Scan barcode
danhf's review against another edition
1.0
A book that willfully misreads and badly misrepresents both the history and overall direction of critical theory, all to make that tired old argument that postmodernism demolished that great and noble edifice of liberal humanism, and that progressive social justice movements have gone "too far." A lot of white people who feel like they are now being policed by "cancel culture" apparently respond strongly to this thesis, for obvious reasons. If they would read some actual works of critical theory rather than the flimsy straw-man argument these authors provide, they would most likely look upon it rather differently.
EDIT: strangers needn't bother sliding into my mentions with comments suggesting that I either haven't read it, feel personally offended by this stuff, or am otherwise too indoctrinated by "social justice theory" or whatever these morons call it – there are plenty of more detailed discussions of the book's many flaws available online for those who are seriously interested in this debate.
EDIT: strangers needn't bother sliding into my mentions with comments suggesting that I either haven't read it, feel personally offended by this stuff, or am otherwise too indoctrinated by "social justice theory" or whatever these morons call it – there are plenty of more detailed discussions of the book's many flaws available online for those who are seriously interested in this debate.
dustlesswalnut's review against another edition
1.0
I'm really struggling with why I continue reading books written by people with different opinions than I have on contemporary issues. "Maybe taken away from the antagonistic nature of a public debate, online forum, or talking head news show, they can explain their position to me without fear of judgement and I can learn something new about their worldview.
Nope. More of the same misrepresentation, fabrication, hyperbole, and highlighting a couple people (who are not at all involved in the academia/research that they discuss) and some *wild* thing they *actually* did! What a pile of bad-faith crap.
The ending has me wondering though-- if the author wants a marketplace of ideas where the best ones win out, why are they upset that institutions and businesses are hiring DEI officials and starting DEI programs? Just seems like that idea entered the marketplace and won...
Nope. More of the same misrepresentation, fabrication, hyperbole, and highlighting a couple people (who are not at all involved in the academia/research that they discuss) and some *wild* thing they *actually* did! What a pile of bad-faith crap.
The ending has me wondering though-- if the author wants a marketplace of ideas where the best ones win out, why are they upset that institutions and businesses are hiring DEI officials and starting DEI programs? Just seems like that idea entered the marketplace and won...
femmecheng's review against another edition
2.0
There are some important points made in this book, but I thought the book would focus more on praxis than it did philosophy. At some point, the ideas being raised are the same ones I've heard a thousand times and my eyes just kind of glazed over. There are also rhetorical tricks utilized by the authors that really, really irritate me (e.g. "This view of our motivations will not be able to survive an honest reading of our book." How nice to be able to frame yourself, and subsequently your possible detractors, in this way!).
"In 2006, Judith Lorber, professor (now emerita) of sociology and gender studies, summarized the four main tendencies of this "paradigm shift". 1. Making gender - not biological sex - central." As someone who is concerned with both discrimination based on gender and discrimination based on sex, this change in focus in modern day social justice circles is something I have noticed and it is something I find worrying.
"In 2006, Judith Lorber, professor (now emerita) of sociology and gender studies, summarized the four main tendencies of this "paradigm shift". 1. Making gender - not biological sex - central." As someone who is concerned with both discrimination based on gender and discrimination based on sex, this change in focus in modern day social justice circles is something I have noticed and it is something I find worrying.
cmjustice's review against another edition
3.0
A sensationalist polemic work of scholarship. Generalized hyperbole. However, ultimately, in the last chapter a positive rational conclusion.
runekeon's review against another edition
2.0
I agreed with the goals at the end but their arguments seemed to be doing what they said the critical theory and post modernism did. I think I must have read a different version of the books they didn’t like because they saw things I didn’t in them oddly the got the same message I did for the books they did like. I have listened to more than half the books they mentioned and others in the genres this book talks about I didn’t see the bad things they claim are in them but did see the good things they gave credit on.
The last chapter is the only part that seems self consistent to me.
The last chapter is the only part that seems self consistent to me.
darrylwright's review against another edition
5.0
One of those books I wish everyone would read. An eye of calm reason in a storm of social conflict. It's a celebration of humanism and liberalism.
dheberer's review against another edition
5.0
I've read several books criticizing the excesses of the left but this one is the first that comes from a liberal position. Usually the author can not disguise their open "conservative" views even though they announce themselves as a centrist. These authors openly call themselves liberals and give detailed reasons of how we have found ourselves dealing with so much identity politics and why it hurts discourse. I listened to this in audiobook form, and I'm looking for the physical book so I can check some of the references and continue to read more about the thinking presented here.
In some places it dragged a bit with historical background and setup, but for the most part I was very engaged with this thoughtful argument. And I feel like the lengthy setup actually does pay off in the end as it ties together.
In some places it dragged a bit with historical background and setup, but for the most part I was very engaged with this thoughtful argument. And I feel like the lengthy setup actually does pay off in the end as it ties together.
lischa3000's review against another edition
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
5.0
This was a very important and profound read for me. It made me think differently about some of my earlier reads, and how these books have unpurposefully or otherwise lead some people down a path of intolerance, victimhood and destruction of language, to the point of creating social, political and legal rights implications for the groups these "activists" pretend to be serving.
Protecting liberal and secular values against unscientific, politically correct, "Social Justice Theories" is of vital importance, in order to safeguard the actual social justice progress we have made and can make in the future.
Only down side to the book is that it's not very approachable. The need to "be academic" to showcase evidence for the shallow intellectual origin of this new Social Justice movement is understandable. Nonetheless, it's not conducive to attracting a larger audience, who would benefit from the knowledge.
Protecting liberal and secular values against unscientific, politically correct, "Social Justice Theories" is of vital importance, in order to safeguard the actual social justice progress we have made and can make in the future.
Only down side to the book is that it's not very approachable. The need to "be academic" to showcase evidence for the shallow intellectual origin of this new Social Justice movement is understandable. Nonetheless, it's not conducive to attracting a larger audience, who would benefit from the knowledge.
typish's review against another edition
3.0
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.
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.