I have been yelling angrily about deconstructionist, post-modern obfuscationist nonsense since the 1980s, when the theorists ruined the world of English lit for me. I don't have much use for most sixties radicalism, which seems politically and morally incoherent, and often performative. (And they went on to be the Greed-Is-Good generation, so, yeah.) And I have no use either for all the dopey corporate CYA trainings on unconscious bias, diversity etc. which are mostly ways to look good while doing nothing. The language of race essentialism, so trendy in the academy, is also highly suspect (decolonization can shade into a dream of ethnic purity.)
And yet. And yet. Not one bit of any of that makes it any less clear that Rufo is presenting anti-democratic, anti-liberal (in the widest sense), anti-empiricist, non-truth-seeking, sociopathic, baleful ideas. He is telling a preposterous, evidence-free story here. What does he want, exactly? I suspect he either just kinda wants to "burn it all down," a la Steve Bannon - or he's just saying whatever he thinks will ensure that rich white men get to keep their position on top of the pile.
Appreciate the "like!" :) On re-reading, I thought I sounded very grumpy and censorious. I was really just trying to make the point that I'm perfectly aware of the possibility of legit criticism or even legit dislike for some of the things Rufo talks about - I was trying to say that he's just piggybacking on the ordinary sort of arguments people have over this sort of stuff, to push his ghastly bad-faith agenda. Looks like that came across OK! (phew)
I’ve done book banning/censorship presentations, and at the one I did in March, Rufo had his own Bad Actors slide in the presentation. Ty for assisting w addl backstory and links.
I have been yelling angrily about deconstructionist, post-modern obfuscationist nonsense since the 1980s, when the theorists ruined the world of English lit for me. I don't have much use for most sixties radicalism, which seems politically and morally incoherent, and often performative. (And they went on to be the Greed-Is-Good generation, so, yeah.) And I have no use either for all the dopey corporate CYA trainings on unconscious bias, diversity etc. which are mostly ways to look good while doing nothing. The language of race essentialism, so trendy in the academy, is also highly suspect (decolonization can shade into a dream of ethnic purity.)
And yet. And yet. Not one bit of any of that makes it any less clear that Rufo is presenting anti-democratic, anti-liberal (in the widest sense), anti-empiricist, non-truth-seeking, sociopathic, baleful ideas. He is telling a preposterous, evidence-free story here. What does he want, exactly? I suspect he either just kinda wants to "burn it all down," a la Steve Bannon - or he's just saying whatever he thinks will ensure that rich white men get to keep their position on top of the pile.
Appreciate the "like!" :) On re-reading, I thought I sounded very grumpy and censorious. I was really just trying to make the point that I'm perfectly aware of the possibility of legit criticism or even legit dislike for some of the things Rufo talks about - I was trying to say that he's just piggybacking on the ordinary sort of arguments people have over this sort of stuff, to push his ghastly bad-faith agenda. Looks like that came across OK! (phew)
Liars lie
I’ve done book banning/censorship presentations, and at the one I did in March, Rufo had his own Bad Actors slide in the presentation. Ty for assisting w addl backstory and links.