisation]

Instant BSOD

[@TessaTickle]

It is impossible to describe this stuff in less than 3:45

[@stuartdriedger9989]

yo, that's wrong and a lie. critical theory critical theory is about power over the power that the disempowered have over the powerful. my reply to your post is anti critical theory critical theory because your post is the post people will see and possibly never mine but! by addressing your critical view of critical theory critical theory is it's own form of tyranny. I'm going to commit suicide when i get around to it and you'll see how this method will expose your ignorant assessment of what is and isn't possible EVEN THOUGH YOU WERE TRYING TO BE FUNNY. (it wasn't and neither was i). that's the truth. and critically theoretically false at the same time. you lose bro. i get the debate trophy.

[@Xplora213]

Stuart Driedger TLDR!

[@Xplora213]

James is getting better. Industrial solvent is the perfect analogy!

[@appleormac]

He's improving so fast!

[@ECase5]

When was he ever not good

[@dustinabc]

i am loving the industrial solvent analogy as well. Even in clean up cases where it is needed, it is just one step among several to deal with a mess.

[@jamesbarlow6423]

Too acidic for me

[@065Tim]

How is oversimplifying "getting better"? Unless you aren't able to comprehend otherwise ofcourse...

[@condew6103]

Looking forward to James Lindsay's book, "Cynical Theories" that he coauthored with Helen Pluckrose. I think it was supposed to be out by now, but publisher delayed it to the end of August. Both of them are very good at explaining how the feminism/Marxism is supposed to work, and how it's all a mental trap.

[@TheSimonG]

I'm sure you're familiar with the grievance studies affair, also known as the "Sokal Squared" scandal that Lindsey Pluckrose and Boghossian worked on. These guys are really making progress. It's refreshing to see Lindsey refer to the Frankfurt School and not get labelled a tinfoil hat looney. I've been talking about Gramsci, Frankfurt, May 68, PoMo, Foucault, neo marxism, identity and intersectionalism, also discourse management for 2 or 3 years now. It weird to see it all come up in one video all together.

[@zxyatiywariii8]

Ikr I can't wait too! Also we can pre-order it and that'll help it get more attention in trending books.😊 More, I hope, than certain creepy racist books which are currently popular.🤦🏾‍♀️

[@tomemery7890]

@@TheSimonG I've seen articles aiming to smear everyone who mentions the Frankfurt School or uses the term 'cultural marxism' as nazis and anti-semitic conspiracy theorists. Some no doubt are, but I'm sure they're a small minority. Oh, and one of these articles said that Anders Breivik mentioned the Frankfurt School, so I guess we're all mass murderers in waiting too.

[@dinar8749]

@J and M Repeal the section 230 protection big tech companies are given. That's what trump has begun doing.

[@just_another32]

Have you read it yet? I haven't ordered it yet but considering!

[@parrotraiser6541]

In short, a grievance generation mechanism.

[@Tapajara]

It's a way to blame others for their own failures.

[@sophon238]

@@Tapajara just like everyone does including the rich e.g. Donald Trump

[@googletaqiyya184]

It assumes too much without proof or evidence.

[@prschuster]

Circular reasoning

[@HaleFire7]

They don't need proof or evidence when they FUNDAMENTALLY don't believe that objective truth can exist

[@ArchAngel435]

t.me/Europa_The_Last_Battle

[@dwwolf4636]

As as assumed to be true thing it does not exist. CRT assumes that ANY metric you care to define which has a different statistical outcome when viewed through a race lens HAS to be result of systemic racism.

[@tomemery7890]

It's incredible how fast this ideology has entered the mainstream and gained influence, an influence far in excess of the numbers of its adherents. The only thing that will stop it is if enough people stand up for individual rights and freedoms, free and open debate, and the scientific method. All of these things bring not oppression, as the critical theorists argue, but liberation, happiness, prosperity, and truth.

[@caseybrown4360]

It has been in America since 1949 when the fellas (Derrida, Gramsche, Horkheimer, etc.) moved here from Nazi Germany and started the Frankfurt School in the USA at Columbia University. It’s been chipping away at our society since then.

[@brittanydawn2633]

@@caseybrown4360 agreed. Also John Money, Foucault and Judith Butler. It's since the 1990s with Intersectionality that this has really spiralled.

[@djsec7207]

Casey Brown, The Frankfurt School moved first to Geneva from Germany in 1933, then to New York City and Columbia University in 1935.

[@faervas1234]

It was not fast there is an inherent part of society to of a faction of the have nots wanting to have what the haves got without working for it. There are entire systems that spend just as much energy trying to take way what the have got they could of gotten there if they put the effort. The marxist have been spend decades little by little picking at society to make part of the ideology mainstream. So the extremist think their way of thinking is common place. I had notice the shift of rhetoric in the mid 80's. Where The news would drop in editorial language in a news story. I have alway be sensitive to manipulation and it was like ringing a bell every time the news was opinion injected as news. over the years I was aware of it but it became so common that it was background noise as it slowly became mostly opinion and not news. It was a long slow process of increasing the hooks of the ideology into the mainstream.

