When you were a kid, perhaps you had a prankster sibling. If so, picture your sibling hands you the garden hose and tells you to look inside. Then he gleefully turns it on full blast in your face. That's exactly what this book felt like beginning to end. Full force blast to the face. I'm so thankful to the authors for their careful study and explanation of Critical Theory. I want to send a copy of this to our school board and district office as they are knee deep in this junk!

The book is a very helpful dive into critical theories with chapters on postcolonnial theory, queer theory, critical race theory, feminism and gender studies, and disability and fat studies. The authors tie all these theories to the broader postmodern theory and its "applied turn" which is helpful. One of the most problematic aspects all these theories share is that they are un-criticisable (I made that word up). Critique is simply oppression by another name.

I believe that, at points, the authors were picking the most extreme papers and case studies to make their point, which made the alarmist a bit less credible. In addition, I'm probably more open to accepting some aspects of postmodern philosophy than the authors are, which leads me to be more open to some of the insights from these critical theories. I'm glad I read a bit of Richard Delgado (critical race theorist) before reading this - it helped me understand that particular movement and then the critique a bit better.

The book helped me understand that words/phrases I use may not mean the same thing to everyone, especially those steeped in the academic world (i.e. systemic racism, social justice, etc)

In the end, I do believe these critical theories are counterproductive and will only serve to exacerbate problems related to racism, sexism, bigotry towards LGBTQ persons, etc.

(Un)fortunately this book is pretty much a straw man argument.

A book that willfully misreads and badly misrepresents both the history and overall direction of critical theory, all to make that tired old argument that postmodernism demolished that great and noble edifice of liberal humanism, and that progressive social justice movements have gone "too far." A lot of white people who feel like they are now being policed by "cancel culture" apparently respond strongly to this thesis, for obvious reasons. If they would read some actual works of critical theory rather than the flimsy straw-man argument these authors provide, they would most likely look upon it rather differently.

EDIT: strangers needn't bother sliding into my mentions with comments suggesting that I either haven't read it, feel personally offended by this stuff, or am otherwise too indoctrinated by "social justice theory" or whatever these morons call it – there are plenty of more detailed discussions of the book's many flaws available online for those who are seriously interested in this debate.

I'm really struggling with why I continue reading books written by people with different opinions than I have on contemporary issues. "Maybe taken away from the antagonistic nature of a public debate, online forum, or talking head news show, they can explain their position to me without fear of judgement and I can learn something new about their worldview.

Nope. More of the same misrepresentation, fabrication, hyperbole, and highlighting a couple people (who are not at all involved in the academia/research that they discuss) and some *wild* thing they *actually* did! What a pile of bad-faith crap.

The ending has me wondering though-- if the author wants a marketplace of ideas where the best ones win out, why are they upset that institutions and businesses are hiring DEI officials and starting DEI programs? Just seems like that idea entered the marketplace and won...

There are some important points made in this book, but I thought the book would focus more on praxis than it did philosophy. At some point, the ideas being raised are the same ones I've heard a thousand times and my eyes just kind of glazed over. There are also rhetorical tricks utilized by the authors that really, really irritate me (e.g. "This view of our motivations will not be able to survive an honest reading of our book." How nice to be able to frame yourself, and subsequently your possible detractors, in this way!).

"In 2006, Judith Lorber, professor (now emerita) of sociology and gender studies, summarized the four main tendencies of this "paradigm shift". 1. Making gender - not biological sex - central." As someone who is concerned with both discrimination based on gender and discrimination based on sex, this change in focus in modern day social justice circles is something I have noticed and it is something I find worrying.

A sensationalist polemic work of scholarship. Generalized hyperbole. However, ultimately, in the last chapter a positive rational conclusion.

I agreed with the goals at the end but their arguments seemed to be doing what they said the critical theory and post modernism did. I think I must have read a different version of the books they didn’t like because they saw things I didn’t in them oddly the got the same message I did for the books they did like. I have listened to more than half the books they mentioned and others in the genres this book talks about I didn’t see the bad things they claim are in them but did see the good things they gave credit on.
The last chapter is the only part that seems self consistent to me.

One of those books I wish everyone would read. An eye of calm reason in a storm of social conflict. It's a celebration of humanism and liberalism.