I think the more accurate description is that the people pushing critical theory purposefully make it as obtuse and confusing as possible because if they say pl

I think the more accurate description is that the people pushing critical theory purposefully make it as obtuse and confusing as possible because if they say plainly that a critical theory is distinguished from a regular theory by being activist in nature seeking emancipation from some poorly defined slavery/injustice people will point out that activism by definition has a result in mind and is inherently not rational in the face of observation, as the conclusion has already been decided so it is, at best, an abuse of words to call this crap a theory. The collision of names is likely on purpose because there is no validity to the "solutions" proposed by the "theory" (although there is some validity to some of the observations of injustice, as with any good lie there is a kernel of truth) This isn't made any better by the two semi distinct historical roots of the modern schools of this crap bringing in either marxism by way of the frankfurt school or postmodernism (or increasingly some combination of the two). In general it becomes pretty obvious that it is a self contradicting mess that has no place in society, let alone at institutions of higher learning.