[@zeenuf00]

This ideology has been in the works for decades. Didn't happen overnight.

[@TheSimonG]

Lindsay has the ability to explain very complex ideas simply whilst capable of debating ideologues very effectively. He's a rising star, very similar to Peterson. Nice explanation of industrial glue 7:17 these metaphors catch on easily. You should interview Helen Pluckrose.

[@AJ-HawksToxicFinger]

agreed, get Helen on, she's the only reason Peter and James were able to get past the gate keepers in those Hoax papers they wrote. She's amazing even if her thick accent can be hard to follow at times :)

[@TheSimonG]

@@AJ-HawksToxicFinger She doesn't have a thick accent to me, I'm British. She sounds squeaky and nervous to me when she speaks, probably because of her size. Get beyond that and she is pure gold.

[@AJ-HawksToxicFinger]

@@TheSimonG I hear that, you can hear her nervousness in her breathing and how she's always looking at the camera in Mike Nayna's videos. As for the accent, for us Yanks it's a little hard to follow but you're right it's likely more about the nerves and her delivery than an actual accent.

[@vakilian]

We need to get him to directly debate an SJW/intersectional academic. I find it difficult to logically dissect any argument from "critical theorists" because they either move the goalposts, or invent a whole new term that normal people have never heard of. Someone like Lindsay, who knows the environment intimately, would be able to back them into a corner so they legitimately have to justify their position rather than constantly squirm out of it.

[@AJ-HawksToxicFinger]

@@vakilian he has an article on his website new discourses that explains how SJW/BLM folks will not debate anyone, check it out, as always it's a great read newdiscourses.com/2020/07/woke-wont-debate-you-heres-why/

[@just_another32]

Thanks for this channel. James is awesome. Have learnt so much from him. Modern Wisdom, it is so great that you are spreading the word about these issues here in the UK too. Respect!

[@StanTheWoz]

"Wait, it's all power dynamics?" "Always has been."

[@ElectricQualia]

That’s totally wrong tho

[@sophon238]

@@ElectricQualia hierarchies create power dynamics

[@wastool]

@@sophon238 And the assumption is that the proper thing to do is get rid of the hierarchies?

[@sophon238]

@@wastool yes, but that's a herculean task, the ideal is a society so developed that everyone can be fully autonomous and independent.

[@evacope1718]

@@sophon238 we evolved to live in hierarchies, just look at apes

[@tinytanks]

kind of crazy seeing some of history's new great thinkers emerge in real time

[@jutoku4379]

James New book is fantastic..Great read and educational..

[@davidbrinnen]

One of the best and shortest explanations of Critical Theory I've found so far. But let me see if I have got this straight? Critical Theory has key two components, the first is purely mechanical, it is the analysis of the system to which it is applied to expose the inherent biases which result in injustice. The second component though is the vital one - it is whatever functional definition of "justice" is used. And Critical Theory takes no consideration of the physical operation and limitations of the system. It is not an "injustice" detector as some tend to think, it is an implicit "bias" detector. Remember the definition of "justice" is given. And it will not reveal if the bias is systemic or a consequence of "reality". Eg. Women, on average, live longer than men. So could Critical Theory could be used to demonstrate that society is systemically biased against men, in this intersection of sex and lifespan - because it does not, and more importantly cannot, take account of the physiological differences between men and women? Having seen Critical Theory widely adopted now in many fields, the one thing it can be seen to be really effective at, is breaking things down. It goes through hierarchies like a hot knife through butter. Which is great if you want to live in an atomized society, essentially Mad Max, but a boring version where everyone starts out fat and gradually starves, but the academics applying it seem to think it is going to land them in a Marxist utopia - which is a strange conclusion to come to when what they are doing is the equivalent of giving everyone access to a powerful solvent and inviting them to apply liberally it to anything they don't like.

[@Insulted25]

It's more simple than that. CT looks at any kind of inequality in the world, and immediately assumes that it is due to oppression by powerful people. Any other explanation would be racist/sexist etc.

[@vegahimsa3057]

Yes, one could pressume men are systemically oppressed and apply (or develop a) critical theory to demonstrate how men, women, and our social structures perpetuate systems of privilege and oppression. Additionally, we can demonstrate how rice and wheat crops conspire to enslave humans in their relentless pursuit to dominate the majority of arable land on planet earth.

[@sophon238]

@@Insulted25 strawmanning at it's finest

[@robby3467]

@@sophon238 But true nonetheless. For instance CRT... it's like the proverbial house of cards. It's actually baseless and explains nothing.

