#Critical Theory of Language

[omegaphilosophia]

The Philosophy of Natural Language

The philosophy of natural language is a branch of philosophy that explores the nature, origins, and use of language as it is naturally spoken and understood by human beings. It involves the study of how language functions in communication, the relationship between language and thought, the structure and meaning of linguistic expressions, and the role of context in understanding meaning. This field intersects with linguistics, cognitive science, logic, and semiotics, aiming to understand both the abstract properties of language and its practical use in everyday life.

Key Concepts in the Philosophy of Natural Language:

Meaning and Reference:

Semantics: One of the central concerns of the philosophy of natural language is the study of meaning, known as semantics. Philosophers explore how words and sentences convey meaning, how meaning is structured, and how language relates to the world.

Reference: Reference is the relationship between linguistic expressions and the objects or entities they refer to in the world. Philosophers like Saul Kripke and Hilary Putnam have contributed to understanding how names, descriptions, and other expressions refer to things in the world.

Pragmatics:

Context and Meaning: Pragmatics deals with how context influences the interpretation of language. It examines how speakers use language in different contexts and how listeners infer meaning based on context, intentions, and social norms.

Speech Acts: Philosophers such as J.L. Austin and John Searle have explored how utterances can do more than convey information—they can perform actions, such as making promises, giving orders, or asking questions.

Syntax and Grammar:

Structure of Language: Syntax is the study of the rules and principles that govern the structure of sentences in natural languages. Philosophers and linguists investigate how words are combined to form meaningful sentences and how these structures relate to meaning.

Universal Grammar: The concept of universal grammar, proposed by Noam Chomsky, suggests that the ability to acquire language is innate to humans and that there are underlying grammatical principles common to all languages.

Language and Thought:

Linguistic Relativity: The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis suggests that the structure of a language influences how its speakers perceive and think about the world. Philosophers debate the extent to which language shapes thought and whether different languages lead to different cognitive processes.

Conceptual Frameworks: Language is often seen as providing the conceptual framework through which we interpret the world. Philosophers examine how language structures our understanding of reality and whether it limits or expands our cognitive abilities.

Philosophy of Meaning:

Theories of Meaning: Various theories of meaning have been proposed in the philosophy of language, including:

Descriptivist Theories: These suggest that the meaning of a word or phrase is equivalent to a description associated with it.

Causal Theories: These argue that meaning is determined by a causal relationship between words and the things they refer to.

Use Theories: Inspired by Ludwig Wittgenstein, these theories claim that the meaning of a word is determined by its use in the language.

Language and Reality:

Metaphysical Implications: Philosophers explore how language relates to reality, including how linguistic structures might reflect or distort our understanding of the world. This involves questions about whether language mirrors reality or if it plays a role in constructing our experience of reality.

Ontology of Language: This concerns the nature of the entities that linguistic expressions refer to, such as whether abstract objects (like numbers or properties) exist independently of language.

Communication and Interpretation:

Hermeneutics: Hermeneutics is the study of interpretation, particularly of texts. Philosophers in this tradition, such as Hans-Georg Gadamer and Paul Ricoeur, explore how understanding is achieved in communication and how meaning is negotiated between speakers and listeners.

Ambiguity and Vagueness: Natural language often contains ambiguity and vagueness, where words or sentences can have multiple interpretations. Philosophers study how these features affect communication and understanding.

Language and Social Interaction:

Language as a Social Phenomenon: Language is inherently social, and its use is governed by social norms and conventions. Philosophers study how language functions in social contexts, how power dynamics influence language, and how language can both reflect and shape social structures.

Language Games: Wittgenstein introduced the concept of "language games" to describe how the meaning of words is tied to their use in specific forms of life or social practices. This concept emphasizes the diversity of language use and the idea that meaning is context-dependent.

Evolution of Language:

Origins of Language: Philosophers and cognitive scientists explore how language evolved in humans, the relationship between language and other forms of communication in animals, and the cognitive capacities required for language.

Language Change: Natural languages are dynamic and constantly evolving. Philosophers study how languages change over time and what this reveals about the nature of meaning and communication.

Critique of Language:

Deconstruction: Philosophers like Jacques Derrida have critiqued traditional notions of language and meaning, arguing that language is inherently unstable and that meaning is always deferred, never fully present or fixed.

