No one understands critical race theory more than Helen and James. Their research, although probably no fun for them, is immensely useful for the rest of us to understand.
Neither Helen or James have any formal training in critical race theory. They have been show to literally know nothing about it several times by literal CRT scholars. They are just pundits pushing a fake culture war.
@@akimoetam1282, they definitely have training in CRT. They are currently the leading scholars on the topic. The argument from authority isn't the best arguement to use.
Just started reading the book. I do appreciate your analysis, particularly noting the missing transcendent/metaphysical aspect of their critique. Excellent review, thank you!
Thank you for a great review. I've been listening to James Lindsay on his New Discourses Channel. He has read all the literature on CRT so that he can understand it, in order to discredit it. I'm very much looking forward to reading this book!
James did a review of his own book. He essentially said it should have been all tied back to Hegel. Would have made it twice as long but not following that path all the way from Hegel through Marx was sort of needed.
Wow...it just blows me away when so many fall for the rather old, long debunked conspiracy theory Hegelian Dialectic. That and Cultural Marxism. Hate sells I guess. Way too easily.
Your critique style is excellent and so easy to follow - especially for a novice reader like me. You’re like a Sherpa to good books and reading. Glad I stumbled upon you and your channel.
I have finally slogged through to the final chapter of this “clearly written but dense” book (great description!). I found myself in agreement with your analysis/review and I will share your 10min take on this with people who ask me about this book. It is IMMENSELY difficult to do this book justice in 10min and you did. Kudos.
Currently reading this book, and as much as it kind of sounds like a contradiction in terms, it is very readable, and it is very dense. So far I'm going to the extreme of highlighting the notes as well! The reason is I'm going to work out the "best" sources, read them, and even contact the authors. As you've said the original authors aren't always the clearest so I hope to get a clarification from them on certain subjects. Cause I know there's a lot of people out there who'll say "you're misunderstanding the subject, that's why you disagree"
@@JoelWentz it seems though, with polarizing stuff like this on the internet, that as soon as you fail to condemn the material/ ideas then you're liable to fall guilty of "picking a side". I just hope that your unbias heterodox reception of literature can stand for itself as you review works that swing to the "opposing side". I hope you don't fall into a firestorm mate!
i listened to the audio sample on amazon, i couldnt tell if there was a political slant to this so i started reading some reviews and watched this video. i dont care if theres a bit of a slant but i really dont want to read propaganda or a book that exists to helps justify an angel or position w/o at least fairly challenging the topic. was hoping for a bit more [slant] clarity from this video review that seemed very thought out
I just picked that book up recently. Personally, I think CRT should stand for critical retard theory. I appreciated your review. You seem to be a sharp individual Joel. That being said, don't expect many subscribers to this channel. There's not enough people out there with that kind of IQ. 🖖
With rare exceptions, American "academics" are mostly extremely shallow. They gloss fancier European scholarship and then apply it way, way, way out of context. The original CRT was a legal theory that applies to analyzing our own post-apartheid legal rules and legally regulated institutions. That had nothing at all to do with individuals and their "feelings." What idiots came to call "CRT" after that is a gas lighting scam to sell bad books, victimize kids and stoke anger. This is not a new problem.
@@scottmcloughlin4371 James Lindsay would disagree with you on that, & he's definitely not a stupid man. Although, he's currently calling it race Marxism.
@@ShinobiShaman That's catchy, but any real Marxism is certainly not "racist." "Workers of the world unite" never meant "White workers of the world." We use words far too loosely. Nobody reads, so nobody cares. Statist Totalitarian is a better term of art, unless directly referring to directly Marx. Marx had not theory of the state. Marx was not friends with Lenin or Stalin. Leninism and Stalinism are also two different ISM's. Nazism was certainly a form of "racist" Statist Totalitarianism. The last 500 years or so have seen endless varieties of Totalitarian doctrines, most notably those of "Enlightened Dictators." Remember that? As for "racism," ludicrously fraudulent "scientific racism" is an American homegrown grotesque pseudo science. I've helped kill real racists in real life. No kidding. I met Bishop Tutu helping Anglicans destroy apartheid South Africa. Christian life is rough and tumble like that sometimes.