[@sophon238]

@@robby3467 CRT says nothing new ie there are dominance hierarchies and those at the top dominate and subdue those below them, nothing new there, the issue is once those hierarchies are established it is difficult to penetrate them or alter them unless those who are at the top of them allow you to do so. The CRT view is one of cynicism ie it doesn't matter what you do and how deserving you are, if you aren't a part of the club you will have zero chance of making it to the top.

[@peterg76yt]

"A way to see the world." Like a religion?

[@LloydWaldo]

Is a religion a way to see the world?

[@elijahbachrach6579]

@@LloydWaldo I think so if what you mean if belief in a world view. If it just means a “useful” way to look at things, then I don’t think that applies to most religions.

[@wastool]

That's the way it's currently be used.

[@wastool]

@@LloydWaldo Yes a religion is definitely a way of seeing the world. Infact I believe that is the best definition of religion I've ever heard.

[@alexanderdeleon4242]

Religion for Gammas

[@TheRDDDSII]

The fatal flaws of this clap trap is the diminution of the individual giving way to the collective.

[@sophon238]

That's what society is; a functional entity via the collective

[@geoffstemen3652]

The individual composes the collective, but the collective does not supersede the individual.

[@cjfishtales2238]

Critical theory is a slightly tweeked and rebranded form of marxism.

[@juliansearcie1758]

Negative crt was developed from cls

[@cjfishtales2238]

@@juliansearcie1758 my comment was more directed towards how crt changes definitions of terms. Specifically racism. Imo that borrows from post modernism which adapted it from marxism. CRT is based on the IAT. Which in my opinion is not valid for their application.

[@cheecheneg]

This man is one of my heroes.

[@Lastindependentthinker]

Rule #1 for life: The most competent and socialized have the best outcomes in life.

[@Lastindependentthinker]

Hi. Thanks for your comments and thumbs up. Let me try to fix this as I did not include the complete quote. "The most competent and socialized at meeting the needs of other people. Have the best outcomes in life." Rule #1 for economics. "You cannot have economics. Without peoples needs to serve. Or you will have a very hard time, extracting a living out of a reluctant earth." The reason why the rich get richer. Is because as they reach a critical mass of wealth. Through hard work. Exchanging their youth for money. Over generations. And send their kids to better schools who explain the rules for life. i.e through business. And i'm not talking about the schools that Liberal SJW's or AntiFa have gone to. You are not meant to know the rules. It has taken me a very long time to work them out. You live in the information age. If you are not getting ahead. You have no-one else to blame but yourself.

[@zeenuf00]

@Jeannie Seibert no it doesn't

[@zeenuf00]

@johngalt857 ech, leftist dreck

[@sukkeri]

What about the most bold and shameless?

[@zeenuf00]

@@sukkeri found the commie

[@erickblount8033]

Nice work James, I think watching this video took me from a 10% understanding CT to 20%. Considering I watched hours of other videos to get to 10%, it was a great use of my time.

[@sandanista2002]

Mark Lamont Hill handed Lindsay’s arse on a platter this week. Absolute joy to watch

[@LordEsel88]

Comparing Critical Theory to a really strong industrial solvent is spot on. When used with care in very specific situations it can be a good tool, but dumping it on everything is just sheer destructive madness.

[@amitabhapalmer5085]

"It's looking for injustices in the system and no attempt to understand how the thing works, necessarily." I think this is pretty uncharitable. Most critical theorist spend a significant amount of time developing genealogical explanations of how the system came to exist as it does and how concepts came to contain the explicit or implicit content that they do. Also, regarding the normative dimension, this is true of any political theory. Any theory that moves beyond description contains normative commitments. If this is a criticism of critical theory, then it's a criticism of all political theory. (I'm going to regret commenting on a youtube video...)

[@robby3467]

If most critical theorists do as you say they do, then all I can say is they've wasted their time. They've failed to produce anything approaching a consistent theory having any basis in reality or science. CRT for instance is divisive propaganda. Nothing more.

[@pebblepod30]

That's true, but out of context. Have you noticed that CT is always about commitment to the ideology as the only explaination for any problem, and then using emotional manipulation to try to shut down or refuse to answer questions about the theory or claim? That is the point. Take any problem in society + Extreme Tunnel vision for exclusive Oppressor/Oppressed narrative + manipulative methods = a critical theory used for power & control. Only the first part of the equation is good, the rest is a trojan horse.

[@tommyaustin7030]

Super appreciate your unbiased explanation on critical theory, this helped me to better understand CRT. BTW the industrial solvent analogy was perfect 👍🏾.

[@jackdonnelly427]

Pointing out bias cannot disprove the validity of an argument. Pointing out the biases of leaders does not prove that hierarchical systems are ineffective at accomplishing their goal and benefiting all involved. You have to prove how the absence of a hierarchy would lead to a situation deemed better than the one that would otherwise exist. That is something I have yet to see proved successfully.

[@keggerous]

critical "studies" are political ideologies. Not academics.

[@raedwulf61]

Unsafe Space brought me here.

[@mustang607]

Beware those who feel power is all there is.

