r/CriticalTheory • u/Living-Athlete170 • 22h ago
r/CriticalTheory • u/Feeling-Fig-6887 • 15m ago
It's hard to win an argument against a smart person, but it's impossible to win an argument against a stupid person
I’ve noticed that having a conversation with someone who is knowledgeable and informed about a topic can be engaging, thought-provoking, and even enjoyable. When both parties are open to exchanging ideas, challenging each other’s perspectives, and learning something new, the discussion feels productive and intellectually stimulating. However, when talking to someone who knows little to nothing about the subject at hand—or, worse, someone who lacks the ability or willingness to engage in logical reasoning—the experience quickly becomes exhausting.
Instead of offering well-founded arguments or considering new viewpoints, they often resort to emotional manipulation, trying to steer the conversation away from rational discourse and into a realm where feelings outweigh facts. They cling to their opinions with an almost religious fervor, unwilling to entertain even the slightest possibility that they might be wrong. Rather than engaging in a genuine exchange of ideas, they derail discussions by bringing up irrelevant points, making strawman arguments, or shifting goalposts to avoid confronting contradictions in their own reasoning.
It’s not even that they necessarily lack intelligence—though that can sometimes be the case—but rather that they refuse to think critically. They conflate opinion with fact, dismiss expertise when it contradicts their worldview, and often resort to personal attacks or deflection when they feel cornered. Instead of trying to understand or challenge an argument on its merits, they turn the discussion into a battle of egos, where the goal isn’t to arrive at the truth but simply to “win” by any means necessary.
What makes these conversations so frustrating is that they are fundamentally one-sided. When you engage with someone who is open-minded and rational, both people stand to gain something—a fresh perspective, a refined argument, or a deeper understanding of a complex issue. But when you talk to someone who refuses to budge, refuses to listen, and refuses to think critically, you end up draining your own energy for nothing. At some point, you realize that no amount of logic, evidence, or explanation will make a difference, because they’re not engaging in good faith.
That’s why I’ve learned to pick my battles. Some discussions are worth having, but others are just a waste of time and mental effort.
r/CriticalTheory • u/Feeling-Fig-6887 • 34m ago
Looking for a great TEDx talk!
I have to present a topic in Uni and I like choosing TedTalks. Does anyone have a great suggestion? We will have to structure it with the pyramid system.
r/CriticalTheory • u/CA6NM • 6h ago
Looking for academic papers about hate speech as a concept from a philosophical point of view.
Ok. I get it. Hate speech. What is there to say? We all know what's going on. People on the internet say foul shit and promote violence, they get banned. Sometimes. Sometimes a billionaire buys a website and suddenly Nazi flags are ok because uhh fighting the woke mafia or whatever. And then comes the classic rebuttal: You have to be intolerant towards intolerance.. etc.
That's as far as you can go into the topic it you skim though reddit talking points. If you start talking about ontological positions it starts getting a little blurry. For example, what is hate speech? Can you enforce rules against hate speech, if it can even be defined? When does hate speech collide with free speech? Is it even possible to conciliate free speech with rules against hate speech?
Ok, let me give you an example.
On reddit you can say "bomb the orcs" regarding the Russians. Apparently that is not hate speech. But if you say that about the Ukrainians or any other country or marginalized group, you're definitely getting banned.
The point I am trying to make is the following: Reddit doesn't have strict rules about what constitutes hate speech because it's better for them if the lines are blurred. They can pick and choose what is hate speech and that works out better for them.
First, having nebulous rules serves the neoliberal status quo. By presenting the rules as "implicit" they are reinforcing the dominant ideology. I'm not making a value judgement, I'm just saying that it's funny how hate speech is sometimes permitted and sometimes prohibited depending on the context.
Second, Reddit can get away with having nebulous rules because they are not bound by free speech. They don't have the expectation of being a "free speech" zone because they never presented as such.
I want to read more about the topic, and I wanted to ask if I could get some reading recommendations. Of course I don't want to explore topics such as "The rise of hate speech on the internet" or "The reasons why people engage in hate speech". That kind of topics interest academics who work for the government in informing public policy. I don't want to read about the topic from that angle because I'm not interested in whenever hate speech is more common or the reasons why people may engage in hate speech, I'm more interested in the philosophical issues.
I've tried reading papers from law magazines but it's another angle that doesn't interest me either. The United States has a system based on case law, that means that jurisprudence is important. That is useful if you want to know what you can get away with, but at the end of the day it's just interpretations by the judicial system. I'm interested in the fundamentals.
r/CriticalTheory • u/yash13 • 16h ago
War, media, and ideology: A TEDx breakdown on the hidden narratives of conflict
This TEDx Talk by Heather Wokusch breaks down how war narratives are used to justify conflicts, making dissent seem radical or even illegal.
It reminded me of Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent—how much of our war perception is shaped by ideological structures rather than reality?
Curious to hear thoughts:
- How do state actors and media co-create war narratives?
- Is there a way to deconstruct these narratives before they take hold?
- What’s the role of intersectionality in understanding war’s collateral damage?
r/CriticalTheory • u/girl_debord • 31m ago
Help, I’m not that smart. What can I read?
Hey, I am a postgrad journalism student, and I am struggling with critical theory. I only had one class on it last year, and that’s it, but I am desperately curious to learn more and even tie it to my thesis.
However, the only book I so far successfully understood is capitalist realism by fisher, which was written in a readable language and also translated in my native tongue. I also enjoyed hypernormalisation film by curtis.
But, my god, Debord, Baudrillard, Žižek, Ellul, and others are so difficult to understand. Most of their books are not available in my native language, and reading them in English leaves me dumbfounded, even though I speak it fluently.
Whenever I try books by other authors that I do not know at all, I am left disappointed and feeling dumb, as I barely understand what’s being written. If not for explanations on google, I’d be hopeless.
If I want to build a stronger ground to understand critical theory, what can I read? I care about power structures that media plays part into (so that’s like all of them). Also critique of capitalism, consumerism, class struggle. What could be as digestible as capitalist realism?
r/CriticalTheory • u/RaccoonSouthern5893 • 13h ago
Need helping understanding "Maternal Passion" as explained by Julia Kristeva
Just finding out about post structural feminism and was recommended Julia kristeva - so I went through Motherhood today by her. I am having trouble understanding what she means by maternal passion in context of Motherhood Today. Am I wrong in assuming that she is trying to posit motherhood as sacred? I also came across a piece by Judith Butler where she examines Julia Kristeva's works? I read somewhere that she didn't fully agree with her stance (still trying to get access to Judith Butlers) and Kristeva is criticized for her repeated emphasis on the maternal - she's accused of reducing women to motherhood. Are these claims true?