@@scottmcloughlin4371 You're obviously a leftist, & not familiar with Dr. Lindsay. Race Marxism doesn't mean Marxist themselves are racist. It means the Marxist are using race, to try & implement their utopia. Because trying to use the working class/proletariat didn't work. Using race isn't going to work either, because Marxism doesn't work. Look up some of James Lindsay's books, or interviews on UA-cam.
@@ShinobiShaman Excellent take! Psychology,biology, and even the scientific methods bow apart Marx theories. I've really gotten hooked on Carl Jung psychology.
Well done and thoroughly OBJECTIVE, sir; kudos to you. As others noted in this thread, James, especially, has gone down the metaphysical 'rabbit hole' into full on Hegelianism elsewhere on his New discourses podcasts. Given the authors spiritual/religious proclivities AND their desire to keep CYNICAL THEORIES briefer and approachable by a general audience, their exclusion of a metaphysical, TRANSCENDENT "North Star", while somewhat disappointing is understandable. Lindsay's willingness to engage 'church people' in their struggles to keep CSJ & CRT from consuming various protestant Christian denominations reflects, for me at least, his willingness and openness to assist religious communities in fighting back against the very Gramscian cultural Marxist ideas seeking to implode EVERY foundational pillar of present western identity. 😫
Excellent review! I also really appreciated this book, and I felt like I learned and retained more from it than most books. I agree strongly that the ideas and arguments are unusually well articulated and reasoned. I also really appreciated the steelmanning that the book applies to arguments with which they clearly find major fault. You can tell they really did not want their arguments to be easily attacked for any trace of unfairness. And I think they prove that even the strong versions of the underlying arguments can be easily attacked by those (a diminishing population in contemporary academia) who still believe valid reasoning and a concern for truth are legitimate priorities.
Thank you for the thoughtful review. I am glad I stopped by to hear it and subscribe. We have so many books on the reading list and its helpful to get clear feedback versus the Am4zon GPT3 created reviews.
Good review. I am an atheist or, I should say, a Petersonian atheist (after Jordan Peterson). Cynical Theories is my go-to text plus Lindsay's site newdiscourses. Having said that, I came across Carl Trueman and his Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self and his outline of Expressive Individualism and was taken with that latter concept. It dovetails nicely into Cynical Theories Queer Theory territory that is prevalent at the moment. I have purchased Trueman's text as well. Now, I dare you to review Lindsay's Race marxism (was Critical Race Theory). That book is so dense and the writing style so heavy, not even light can pass through! But Lindsay's thesis that Cynical Theories are in fact marxism is solid IMO.
I do indeed appreciate that Peterson takes metaphysics seriously! It sets him apart (in my view) from many other public intellectuals that would otherwise probably resonate with what he says.
In my opinion, it's highly ironic to include Peterson's work and this book as comparable when Peterson himself relies heavily on weak data with heavy overinterpretations. A lot of his statements are subject to the same style of critiquing this author does in this book. Peterson has heavy roots in Jungian psychology and is not scientific in nature. If you find that you align with the critiques this book makes, I would encourage to try to apply some of those methods to Peterson's work which involves a lot of pseudoscience. I will say that he is incredibly good at writing and conveying info in such a way as to make it difficult to notice the flaws if you don't have a strong scientific/academic background (I'm talking Phd level). He's incredibly confident and provides just enough real science to make it unclear what inferences can be made.
Helen Pluckrose was the only reason i had misgivings about the book initially. She seems to be quite radical in her own right from what i have seen from her...whereas Lindsay is more of a centrist.
The more an author dabbles into metaphysics, the further away from the Scientific Method he gets. I know my metaphysical beliefs are accurate and true... So do the people who hold contradictory metaphysical beliefs... Brain function as affected by environment, education, genetics, hormones, indoctrination, etcetera,,, is a complicated realm to explore. All of it little understood,,,, So Far. Metaphysics is an ancient mental framework, devised by clever but ignorant humans, to cope with the terrifying ability, humans have, to project into the future.... It serves to help humanity put suffering and death out of everyday thoughts, so we can function productively day to day...