[@billmelater6470]

Critical theory will never create anything. It is built on breaking things down, never building them. It has no path to building anymore than it has a foundational starting point. Having these things would render CT completely null and void as it would then require consistency in both philosophical understanding and application. This is not allowed for an ideology built only for destroying anything and everything. Like Progressiveness (in the Wilsonian sense), it cannot be fettered to a foundation and directed by consistent principles. Such limitations restrict their action and they simply cannot have restrictions on the power they desire. This is why they eat themselves. They only have an argument for destruction, never what is not to be destroyed or what is to be built. It is not enough to say that X should be destroyed. You have to know WHY it must be destroyed and more importantly than that, WHAT you plan to replace it with an WHY it is better and not also subject to replacement. The CT'ers only wish to destroy and throw something at the wall. Whatever sticks to the wall, no matter how viscous, you are not allowed to then use their own position against what they threw up.

[@meerkat1954]

The question is whether they'll destroy all of us before they eat themselves.

[@johnatkinson4287]

Yes it realise on a constant “year zero” to survive, because if one group becomes dominant or successful it has to be pulled back again to unsure equality

[@frankgellenthin3733]

Thank you Dr. Lindsay for an outstanding explanation!

[@dickymclorin1191]

Be good if this video has 20 million views

[@ChrisWillx]

That would be lovely

[@nicholasr79]

So, critical theory is opposite of critical thinking...

[@neilscott9281]

Usually, when discovering cancer, you seek to deal with it, remove it, wipe it out. As the end result otherwise is not ultimately good. Not doing something to halt it is not recommended, not acting is not worthwhile.

[@cincinnatislider]

When is Critical Theory going to be critical of Critical Theory?

[@amfarrell42]

In journal articles which is are so self-referential and meta that only 40 people have read them.

[@purpleflame334]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts!

[@jameswight6259]

Found this really informative and indeed, informed. Also really balanced and objective. You hear these terms a lot, but it’s good to have a proper understanding, As JBP would say, I should read more. Thanks

[@carols4013]

Bless James for pronouncing "biases" correctly!

[@alexanderdeleon4242]

Critical theory: good Conspiracy theory: bad 💩💩💩💩

[@elontusk610]

2 + 2 = 5

[@elontusk610]

See: Poe’s law.

[@JB-pk4ck]

Using manipulation to portray yourself as a victim, while your victimize others pretending to be altruistic. Its all about Power. Naricissists and psychopaths inflict their greatest hurt when they are playing the victim. This is a great site. I thought i was intelligent but i had to listen a few times to what Mr Lindsay says to understand him. I loved the distinction between Traditional theory and Critical theory.

[@GutsofEclipse]

Just because something is called "the Patriot Act" doesn't mean that it's patriotic. Just because something is called "cauliflower rice" doesn't make it rice. Just because something is called "critical theory" doesn't mean that it involves attempting to remove one's bias and look at the world objectively.

[@ElectricQualia]

I don’t think that’s the argument tho

[@yinoveryang4246]

from 7:00 onward, he creates a good and very clever précis

[@lylianmonteiro6721]

Thank you for this video!

[@bx22able]

CRT = Mein Kampf.

[@jannyjt2034]

Critical theory sounds like conspiracy theory. Is it really authorized/accepted conspiracy theory?

[@Anna-ftf88]

I don't want to live this way.

[@benablaze9435]

They are dominance hierarchy’s not power hierarchy. When it becomes about power, it crumbles and falls. Leaving space for another to take it’s place. =Jordan Peterson

[@AK-ne4og]

@@raphpaillot It is too dangerous to stand still and see it crumble.

[@sophon238]

Peterson is not a smart individual

[@michelguevara151]

critical theory is the theory that everything can be weaponized to disenfranchise anyone that npcs don't like

[@ideyforyoufullyfunded]

This is a very helpful video. Thank you and got more clarity.

[@petermathieson5692]

Oh, so this will produce an ideal society? Who wouldn't want that. Especially now that we've tried socialism, failed repeatedly, and can learn from those failures. This time it'll be different. This time the cart before the horse will work just fine!

[@fromthesouthofafrica6815]

Lol

[@fromthesouthofafrica6815]

@skutch Blobaum That is because of neoliberalism. Countries that realised neoliberalism for the cancer it was adopted ideas from Keynesian economics.

[@galaxy-star-me]

@skutch Blobaum in contrast with Marxism who was invented by Marx, no one in history declared that he invented capitalism. Capitalism is a very natural progress along with our nature of being. If you want to change the nature of being, sorry, it will be a disaster !