Critical Theory: In the tradition of critical theory, philosophers analyze how language can perpetuate power structures, ideologies, and social inequalities, and how it can be used to resist and challenge these forces.

The philosophy of natural language offers a rich and complex exploration of how language functions, how it relates to thought and reality, and how it shapes human interaction and understanding. By examining the nature of meaning, reference, context, and the social dimensions of language, philosophers aim to uncover the fundamental principles that govern linguistic communication and the role of language in human life.

[chicago-geniza]

It's obvious when you think about it for more than thirty seconds but I had no idea the same basic innovations people were doing with experimental theater over the last 20 years or so were also happening with opera, which is a form of theater??? This Lorca opera goes crazy and it incorporates the same "multimedia" and quasi-documentalist techniques I associate with theater, but would not have associated with "academic" music (do we call it that in English? I am translating in my head from the Slavic convention), though of course it makes sense!!!

[ravilson23]

The Full Moon ep is finally here! Warning, this post has a ton of spoilers.

I think it may be the best episode of the second season. Though i feel like its still nowhere near as good as ep 6 and 7 of the first one. I like the starting song, the contrast is good and the emotions of characters are clear. Its also a nice set up.

I especially love how everyone interacts with each other in this episode. Moxxie and Blitz seem like friends and their talk about sex is hilarious cause of Moxxies attitude. "Fuck him good, sir " was a brilliant line only because he was the one to say it. He seems too proper for this, maybe too shy. Blitzos good mood and his cackle after teasing Mox was also good to hear. Maybe cause he wasnt offensive this time. Anyway it just brought a lot of joy since its quite some time since they had a moment like this.

Then we have Blitz and his shopping trip. I liked when he went to buy candles. I think it has really shown that for Blitz sex isnt and probably never was about intimacy. He understands mood just as "horny" and honestly its very fitting. Though its not shocking i heve never thought about it . We know he is afraid of intimacy, but i thought about it strictly as an emotional closeness. I didnt think that sex could be so... one-dimensional for him in general.

Next we have cherubs. Tbh i didnt like this part mostly cause i dont think like it changed anything. If they were killed, well that would be awesome especially since i see no reason why it didnt happen already. They had been beaten and yet the I.M.P. has just send them back. Makes no sense, they are assasins and the cherubs are their enemies. Unless cherubs cant be killed without blessed weapons then well its somewhat fine. But still nothing they did was interesting or suprising. It feels like they were there to fill half of the time so the ep wouldnt be too short. Unless its more of a set up. But if so it still was somewhat weak. Maybe as i was so interested in Stolitz i just didnt have enough patience to care about cherubs. The fight was fun though, as was their reaction to Blitzos shopping. I am glad the I.M.P. got a chance to shine too. Especially Moxxie and his bitch line.

So now one last thing left. The ending. Obviously the best part. I loved how confused was Blitz and honestly i think his anger was understandable. After all he had no idea how Stolas felt and how he planned to end their arrangment. Blitz was both vulnerable and safe thanks to their deal, he was in a position of a "plaything" but also didnt have to be emotionally invested. He clearly hates himself, is insecure and generally cant imagine someone truly wanting him. So its not suprising that he reacted the way he did. In a way Stolas once again was the one to decide everything. He started the deal and then ended it. Without talking with Blitz. And to be clear, i dont think its fair to really blame Stolas. He tried his best. But well, they both lack the understanding. Stolas isnt aware that Blitz didnt believe in his love because of his own self-hatred. He now believes that Blitz simply hates Stolas. And Blitz really didnt have time to comprehend anything that happened so he acted harshly and in the end didnt even get the chance to apologise. I would like to also say sth about music in this scene. The fact that it was very emotional right from the beginnig even when Blitz was still in horny mood, it just selled it. It felt like real life when sth is wrong, but u notice it a little too late and then u just kind of crumble, get down from your high way too quickly and get a whiplash. It made it painfull to watch. I didnt cry though i heard many people did.

Anyway i am rather excited to see what will happen next and i really hope the episodes will hold some standard. Cause boy, the second season failed me a little to often.

Thanks for reading, hope u found sth interesting and sorry for any grammar mistakes and such.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Christopher Wiggins at The Advocate:

Recently revealed training videos from Project 2025, obtained and published by ProPublica, shed light on a comprehensive effort to overhaul federal policies concerning inclusivity and LGBTQ+ rights. Project 2025, a more than 900-page Republican strategy document, aims to institutionalize Trumpism within the federal government by dismantling diversity programs, placing Trump loyalists in critical positions, and rejecting progressive ideologies.