I would generally agree. Metaphysics often has strong roots in pseudoscience and is of course philosophy, not science by definition (although some may consider philosophy a science). The problem isn't necessarily the discussion of metaphysics itself, however, but in how many authors today try to discuss it as if it is scientific, valid proof, not philosophy. I think a lot of people are misled by this into false or overly strong beliefs about behavior.
Yes it has lots of footnotes, but it's full of mischaracterisations and cherry picking. Probably relying on the fact that nobody knows enough about all of the people they're talking about to comprehend more than a bit of this. Quantity isn't quality.
Pluckrose, Lindsay and Boghossian are really leading the counter argument to postmodernism. We owe them too much.
Kathleen Stock and Helen Joyce too
Just found your channel and these are some fantastic videos! I've barely gotten any work done today because I'm just watching old videos.
Thanks for the kind words! Glad you like the channel
No one understands critical race theory more than Helen and James. Their research, although probably no fun for them, is immensely useful for the rest of us to understand.
Neither Helen or James have any formal training in critical race theory. They have been show to literally know nothing about it several times by literal CRT scholars. They are just pundits pushing a fake culture war.
@@akimoetam1282, they definitely have training in CRT. They are currently the leading scholars on the topic. The argument from authority isn't the best arguement to use.
@@akimoetam1282 I think you mean they have not formal indoctrination in critical race theory.
@@akimoetam1282 So critical race theorists are trained? That's interesting to know....
There can't be formal training because MSM said it's not part of the formal school curriculum
Just started reading the book. I do appreciate your analysis, particularly noting the missing transcendent/metaphysical aspect of their critique. Excellent review, thank you!
James has gone down the metaphysic worm hole as of late.
ua-cam.com/video/IhoxLa3ghRY/v-deo.html
James reviews his own book and speaks of the metaphysics
as non english speaking, this was the most academic written book after Duran's history of philosophy. They could have make is easy to read.
Thank you for a great review. I've been listening to James Lindsay on his New Discourses Channel. He has read all the literature on CRT so that he can understand it, in order to discredit it. I'm very much looking forward to reading this book!
James did a review of his own book. He essentially said it should have been all tied back to Hegel. Would have made it twice as long but not following that path all the way from Hegel through Marx was sort of needed.
Luckily James spent 4 hours taking us back to Hegel on New Discourses the other day 😄
It's shocking how much current thought can be drawn back to Hegel. Glad to hear James is exploring that!
@@JoelWentz Pretty much all the bad stuff has Hegel in it. Communism, Maoism, Fascism, national socialism ect
Wow...it just blows me away when so many fall for the rather old, long debunked conspiracy theory Hegelian Dialectic. That and Cultural Marxism. Hate sells I guess. Way too easily.
@@searchforserenity8058 Huh? You make no sense.
Your critique style is excellent and so easy to follow - especially for a novice reader like me. You’re like a Sherpa to good books and reading. Glad I stumbled upon you and your channel.
I love the sherpa compliment so much. Thank you!
"Novice reader"? You must either be (1) 6 years old (2) or an American adult 🤣
Great book
I have finally slogged through to the final chapter of this “clearly written but dense” book (great description!).
I found myself in agreement with your analysis/review and I will share your 10min take on this with people who ask me about this book.
It is IMMENSELY difficult to do this book justice in 10min and you did.
Kudos.
Did you’re super likable and I appreciate how objective and balanced you strive to be. Keep it up!
Great analysis of this book! Curious if you’ve read/analyzed Recapture the Rapture by Jamie Wheal
Thanks! And no this is actually the first I've heard of it - just looked it up and it seems FASCINATING. Thanks for the rec!
Can you please review Wildavsky's "The Rise of Radical Egalitarianism" 1991.
I'll add it to the list! 😅
@@JoelWentz Thanks!
Currently reading this book, and as much as it kind of sounds like a contradiction in terms, it is very readable, and it is very dense. So far I'm going to the extreme of highlighting the notes as well! The reason is I'm going to work out the "best" sources, read them, and even contact the authors. As you've said the original authors aren't always the clearest so I hope to get a clarification from them on certain subjects. Cause I know there's a lot of people out there who'll say "you're misunderstanding the subject, that's why you disagree"
Universities need to offer a program called "critical critical theory - A critical analysis of critical theory"
Brave of you to step into such polarizing material so early in your channel. I do feel you cover it with a reasonable measure of objectivity though.