[@canteluna]

Excellent analysis. I would focus more on institutions, but Lindsay really gets it. Here is an example of how Critical Theory -- applied to race - gets it wrong. Because a Critical Theory approach focuses on what's wrong with institutions, they can overlook what's right or not understand the dynamics of the thing - which can include contradictions. So when the racialists speak of whites as THE problem because whites were the slave holders, they gloss over the fact that it was also a lot of whites who were critical to ending slavery and Jim Crow. What ended these awful practices were adherence to true liberal values, not any kind of inherent identity. And, it wasn't necessary for every white to eradicate every ounce of racism within (mostly because racism is merely a version of xenophobia and human beings evolved to be suspicious of "others" and to find patterns (even when they're not really there) as ways of understanding complex things. So, we liberals think that liberalism is the approach necessary to address racism, xenophobia, sexism, etc. That the main task is to advocate equality under the law and accept that we're all equally human, not to claim that liberalism itself is innately racist or inadequate to addressing injustices that fail to live up to the liberal ideals of the institutions in question.

[@ineztrajanovic7277]

amazing explaination! thank you so much

[@MrReedMiester]

Does anyone have the source for his Horkheimer stuff at the end?

[@whatsgood1872]

Fucking great summation. One of the best I have heard.

[@BroSoulLife3]

Using Critical Theory to seek an understanding of racial disparities in white majority nations does not automatically assume a Marxist intent. Karl Marx was a notorious racist and anti-semite so I'm not sure how anti-racism and Marxism are mutually compatible. Surely the value of CRT is to critically assess how we are all socialised to accept a racial worldview and the damaging outcomes it produces.

[@b.amelia1348]

I have more questions now, than I did before☹️

[@safardebon9720]

This is not the essence of critical theory. CT is about being critical of grand narratives. e.g. materialism, capitalism, totalitarianism, socialism, communism etc. It is about understanding that the world is too complex for simple grand narratives to apply effectively. CT is supportive of dialectics to find the good bits in each narrative and create a better amalgam.

[@Xplora213]

The definition of critical theory is not the way it is USED. There is no reason to embrace the critique of a power structure - unless you are a revolutionary. The rebel is usually fighting with asymmetric power. They are weak but they need to find an advantage to succeed. That’s the real issue with critical theory. The dominant DEFINITION of it is about alternative ideas and approaches but the dominant PRACTICE of it is subversion, demoralisation and revolution by stealth. Materialism and capitalism go hand in hand with the greatest health and wealth for the world ever seen. Communism and equity go hand in hand with failure and death every single time. If the critical theories were worthwhile then the failure of their revolution would be considered more carefully. But they don’t because critical theory is effectively worthless. 🤷‍♂️

[@Xplora213]

skutch Blobaum prove Stalin and Mao didn’t commit genocide on their own people and we can discuss brainwashing. You add nothing except abuse. You are successfully ruining your credibility with your rudeness. There is a reason the Left requires religious cult manipulation of people - reasonable people see how abusive you are and reject your entire premise because nice people don’t behave like that. Enjoy your life of fear. The left WILL eat you eventually because the heavy hitters of the left aren’t posting on YT videos.

[@sophon238]

@@Xplora213 how many children have died under capitalism? How many people are enslaved under capitalism? Just because something happened under a system doesn't mean that's what the system inevitably breeds in all iterations. Capitalism fails us frequently and yet we keep updating it, why not give the same leniency to other systems?

[@Xplora213]

@@sophon238 capitalist countries didn’t intentionally kill tens of millions of their own people. The leniency is already given - hence why Marxist professors and left leaning activists aren’t executed on sight. The problem that conservatives have is that socialist ideas don’t have a stop valve. They make things worse and worse until they recommend you eat your pets and don’t eat people. Cannibalism is a risk of socialist policy. It happened in Russia. North Koreans are starving, China only has One Child so eating them is less likely but who knows. Venezuela is the last attempt I will tolerate. sanders was telling everyone how great it was, until it collapsed... socialism is squeezing your pet mouse in your fist and squeezing it harder and harder because it squirms and you love it so much that you don’t want it running away. It dies despite your love, because you refused to let it live freely.

[@5va]

Critical FACTS & critical theory cannot coexist

[@brendanbutler1238]

The enlightenment wasn't anti religious, most of the enlightenment scientists were devoutly religious and saw Christianity as their inspiration for doing science. Only the atheistic philosophers who never produced any new useful insights were anti religious, in that sense they were like today's critical theorists, who also see themselves as enlightened or woke.

[@brendanbutler1238]

@skutch Blobaum strangenotions.com/how-christians-actually-began-the-age-of-reason/

[@oculii1]

"... sounds pretty good." That statement exemplifies our current age in that, confronted with (at least some of) the facts related to Critical Theory = socialism, one can actually believe it to be virtuous. Please, PLEASE consider history (e.g., the Soviet Union, China, Venezuela, et al) before endorsing post-modern/Marxist philosophy.

[@jenniferwillis8977]

It's not so bad. Only 122 million people died in the 20th century due to humanist/Marxist ideology. But hey, we're too smart to fall for that.

[@amfarrell42]

You’re veering off into Apophenia.

[@zeenuf00]

There's no such thing as a postmodernist on the way to the hospital.

