> To resort to ad hominems probably means that they can't challenge the author or change his mind with convincing and logical arguments. They have done an own g

> To resort to ad hominems probably means that they can't challenge the author or change his mind with convincing and logical arguments. They have done an own goal and proved the author's point once again. Maybe. Either that, or people actually working in social science, or on critical race theory already read his points, responded to the ones that were new (ahah) and left it there, ignoring him and fellows commentator as they should. Again, you can be conservative and sociologist. Baudrillard did inspire a lot of those (they seems to become more and more marxist as teihr theories are refined but still). I don't understand why people take thos "journalist" seriously. Did he at least read the classics? And i mean, not even CRT author ( did not read them, this subject does not interest me). But i think the minimum you can do before trying to critic CRT is read Marx and Hegel (you have new book with integrated critics that are quite good) and obviously Derrida and Foucault. Bourdieu and Baudrillard maybe if you want some context for the first one and if you want more "conservative" views for the second, Wittgenstein because everybody needs to read Wittgenstein, and i'm forgetting Habermas who should have been the first one. Its really not interesting to debat such people, i did try. I spend two hours on trying to explain some core principles and left it here. At least now my friends understand what deconstruction is and stopped putting this under "leftist stuff". I think most conservatives agreed with Baudrillard hyperrealities (the liberals posting as conservatives did not but were still interested). It is just not worth the time.