Thanks for the feedback! I do hope to be as reasonable and "de-polarizing" as possible, even when discussing lightning rod topics.
@@JoelWentz it seems though, with polarizing stuff like this on the internet, that as soon as you fail to condemn the material/ ideas then you're liable to fall guilty of "picking a side". I just hope that your unbias heterodox reception of literature can stand for itself as you review works that swing to the "opposing side".
I hope you don't fall into a firestorm mate!
@@jacobnussbaum2309 Haven't you heard? _You can't stand still on a moving train._
i listened to the audio sample on amazon, i couldnt tell if there was a political slant to this so i started reading some reviews and watched this video. i dont care if theres a bit of a slant but i really dont want to read propaganda or a book that exists to helps justify an angel or position w/o at least fairly challenging the topic. was hoping for a bit more [slant] clarity from this video review that seemed very thought out
I stumbled on this video...and I must say that Wentz is a really interesting reviewer. Thanks.
Great review of the table of contents 😉
Totally agree! On my online dating profile I list this book as my last read.
I just picked that book up recently. Personally, I think CRT should stand for critical retard theory. I appreciated your review. You seem to be a sharp individual Joel. That being said, don't expect many subscribers to this channel. There's not enough people out there with that kind of IQ. 🖖
With rare exceptions, American "academics" are mostly extremely shallow. They gloss fancier European scholarship and then apply it way, way, way out of context. The original CRT was a legal theory that applies to analyzing our own post-apartheid legal rules and legally regulated institutions. That had nothing at all to do with individuals and their "feelings." What idiots came to call "CRT" after that is a gas lighting scam to sell bad books, victimize kids and stoke anger. This is not a new problem.
@@scottmcloughlin4371 James Lindsay would disagree with you on that, & he's definitely not a stupid man. Although, he's currently calling it race Marxism.
@@ShinobiShaman That's catchy, but any real Marxism is certainly not "racist." "Workers of the world unite" never meant "White workers of the world." We use words far too loosely. Nobody reads, so nobody cares. Statist Totalitarian is a better term of art, unless directly referring to directly Marx. Marx had not theory of the state. Marx was not friends with Lenin or Stalin. Leninism and Stalinism are also two different ISM's. Nazism was certainly a form of "racist" Statist Totalitarianism. The last 500 years or so have seen endless varieties of Totalitarian doctrines, most notably those of "Enlightened Dictators." Remember that? As for "racism," ludicrously fraudulent "scientific racism" is an American homegrown grotesque pseudo science. I've helped kill real racists in real life. No kidding. I met Bishop Tutu helping Anglicans destroy apartheid South Africa. Christian life is rough and tumble like that sometimes.
@@scottmcloughlin4371 You're obviously a leftist, & not familiar with Dr. Lindsay. Race Marxism doesn't mean Marxist themselves are racist. It means the Marxist are using race, to try & implement their utopia. Because trying to use the working class/proletariat didn't work. Using race isn't going to work either, because Marxism doesn't work. Look up some of James Lindsay's books, or interviews on UA-cam.
@@ShinobiShaman
Excellent take!
Psychology,biology, and even the scientific methods bow apart Marx theories. I've really gotten hooked on Carl Jung psychology.
Very helpful, thank you!
So glad you found it helpful!
Well done and thoroughly OBJECTIVE, sir; kudos to you. As others noted in this thread, James, especially, has gone down the metaphysical 'rabbit hole' into full on Hegelianism elsewhere on his New discourses podcasts. Given the authors spiritual/religious proclivities AND their desire to keep CYNICAL THEORIES briefer and approachable by a general audience, their exclusion of a metaphysical, TRANSCENDENT "North Star", while somewhat disappointing is understandable. Lindsay's willingness to engage 'church people' in their struggles to keep CSJ & CRT from consuming various protestant Christian denominations reflects, for me at least, his willingness and openness to assist religious communities in fighting back against the very Gramscian cultural Marxist ideas seeking to implode EVERY foundational pillar of present western identity. 😫
Excellent review! I also really appreciated this book, and I felt like I learned and retained more from it than most books. I agree strongly that the ideas and arguments are unusually well articulated and reasoned. I also really appreciated the steelmanning that the book applies to arguments with which they clearly find major fault. You can tell they really did not want their arguments to be easily attacked for any trace of unfairness. And I think they prove that even the strong versions of the underlying arguments can be easily attacked by those (a diminishing population in contemporary academia) who still believe valid reasoning and a concern for truth are legitimate priorities.