[@annatmarshall5133]

How can you have a moral structure without the author of morality?

[@sophon238]

By collectively recognising that mutual cooperation serves personal interests and ultimately everyone's interests

[@annatmarshall5133]

@@sophon238 That wont work. What if you cant see the benefit of cooperating? What if you don't agree with certain terms? Man has tried that before. They called it communism and it destroyed the very people it claimed to want to help. Plus a few extra people for good measure. Man cannot set his own standards.

[@sophon238]

@@annatmarshall5133 capitalism wasn't created by Zeus, it's man made. Communism was just one framework of human cooperation, there are many other forms.

[@annatmarshall5133]

@@sophon238 Yes. But the concept of morality is very specific. No 2 people have the same moral compass to the same degree. What one person may consider to be morally reprehensible, another may think it acceptable. So who gets to decide which is "right " moral code for everyone to live by?

[@sophon238]

@@annatmarshall5133 I agree that western ideals and Asian ideals are different for example, and that presents a challenge that is difficult to address, nonetheless it's something we have to continuously contend with and try reach common understanding through cooperation otherwise we'll consume ourselves in conflict. To just say 'were different and that's that' is a recipe for disaster.

[@1drkstr]

I did a worse job of articulating those ideas earlier this year in a unit that was focused on Critical identity theories and got a high distinction. Thank you NewDiscorses and Captain Big-sword Deathstar Underpants. This charitable approach is the way forward.

[@1drkstr]

He who knows only his own side of an argument, knows little of that (or words to that effect), -JS Mills. If my marker/tutor was agreeable to those ideas then there must be tens of thousands more (the other Mills, CW).

[@rareword]

In short, hell is other people. Whether you're a righteous person or a serial killer, you do not deserve the consequences of your actions.

[@chrisodonnell1269]

That’s not critical theory.

[@derekthompson9070]

Critical theory is a negative framework. Critical thinking is an unbiased framework.

[@jimdelton4087]

Critical Theory 1 - whatever works best (most salable, most efficient, closest to target of what people want, etc) succeeds best 2 - some people(A) are better at doing/supplying whatever works best therefor (A)people are more likely to succeed. 3 - other people(B) don't like it when others(A) do better than they(B) do and think the solution is to tear down those (A) people 4 - To facilitate tearing down those (A)people the (B)people impute sinister motives to the (A)people. By claiming the (A)people are morally deficient the (B)people are more likely to get the uncommitted/don't care people(C) on their side of the battle. 5 - since there will always be some (A)people in any system, even a system that critical theory has "fixed", there will always be (A) people for the (B)people to attack and critical theory will never solve anything, it will just find successive new devils to tear down. 6 - the (C)people get screwed

[@thewaywardtrio]

Thanks man!

[@captaingrub2228]

It's interesting that critical theory doesn't concern itself with why discrepancies exist, only that they do exist.

[@sophon238]

There are many reasons for why it INITIALLY exists but that's not the point of CRT, the point is once someone gains power and is atop a hierarchy, further adoption into that hierarchy is at his whim and behest, the leaders of the hierarchy now determine whom and what succeeds, it's no longer a pure meritocracy but a corrupt system. Hierarchies always tilt towards corruption even if they initially started through merit

[@ChairmanKam]

Yes! This is what I have been saying for years! The technique of taking something apart is useful! Not to ALWAYS critique and almost never to dismantle, but it can be used to understand the GOOD components of a thing so you can understand how to make a good thing!

[@ericmorgan204]

ChairmanKam its always easy to pull things apart, any fool can do it. However it takes someone with Talent to put things together and build.

[@Xplora213]

eric morgan you need mechanics to maintain a system once it is made. Pulling apart is part of the process of repair - and not everyone can invent classical liberalism like Locke or Mills... but we pull it apart to learn how to replicate and repair and prosper the original system, not to undermine it!!! 👍

[@ericmorgan204]

Xplora213 any system that uses intimidation and violence to restructure a peaceful one, is, by definition, an inferior concept.

[@Xplora213]

eric morgan well, it depends if you are an honest and moral person, or if you just want power at any cost. I am prepared to accept you want the power but you must also be prepared to take a bullet trying to get it. We have peaceful means of transferring power in the west. Elections. If you can’t do elections, prepare for second amendment justice. I think Marxism could succeed in Russia and China because of their collectivist histories, but Americans will not tolerate it. Democrat cities are in lockdown. Not GOP towns. I’m worried for my kids - they will inherit this mess.

[@ericmorgan204]

Xplora213 we are seeing the culmination of the Fabian Progressive Movements 100 year plan to destroy Capitalism via "Evolution"as opposed to "Revolution". This is what Evil, in the hands of geniuses can achieve.

