Mental Illness and White Liberals

[GreyICE]

I never said anything about national healthcare. I'm talking about stuff like the application of critical theory to science.

What is the application of critical theory to science, in your words, and what actual harm has it produced? How is it practiced in the United States today?

And so help me god if your answer in any way resembles "encouraging women and black people to become scientists is marxist" I will spend at least a thousand words making fun of you.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3463968/

I'm literally thinking of some Bajoran leader discovering a speech about strength and power, and using it to tell other Bajorans what they need to fight the Cardassians, and then discovering the speech was written not by a Bajoran, but by Gul Dukat.

That's the level of silly that just occurred here.

Man, I could not possibly have anticipated you'd link me to a Marxist critique of science, when you decided to tell me about how Marxism was ruining science. I anticipated many things, but I didn't anticipate you actually linking me to a Marxist critique.

It's hilarious, and really backs up a lot of what I thought - if any of our young libertarians did sit down and listen to a Marxist, they'd be nodding along in agreement the entire way, because they're two groups who think so fucking similarly in how they view the world it hurts. Such a simplistic good and evil viewpoint, with no room for nuance.

[SSJGodGoku]

I never said anything about national healthcare. I'm talking about stuff like the application of critical theory to science.

What is the application of critical theory to science, in your words, and what actual harm has it produced? How is it practiced in the United States today?

And so help me god if your answer in any way resembles "encouraging women and black people to become scientists is marxist" I will spend at least a thousand words making fun of you.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3463968/

"Hi, I'm a Marxist, and I want you to know, postmodernists are attacking science."

"Hi, I'm SSJGodGoku. I think this Marxist is very smart! Let me link you to his article because it shows that post-modernists are Marxists attacking science!"

I cannot believe how hard I'm laughing at you.

NCBI is Marxist?

Besides, a stopped clock, etc.

[SSJGodGoku]

If you want a different source for the same thing, try this:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-unfortunate-fallout-of-campus-postmodernism/

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

While critical theorists have been frequently defined as Marxist intellectuals,[25] their tendency to denounce some Marxist concepts and to combine Marxian analysis with other sociological and philosophical traditions has resulted in accusations of revisionism by classical, orthodox, and analytical Marxists, and by Marxist–Leninist philosophers. Martin Jay has stated that the first generation of critical theory is best understood as not promoting a specific philosophical agenda or a specific ideology, but as "a gadfly of other systems."[26]

[GreyICE]

If you want a different source for the same thing, try this:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-unfortunate-fallout-of-campus-postmodernism/

Wait, wait, are you trying to say that that paper is saying the same thing the Marxists are? And that you agree with the Marxists that post-modernism is a threat to science?

Okay. So in what insane universe does that make post-modernists Marxist? What crazy crap ran through your squirrelcage of a brain when you hit on that conclusion?

Because if you think Nietzche and Marx had anything to do with each other, you've got a lot wrong with your brain. One inspired Communism in a roundabout way, the other inspired fascism, in a roundabout way. Those two groups don't exactly historically get along y'know.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Critical Theory takes observable disparities in society and maps it out in terms of social cause and effect. Which isn't that irrational of a thing; for instance, like reducing events down to objectively physical occurrences. You can do it, but it doesn't work well to distinguish subjective experiences. Given that everything we talk about in terms of issues are driven by social factors, you can lay out a socially deterministic sequencing. Whether that actually implicates or exonerates either the subject or their environment is kind of a separate matter that depends on your just reasoning.

[GreyICE]

Critical Theory takes observable disparities in society and maps it out in terms of social cause and effect. Which isn't that irrational of a thing; for instance, like reducing events down to objectively physical occurrences. You can do it, but it doesn't work well to distinguish subjective experiences. Given that everything we talk about in terms of issues are driven by social factors, you can lay out a socially deterministic sequencing. Whether that actually implicates or exonerates either the subject or their environment is kind of a separate matter that depends on your just reasoning.

Again, that seems the polar opposite of post-modernism, especially the post-modernism described in the paper. The paper was talking about how the post-modernists were relative and subjective, and incorporating things like personal experience.

It is the typical Marxist school of thought, which approaches philosophy (and everything) a bit like they're a brick layer building a brick wall, for good or for ill.

[SSJGodGoku]

If you want a different source for the same thing, try this:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-unfortunate-fallout-of-campus-postmodernism/

Wait, wait, are you trying to say that that paper is saying the same thing the Marxists are? And that you agree with the Marxists that post-modernism is a threat to science?

Some Marxists might realise that it's a problem, just like some conservatives realize Trump is a problem, and some liberals realize Biden is a problem.

Because if you think Nietzche and Marx had anything to do with each other, you've got a lot wrong with your brain. One inspired Communism in a roundabout way, the other inspired fascism, in a roundabout way. Those two groups don't exactly historically get along y'know.

I never said anything about Nietzche. Just because postmodernism was influenced by him doesn't mean I somehow think he and Karl Marx are the same. That's a complete non-sequitur.

[SSJGodGoku]

Critical Theory takes observable disparities in society and maps it out in terms of social cause and effect. Which isn't that irrational of a thing; for instance, like reducing events down to objectively physical occurrences. You can do it, but it doesn't work well to distinguish subjective experiences. Given that everything we talk about in terms of issues are driven by social factors, you can lay out a socially deterministic sequencing. Whether that actually implicates or exonerates either the subject or their environment is kind of a separate matter that depends on your just reasoning.

The issue is when they try to make matters of fact (like scientific facts) subject to 'different worldviews' and 'different interpretations', like saying white colonialism and patriarchy molded the formation of modern science, so we need to tear it all down and start from the beginning.

[GreyICE]

If you want a different source for the same thing, try this:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-unfortunate-fallout-of-campus-postmodernism/

Wait, wait, are you trying to say that that paper is saying the same thing the Marxists are? And that you agree with the Marxists that post-modernism is a threat to science?

Some Marxists might realise that it's a problem, just like some conservatives realize Trump is a problem, and some liberals realize Biden is a problem.

Because if you think Nietzche and Marx had anything to do with each other, you've got a lot wrong with your brain. One inspired Communism in a roundabout way, the other inspired fascism, in a roundabout way. Those two groups don't exactly historically get along y'know.

I never said anything about Nietzche. Just because postmodernism was influenced by him doesn't mean I somehow think he and Karl Marx are the same. That's a complete non-sequitur.

Uh, yes, you did say something about Nietzsche:

However, postmodernist thought has mostly gone unnoticed by scientists, despite its growing importance in the twentieth century. The origins of this ‘deconstruction' of the ‘Enlightenment project' can be traced back to Friedrich Nietzsche, who was among the first to question our ability to discern objective truth: “In so far as the word ‘knowledge' has any meaning, the world is knowable; but it is interpretable otherwise, it has no meaning behind it, but countless meanings” (The Will to Power, 1883–1888; [1]).

You were saying that Nietzsche created a Marxist school of thought.