Great job!
Good, thank you.
Thank you for the thoughtful review. I am glad I stopped by to hear it and subscribe. We have so many books on the reading list and its helpful to get clear feedback versus the Am4zon GPT3 created reviews.
You're so welcome! I'm glad it was helpful. I do recommend this book.
Good review. I am an atheist or, I should say, a Petersonian atheist (after Jordan Peterson). Cynical Theories is my go-to text plus Lindsay's site newdiscourses. Having said that, I came across Carl Trueman and his Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self and his outline of Expressive Individualism and was taken with that latter concept. It dovetails nicely into Cynical Theories Queer Theory territory that is prevalent at the moment. I have purchased Trueman's text as well.
Now, I dare you to review Lindsay's Race marxism (was Critical Race Theory). That book is so dense and the writing style so heavy, not even light can pass through! But Lindsay's thesis that Cynical Theories are in fact marxism is solid IMO.
Thank you for the review. It agrees with my assessment on the book.
what's theory
This guy would like Jordan Peterson considering he takes the metaphysics part seriously and makes a damn good argument for it.
I do indeed appreciate that Peterson takes metaphysics seriously! It sets him apart (in my view) from many other public intellectuals that would otherwise probably resonate with what he says.
In my opinion, it's highly ironic to include Peterson's work and this book as comparable when Peterson himself relies heavily on weak data with heavy overinterpretations. A lot of his statements are subject to the same style of critiquing this author does in this book. Peterson has heavy roots in Jungian psychology and is not scientific in nature. If you find that you align with the critiques this book makes, I would encourage to try to apply some of those methods to Peterson's work which involves a lot of pseudoscience. I will say that he is incredibly good at writing and conveying info in such a way as to make it difficult to notice the flaws if you don't have a strong scientific/academic background (I'm talking Phd level). He's incredibly confident and provides just enough real science to make it unclear what inferences can be made.
Thanks from Brazil !!! :)
Fair treatment. You earned yourself my subscription.
We need some ammo though.
Helen Pluckrose was the only reason i had misgivings about the book initially. She seems to be quite radical in her own right from what i have seen from her...whereas Lindsay is more of a centrist.
I've only ever seen her being incredibly reasonable. Can you point me to the radical views I'd be interested in learning more about her background
Thanks for that!
Totally on it with this excellent review of this excellent book.
oh good , no word salad writing.
The more an author dabbles into metaphysics, the further away from the Scientific Method he gets.
I know my metaphysical beliefs are accurate and true... So do the people who hold contradictory
metaphysical beliefs... Brain function as affected by environment, education, genetics, hormones, indoctrination, etcetera,,, is a complicated realm to explore. All of it little understood,,,, So Far.
Metaphysics is an ancient mental framework, devised by clever but ignorant humans, to cope
with the terrifying ability, humans have, to project into the future.... It serves to help humanity
put suffering and death out of everyday thoughts, so we can function productively day to day...
Just use the term, _ontology,_ instead. Problem solved.
I would generally agree. Metaphysics often has strong roots in pseudoscience and is of course philosophy, not science by definition (although some may consider philosophy a science). The problem isn't necessarily the discussion of metaphysics itself, however, but in how many authors today try to discuss it as if it is scientific, valid proof, not philosophy. I think a lot of people are misled by this into false or overly strong beliefs about behavior.
Yes it has lots of footnotes, but it's full of mischaracterisations and cherry picking. Probably relying on the fact that nobody knows enough about all of the people they're talking about to comprehend more than a bit of this. Quantity isn't quality.