[@Han_Far]

James.. What do you think about Girards mimemsis theory and more importantly his 1982 book the scapegoat? I often agree with you James, most of the time but I would like you to breakdown some critical theory you respect and why. Girards scapegoat theory where he brings up the oedipus story to use it in modern times is pretty brilliant in my view. He brings up Plague, war and the consistent need for society to find a scapegoat, and he does a pretty decent job at it.. I dislike "woke" politics. I'm just curious so I read alot of different stuff and some times I stumble over good shit, like Girard. Would love it if you would make a episode about him and his theories. Would appreciate your thoughts, especially about mimemsis theory and scapegoat theory.

[@HeavenGuy]

In practice it causes tribalism which brings baser impulses.

[@Traderbear]

Baby Chris and James 😊

[@christianchance5958]

Now that the whole "enlightenment" way of thinking, is out of the bag and known to be an excellent compromise, it will be hard to put it back in the bag.. thank God

[@nicki4515]

I can see how people who thought math/science was too hard would be able to follow along with this. It's such circular/distorted thinking that makes no sense to them either, just like most other college subjects.

[@drew_gordon]

This is misleading if not outright wrong. What about Dadaism and the Nazi's rejection of 'degenerate art'? This all predates 'the Frankfurt school' (who were really just a bunch of art school literary critical theory hippies), were the Sex Pistols an invention of critical theory?

[@timberrr1126]

People are tribal. They band together based on same traits. This is Anthropology 101.

[@almightyjashua3114]

Just started college they already have us reading about this bullshit

[@philistein6778]

What is Power? - Byung-Chul Han

[@DepresssedOne]

whats the name of outro song?

[@sensorysarah]

Fly Away (Jpb Remix) Krys Talk

[@marylamb1407]

No critical theory applied to the small hat/corporate power dynamic currently in control.

[@asher4268]

I am still trying to wrap my head around critical theory but it seems in the simplest of terms it is evaluating society through the lens of power structures? James Lindsey described it as a solvent that is good for somethings but shouldn't be used across the board. Can someone provide an example where critical theory would not be an appropriate lens to examine some issue in society? I am going to check out some more of his talks but that distinction would have been nice. I wondering if the critique is that it shouldn't be the only lens used versus it not having a say at all for certain issues.. still sorting through this but a lot of people in the comments seems to have identified the problem with critical theory so I figured I would pose the question. Thanks!

[@spundefiant3925]

7:19 what is the equivalent coagulant?

[@kingofthorns203]

James Lindsay is gorgeous

[@aplcc323]

You don't seem to know what monarchy is... But all and all, quite informative! Thank you

[@Lmaoh5150]

See as a lefty, I don’t find anything wrong with what’s being said here. And while I agree with some of liberal’s uses of critical theory and ideas that have come from those critiques, I agree more with a modest approach to application. As talked about in the video, using traditional theory to understand. Once understood then I think critique is better utilized and nuanced. Unfortunately the world doesn’t have the patience, is removed enough, or selfless enough to achieve this real progress. It’s a nice ideal but not probable within the next century or so-if we’re still around lol.

[@aimeesmith4754]

Rodney Stark's book "Bearing False Witness" contradicts James Lindsey's take on the Enlightenment. I suggest James should look more carefully at the history of the period prior to the "Enlightenment" and the Church before making the claims he does.

[@bcaominh]

I might sound crazy. But here are some facts from an US perspective : Society is changing. The demographic makeup is changing faster than anticipated. 60/40 non-white /white by 2045 according to the Brookings institute. The Economist magazine is warning us this week that we are heading towards a society with too many graduates that are not doing useful work, an overflow of “nobility” and lack of laborers- to feed the growing Uber rich. In light of these numbers, availability of limited resources and an elite that wants to continue to hold on power, what is the solution? : An enforced cultural revolution leading to totalitarian diversity- consisting of incapable, coddled and helpless “woksters”They look as diverse as their parents generation’s Bernie crowd. But they don’t have clear policy demands; they only care about symbolism, conformity and rely on government. The total opposite of the current trend of rising BiTCoin teenage billionaires [who happen to be mainly white males]. Show those white men back to their place. They are no better than the rest of laborers according to our diversity and inclusion policies. It’s the year 2030: Problem solved.

[@vegahimsa3057]

Does critical theory necessarily imply conflict theory? (Problem theory and solution theory)

[@galaxy-star-me]

It is just like the class struggle theory if the race is replaced by class.

[@vegahimsa3057]

@@galaxy-star-me or any and all identities: race, gender, sexuality, ...

[@galaxy-star-me]

@@vegahimsa3057 yes. Go to read the class struggle theory and any CT side by side , you will find their argument and "logic" are the same . There is nothing new under the Sun . The West repeats what has happened in Red China during the Mao's era.

[@LeBator]

Theories are fine. All knowledge is good. The problem arises when that thin line between theory and practise is crossed. Like he said when that happens it’ll be like spraying industrial solvent everywhere. It comes down to whether or not students of CRT have the maturity to know that difference. As we can see they obviously don’t and are spraying that stuff all over the place. So maybe the onus is on the CRT lecturers to keep reminding their students (or themselves!) of the purely theoretical and academic value of this knowledge and rein them in before they start taking it to the streets.