[...]

In one of the videos, former Trump officials Bethany Kozma and Katie Sullivan focus on reshaping federal policies around gender and inclusive language. Sullivan begins by mocking inclusive terminology, saying, “Hi, I’m Katie Sullivan and just a normal American woman, but to the left that makes me a cisgendered, ethno-imperialist birthing person with pronouns she/her” She adds that these words “are quite a mouthful, and it’s one America needs to spit out before we choke on it.”

Kozma and Sullivan specifically target terms and concepts such as gender, sex assigned at birth, and gender-affirming care. They reject the term gender, arguing that it is “completely toxic” and should be replaced with “biological sex” to maintain clarity. Kozma claims, “It’s no longer being used to mean male or female, but now how people identify, which is where we get this idea of gender identity.” She adds, “We should never use the word gender as conservatives.” The pair also criticize the phrase “sex assigned at birth,” with Kozma describing it as “the left’s attempt to change biological fact and to try to normalize their belief that biological sex can change.” She advises, “If you see the term sex assigned at birth, delete it and replace it with biological sex.” Sullivan and Kozma are equally dismissive of pronoun use, warning political appointees against adopting practices that respect individuals’ gender identities. Sullivan states, “Don’t use them in email signature blocks, on LinkedIn, and absolutely do not ask people what their pronouns are on your first day on the job.” Kozma adds, “We are not here to discuss pronouns,” emphasizing a refusal to engage with gender-inclusive practices.

The two also belittled social-emotional learning, a framework widely used in education to help students develop self-awareness, self-control, and interpersonal skills. Kozma referred to SEL as “the new buzzword for CRT or critical race theory,” dismissing it as just another tool of the left to infiltrate conservative spaces to “indoctrinate” kids into adopting a more open worldview. Sullivan encouraged political appointees to scrutinize any references to SEL, arguing that such terms are part of a broader effort by the left to change culture through language. These efforts are part of a broader conservative push to delegitimize LGBTQ+ people and roll back rights through legislative actions across the country. 

One of the Project 2025’s Presidential Administration Academy training videos exposed by ProPublica featuring former Trump Administration staffers Bethany Kozma and Katie Sullivan contained opposition to gender identity concepts, gender-neutral language, and gender-affirming care.

[quatregats]

I need to be allowed to teach a course on historical linguistics NOW

[sapphiresaphics]

Hey, to all of you out there who want to be critical of the media you consume (mostly talking to you arcane critics), I need you to do better and actually think about the themes at play.

If you’re wondering why Jinx isn’t as crazy as she was in season 1, why don’t you think about the stuff going on in her life and how that relates to other characters we’ve seen before.

Like Vander.

When Sevika shows up demanding Jinx use her position as a symbol to rally the troops against Piltover, that’s a DIRECT PARALLEL to when she did the same thing to Vander back in Season 1 Episode 2.

When Jinx says that having Isha in her life causes her to see things more clearly or blurry and she can’t tell which… she is referencing how Silco and Vander wouldn’t give up their kids for their causes. Isha has become to Jinx what Jinx was to Silco.

Being critical isn’t just about listing offenses and complaining about stuff. Being critical is also about trying to understand WHY the show is doing what it’s doing and asking yourself “what are they trying to say here?” Arcane is a lot of things but it is not subtle. They INTENTIONALLY do visual parallels with characters and previous scenes to call attention to them and make you connect the dots.

Being critical is coming up with answers to questions. And if the only answer you can come up with is “they just suck at writing” or “they completely changed her character out of nowhere” then I’m sorry to say but you’re being very UN-critical in your analysis. You aren’t even trying. In fact, you’re actively trying to NOT think about the meanings and the messages and the motivations of the characters at all. You’re just being dismissive and calling yourself a critic.

That’s not how criticism works. Especially not film criticism. Every shot. Every character’s line of dialogue. Every angle. Every cut. Every scene transition. Every action. Every pause. Every motion. It all MEANS something to the creators. They spent millions of dollars on this series crafting it for 6+ years. If the best you can come up with is “they inexplicably changed her character” then I’m sorry to say the problem is YOU, not the writers.

Please for the love of god just TRY to think about the choices the creators took before you write off stuff you didn’t like as “criticism.”

