Was Critical Theory a mistake?

UPPITY
P
P
I
T
Y

No, Americans reading "continental" philosophy was.

>But as with most decent things, they're vulnerable to being perverted by stupid people
>implying marcsism wasn't retarded from day 1

Positivism/ New Criticism was a mistake, Critical Theory was the natural reaction to that mistake and and another step toward absurdity.
DESU we need to go back and integrate German Idealism into our modern mindset. The only thing I'm unsure about is whether or not Hegel should be included.

idk OP's pic basically amounts to
>get rid of this book, muh racism muh oldness
>replace it with my """work""" and the work of my """contemporaries"""

No, and all of you faggots who think critical theory is restricted to how x is pro feminist, marxist, etc should kill yourselves
It's valuable and you feed and raise the outrage culture which underwent conception within it. You've got no one to blame but yourself for how narrow it's viewed nowadays, you're just as bad as the people writing the articles.

le enlightened moderate

>cop out dismissal without any critical thought
nu-Veeky Forums, everyone :))

Why do yo believe that critical theory is the culprit and not that lady's greediness?

She is just coming up with the first excuse she can, if it wasn't that it would have been something else.

She is clearly in bad faith and just using an excuse as a marketing tool.

critical theorists enable those kind of people, it's their job to clean up their home from that shit

No, it's just being misapplied.

Look at this /leftypol/ faggot speaking through his algorithm

this

It's true though, the development of 'literature' in the 21st century cannot be divorced from the development of neoliberal governance and the managerial-therapeuthic state.

>We might view the entire politically correct movement on the left as a therapeutic regime. The kind of reeducation that I am talking about, manifesting in literary discourse, seeks to replace tragic moral choices (those found in classic literature) with a new psychological “normality” (a safe space of the mind, if you will, where nothing traumatic is ever triggered). Because literature is the arena for irresolvable moral dilemmas, creating doubt and anxiety, under the current regime it is literature that faces the greatest pressure to reform. When self-esteem replaces economic justice as a goal, some people will inevitably rebel against the imposition through overt expressions of violence and sadism, a phenomenon particularly noteworthy in the rise of Trump and the concomitant surge in white nationalism. One is either a victim or a victimizer; there is no third option. This is the idea that wants to take over literature.

>Could it be that performing the rhetoric of identity politics is yet another form of high-stakes testing and standardization? Though the rhetoric of identity politics doesn’t manifest itself as a test in the formal sense, it does measure the ability to function in a certain kind of marketplace—a neoliberal marketplace with clearly defined norms of behavior. This points to the enigma of why it might be important for neoliberal capitalism to indulge the rhetoric of identity politics so vociferously, even as its actual practices (gentrification, for example) lead to the devastation of the cultural spaces of minorities, through any of a number of imperialist practices that force cultures to conform to efficiency in an overtly capitalist manner or be made the target of surveillance and even imprisonment. Of course, the sphere of literary production does not intersect, for the most part, with those capitalist practices that cause so much ruin and devastation to cultural wholeness; rather, it restricts itself (mostly) to internal psychological probing or self-policing.

subtropics.english.ufl.edu/index.php/2017/06/12/notes-ascendancy-identity-politics-literary-writing/

Same woman that wrote the moaning in OP's image
twitter.com/Cport_Special/status/572793892287991810

That's like saying that Niels Bohr enable Deepak Chopra

that analogy does not make sense as Deepak Chopra is denounced all the time by living physicists, and there are living critical theorists that enable this shit and never speak against it for strategical reasons

comrades should only denounce each other for reactionary backsliding :^)

Yeah maybe philosophers should stop and say to the public that saying "x is racist" of stuff wasn't invented by foucault and doesn't have anything to do with his work or most of the work of continental philosophy even in post-colonial studies.

I'll also tell all hume scholars that they have to distance themselves from any teenager who discovers skepticism and goes online saying "u cannot know nuthing"

this but unironically

>for strategical reasons
They just don't want to get lynched by screeching liberals. Most of all though they ignore this shit because they have better things to think about. I don't know why people can't stop obsessing over idpol tards from all sides. I understand you have to confront it, but so called "critical theorists" already did decades ago in their works. It makes no sense to get irritated by any idiot in particular when they're just a product of the times.

No, teaching it to undergraduates was. When you give a moron a hammer, she thinks everything is a nail.

critical theory is just an expensive hobby for rich people's children. 'idpol' is a key instrument of governance, it might be obnoxious, yes, but its certainly going to be phased out by next gen social media and newer and more effective psychiatric drugs so don't worry.