[@liamc4113]

My pea brain understood Critical Theory in the following metaphor - The rule of the game of chess only benefit the smart people and got them to the top of the rank, so I said screw you! I won't play that game because I am stupid. ...but the game of evolution is what all lives have to play.

[@liamc4113]

@Allashuwa Beatz Depends on what game you are taking about that people are "aware" of. And you said those people "can" no longer be playing. Take bitcoin for instance, It is not the dollar but you still use the dollar. If you are talking about sexual dynamic, most people are not monks and nuns. So I think the metaphor is still hold.

[@MAX-tw3qz]

Is it a bias to be wary of the other ? I am deeply suspicious of anyone telling me how deep and complicated the unconscious is, how convenient for those with shallow minds. Everything about myself I can know, truly know thyself.

[@MM-vb9ze]

"Marxism is a social, political, and economic philosophy named after Karl Marx, which examines the effect of capitalism on labor, productivity, and economic development and argues for a worker revolution to overturn capitalism in favor of communism. Marxism posits that the struggle between social classes, specifically between the bourgeoisie, or capitalists, and the proletariat, or workers, defines economic relations in a capitalist economy"....'Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors said in a newly surfaced video from 2015 that she and her fellow organizers are “trained Marxists” - making clear their movement’s ideological foundation'

[@ruhloflaw6709]

HALE FUCKING LUIAH Finaly someone gets it NICE AND QUICK AND PUTS IT OUT. This is à message people CAN USE in EVERY DAY WATER COOLER CONVERSATION. You are the best Mr. Lindsay.

[@antimonycup7066]

That outtro was unnecessarily loud.

[@geoeconomics5629]

Money & Power

[@darbyheavey406]

Lose the sweatshirts gentlemen.

[@73elephants]

That's a severely flawed explanation of Critical Theory, as it fails to point out that Critical Theory depends on the assumption that inequality is always caused by a group with power oppressing another group to prevent out from flourishing equally well. Practitioners of critical theory simply assume as a given that this process of one group oppressing another is the cause (and, indeed, the only cause) of whatever inequality comes under their purview, and either studiously ignore or actively suppress all evidence to the contrary. This selectivity with evidence is what betrays Critical Theory as a pseudoscience whose real purpose is to stir up resentment and division in a society, with the ultimate goal of tearing that society down.

[@73elephants]

@skutch Blobaum No. First of all, the people using this dishonest pseudoscience (or pseudophilosophy) are _themselves_ part of the elite, and this is _their_ weapon of oppression. And, second, the existence of oppression does not imply that all inequality is caused by oppression. In fact, the real cause of inequality is biological: it is impossible to have complete equality in a society unless all its members are perfect clones (which in turn is impossible, due to the natural rate of random error in genetic replication). Oppression and rebellion are just two of the many ways that individuals try to adjust or reinforce their position in a society that is already unequal due to genetic differences.

[@sophon238]

@@73elephants the issue is once the hierarchy is set, the leaders determine who can enter regardless of their ability, if you are unwanted you are not hired, promoted or considered regardless of your ability and genetic makeup, this is the point of CRT. yes Bezos may have gotten to where he is because he's smart, but once he's there he can stifle competition unfairly, hire whomever he likes and control what and whom succeeds. And at that point the inequality becomes aided and contrived, not explainable due to just genetics as you claim

[@73elephants]

@@sophon238 The hierarchy is not set, though, and the leaders cannot prevent all rivals from rising to match or overtake them. If there were a world government, they probably could, but there isn't a world government (yet), so, meanwhile, the rich list changes over time. Second, they have no interest in keeping Blacks down, specifically. To the extent that they have rivals to worry about, those rivals are nearly all Asian or White. Third, genetics is a factor in all abilities and all behavioral traits, regardless of race. That's just a fact. Plus it's how evolution works. Fourth, to compete with the likes of Bezos and Gates, you probably need to be in the top 1% of IQ _and_ the top 1% in terms of focus, ambition and discipline at work, _and_ you need to be working in a promising field. There just aren't a lot of people like that. This, plus the fact that, once rich, all you have to do to stay rich is keep investing smartly, means the likes of Bezos and Gates probably don't spend a lot of time focusing on trying to prevent other people from rising. If anyone does emerge, Gates and Bezos can stay on top by investing in the upstart's new company. It's not just Gates and Bezos who aren't focusing on trying to keep blacks down. _No-one's_ trying to do that (except, maybe, the Democratic Party).

[@sophon238]

@@73elephants you're smoking, go research about Amazon's antitrust practices, secondly there is a world government and its called the US, do you think the US invades countries for nothing?

[@73elephants]

@@sophon238 Hegemony is not government. You're talking about something that is in the process of being built, not something that fully exists yet.