[memoriesofthingspast]

🌊

[omegaphilosophia]

The Philosophy of Hermeneutics

The philosophy of hermeneutics is the study of interpretation, particularly of texts, language, and symbolic expressions. Hermeneutics originally developed as a method for interpreting religious scriptures, but it has expanded to encompass broader issues of understanding and meaning in various contexts, including literature, law, art, and social sciences. Central to hermeneutics is the idea that understanding is not a straightforward process but involves complex interpretive acts influenced by history, culture, and the interpreter’s perspective.

Key Themes in the Philosophy of Hermeneutics:

Origins and Development:

Biblical Hermeneutics: Hermeneutics began as the art of interpreting sacred texts, particularly the Bible. Early thinkers like Augustine and Origen developed principles for understanding scriptures, focusing on the need to uncover deeper, often allegorical, meanings.

Philosophical Hermeneutics: Over time, hermeneutics expanded beyond religious texts to include general principles of interpretation. Friedrich Schleiermacher, often considered the father of modern hermeneutics, argued that understanding any text requires insight into both the author’s intent and the broader cultural context.

Hermeneutic Circle:

Part-Whole Relationship: A central concept in hermeneutics is the "hermeneutic circle," which describes the process of understanding as a circular relationship between the whole and its parts. To understand a text (the whole), one must interpret its individual elements (the parts), but understanding each part requires an awareness of the whole.

Prejudices and Preconceptions: The hermeneutic circle also highlights that interpretation is influenced by the interpreter’s preconceptions. Understanding is thus seen as a dynamic process where initial assumptions are continually revised in light of new insights.

Key Figures in Hermeneutics:

Friedrich Schleiermacher: Schleiermacher emphasized the importance of understanding the author’s psychological context and argued for a universal approach to interpretation that could apply to any text, not just religious ones.

Wilhelm Dilthey: Dilthey extended hermeneutics into the human sciences (Geisteswissenschaften), arguing that human experience and history could only be understood through interpretive methods, contrasting with the natural sciences’ emphasis on explanation.

Hans-Georg Gadamer: Gadamer, a leading 20th-century philosopher, developed a concept known as "philosophical hermeneutics." He emphasized the role of history and tradition in shaping understanding and argued that interpretation is a dialogical process, where the interpreter engages in a conversation with the text.

Paul Ricoeur: Ricoeur introduced the idea of a "hermeneutics of suspicion," where interpretation involves uncovering hidden meanings, often related to power, ideology, or unconscious motives. He also explored the interplay between explanation and understanding in interpreting texts.

Interpretation and Meaning:

Text and Context: Hermeneutics stresses the importance of context in interpreting meaning. A text cannot be understood in isolation; it must be seen within its historical, cultural, and linguistic context. This idea is crucial in both literary criticism and legal interpretation.

Meaning as Process: Hermeneutic philosophy views meaning not as a fixed entity but as something that emerges through the interpretive process. Meaning is constructed in the interaction between the interpreter and the text, shaped by both historical tradition and the interpreter’s unique perspective.

Understanding and Language:

Language as Medium: In hermeneutics, language is seen as the medium through which understanding occurs. Gadamer argued that language shapes our experience of the world and that all understanding is mediated by language. This leads to the view that interpretation is always situated within a linguistic and cultural tradition.

Fusion of Horizons: Gadamer introduced the concept of the "fusion of horizons," which describes how understanding involves merging the interpreter’s perspective (horizon) with that of the text or author. This fusion allows for a new, shared meaning to emerge, transcending the limitations of both the text’s original context and the interpreter’s preconceptions.

Hermeneutics and Phenomenology:

Influence of Heidegger: Martin Heidegger, a major influence on hermeneutic philosophy, argued that understanding is a fundamental aspect of human existence (Dasein). He shifted the focus from the interpretation of texts to the interpretation of being itself, emphasizing that our understanding of the world is always interpretive and situated within a particular historical and cultural context.

Existential Hermeneutics: Heidegger’s ideas led to the development of existential hermeneutics, which explores how individuals interpret their own existence and the world around them. This approach emphasizes the subjective and situated nature of understanding.

Applications of Hermeneutics:

Literary Criticism: Hermeneutics is a foundational approach in literary theory, where it is used to analyze texts, uncover deeper meanings, and explore the interplay between author, text, and reader.

