4 ms·

I think you're mistaken, largely in that you're construing the ideology being targeted too narrowly. Note the bit at the beginning about "critical constructivi

I think you're mistaken, largely in that you're construing the ideology being targeted too narrowly. Note the bit at the beginning about "critical constructivism" -- this is certainly not only about Social Justice; that's just where it's the most obvious. In short, this isn't just about certain fields being vulnerable to sophistry and bullshit. This is about a number of fields or subfields which are dominated by (not merely vulnerable to) bullshit and sophistry for a common reason, namely, that they have, for what could be called ideological reasons, abandoned the preconditions that make actual truth-seeking possible. Social Justice and the postmodern studies are both part of this; they are related, contrary to what you claim.

Yoric 8y ago
> I think you're mistaken, largely in that you're construing the ideology being targeted too narrowly. Note the bit at the beginning about "critical constructivism" -- this is certainly not only about Social Justice; that's just where it's the most obvious. Good point. This appeared at the start of the OP, then basically disappeared from both the OP and my mind. > Social Justice and the postmodern studies are both part of this; they are related, contrary to what you claim. I'll admit to my lack of knowledge of both fields, but I suspect that you are right, insofar as they can probably be described as two applications of "critical constructivism". So, this does remove one of my criticisms on the OP. I'm still not happy about the phrasing (in particular the title) that turns it into a clickbait-let's-bash-at-social-justice-related-publications-without-looking-at-the-bigger-picture, though.