Legal Interpretation: In law, hermeneutics is applied to interpret legal texts, such as constitutions, statutes, and contracts. It involves understanding the intent of the law, the context in which it was written, and how it applies to contemporary situations.

Historical Understanding: Historians use hermeneutic methods to interpret historical texts and events, recognizing that understanding the past involves reconstructing the perspectives and contexts of historical actors.

Critiques and Challenges:

Objectivity vs. Subjectivity: One critique of hermeneutics is that it can lead to relativism, where all interpretations are seen as equally valid. Critics argue that this undermines the possibility of objective knowledge. However, hermeneutic philosophers like Gadamer counter that interpretation is not purely subjective but is guided by tradition and shared norms.

The Role of Power: Hermeneutics has been challenged by critical theory, particularly by thinkers like Jürgen Habermas, who argue that hermeneutics often overlooks the role of power and ideology in shaping meaning. This critique has led to more critical approaches that incorporate an awareness of social and political factors in interpretation.

The philosophy of hermeneutics is a rich and complex field that explores how we understand texts, language, and human experience. It reveals that interpretation is not a straightforward process but is shaped by history, culture, language, and the interpreter’s perspective. Hermeneutics challenges us to recognize the situated nature of understanding and the dialogical process through which meaning emerges. Whether in literature, law, history, or everyday communication, hermeneutics offers profound insights into the nature of meaning and the act of interpretation.

[arabella-strange]

This is why Saussure (and others) differentiate between langue (language, but as in: the technical, given definitions of words [i.e., of signs]; the system of words and how they're set up to be used) and parole (speech, but in the sense of usage—of all the ways people do the language they're speaking or writing or using).

So plenty of people who are fluent in a language will be great at knowing the sense of how words are used in terms of ✨ vibes ✨ because of the enormous social dimension to the uses and alteration of usages of words over time. All languages have a social dimension (otherwise we'd just shout sounds that make sense to us but nobody else), but fluency often rises above the strict, agreed-upon definitions of words which we as individuals... don't always need to know, even when we're using the words well in practice!

(It's also why, as such scholars would mostly argue, it's crucial to understand and continually study all the various and unruly ways people actually use language, because every iteration of a language changes how it can and will be available to other users.)

the problem with reading and writing leading to a strong vocabulary is that you tend to know the vibe of words instead of their meanings.

if I used this word in a sentence, would it make sense? absolutely. if you asked me what it meant, could I tell you? absolutely not.

[recsspecs]

To the layman, however, the law often seems a highly technical, bewildering mystery, with its antiquated and sometimes impenetrable jargon, obsolete procedures, and interminable stream of Byzantine statutes, subordinate legislation, and judgments of the courts. Lawyers tend to look backwards. The doctrine of precedent, hallmark of the common law, dictates that what has gone before is what now should be, thereby affording a measure of certainty and predictability in a precarious world.

Raymond Wacks Law A Very Short Introduction

[veal-exe]

EDIT

This has gotten a lot of traction so I’m gonna be rude and say that if anyone here has the means, that my spouse and I need help to not be homeless and hungry.

my paypal is Lahoreling@Gmail.com

END EDIT

———

I was discussing the incident mentioned later in this piece with my wife yesterday and I saw another post by someone earlier doing something mentioned in here and I'm finally going to say something about it.

There is a serious problem in leftist spaces, especially online, especially on Tumblr, when it comes to language.

The way people are expected to speak just to even enter these spaces is incredibly complex, to the point of being outright hostile to those who haven’t already spent time in them. And it’s not just newcomers; people who have important things to say, people speaking from lived experiences, people who don’t have English as a first language but still deserve to be heard, are constantly talked down to or even pushed out entirely for not using the "right" words.

This gets even worse when you factor in how often new terms are coined in English, and then people are shamed for not immediately knowing or using them.

I saw someone reblog their own post saying something like, "I know for a fact more than half of y’all didn’t understand a fucking word I said here."

And honestly? That stuck with me, because yeah, I’ve felt that before. Not because I don’t value critical thinking! because I absolutely do! I just made a post on that too! but because so many of these posts are written in a way that makes them Functionally Inaccessible to anyone who doesn’t already have the right background knowledge. And at a certain point, if you actually want your words to have an impact, if you actually want to create meaningful change, then you’re going to have to accept some things:

People will not always use perfect language.

2. People will not always know the exact terminology you personally prefer they use when engaging in discourse.

3. Dismissing or attacking people for how they say something, instead of engaging with what they’re saying, is actively harmful.

And more than that, if you genuinely want people to understand and engage with the things you’re talking about, especially people who don’t speak English as a first language, especially people without access to higher education, especially people who don’t even know where to begin when it comes to self-education (because yes, that is a skill that has to be taught) then you are going to have to be the one to adjust sometimes. You are going to have to let people say things imperfectly. You are going to have to take a step back and engage with the message rather than just the words being used to express it.

One of the experiences that made me realize that I, as a non-native English speaker, was not welcome in Tumblr leftist spaces was when I spoke about real-life oppression I had experienced. I left one word out of my post, a word which honestly, was not even important when talking about an incident that had Happened To Me, not theory, not hypotheticals or any what-ifs of oppression, a story, a story about something that happened to me.

And because of that, people sat in a Discord server, picking apart my words, accusing me of awful things, and then came into my askbox throwing jargon and buzzwords I’d never even heard before, then got mad at me for being frustrated that this was happening.

Think about that. People who are directly impacted by oppression are being pushed out of spaces meant to discuss it because the way they speak doesn’t conform to certain expectations. That is not justice. That is not solidarity. That is not progress.

There is a fundamental disconnect here between theory and praxis. Ironically so many of you do not know what praxis is, because most of you engage with a lot of theory, and not a lot of praxis, you use the word praxis a lot, but, ironically, you have no idea what it means.

{to put my money where my mouth is, it means Doing Something, in the simplest possible terms}

In theory, leftist spaces should be accessible. They should be places where people can speak openly about their experiences, learn from each other, and work toward meaningful change. But in practice? There’s a gatekeeping of language so intense that many people, particularly those who are marginalized in ways beyond just their political beliefs, are outright excluded.

And this is something I need people to sit with: The assumption that the "right" language is easy to learn, or that anyone who doesn’t use it is being willfully ignorant, is an inherently privileged stance. Knowing where to find information, how to process it, and how to integrate new terminology into your vocabulary is a skill that is largely tied to education. Having the time to engage with leftist literature and theory, to stay up-to-date on every new term that gets introduced, is also a privilege. And the fact that so many people refuse to acknowledge this, that they expect perfect articulation from everyone, regardless of background, and punish those who don’t measure up, is a huge problem.

Worse still, the same people who act as gatekeepers of this language often fail to communicate their ideas in a way that is accessible at all.

This doesn’t mean that complex ideas should never be discussed. It doesn’t mean that people shouldn’t strive for accuracy in their language. But it does mean that if your goal is to educate, if your goal is to spread awareness, if your goal is to help people understand and join the movement, if your goal is to engage with fellow oppressed people, then you have a responsibility to meet people where they are. You have a responsibility to make your language understandable.

Because if people can’t even process what you’re saying, then what’s the fucking point?

And before anyone says, "Well, people should put in the effort to learn!" Let me make something very clear: They do.

People who are new to leftist spaces, or who are coming in from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds, are often trying their best to engage. They are listening, they are learning, they are processing. But if the response to every mistake, every slightly off phrasing, every unfamiliarity with a new term, is immediate hostility,

or even if it's just 'hey I see you're sharing a personal moment, but can you change your language to make me, personally, more comfortable with you discussing your oppression?' then you’re not teaching.

You’re just making sure only the people who already think and speak exactly like you get to stay in the room.

Your language, your terminology, your theory? none of it means anything if you can’t make it accessible to the people who actually need it. And it means nothing if you use it to Exclude rather than Include.

[inspired-lesson-plans]

ELA, Grade 12 RL.CR.11–12.1. Accurately cite strong and thorough textual evidence and make relevant connections to strongly support a comprehensive analysis of multiple aspects of what a literary text says explicitly and inferentially, as well as interpretations of the text; this may include determining where the text leaves matters uncertain.

I've gotta be honest. I didn't understand literary criticism theories when I was in high school, and that includes Feminist Criticism.

So I have nothing to add. Please find a way to use this in your AP Literature

had a fascinating english class that resulted in the notes header “the forcefeminization of victor frankenstein”

[calugaritsa]

Please I need mutuals... how do you get mutuals on this webbed site

Interests in the tags so I can find people 👇thanks

[fourdramas]

another text that to me is foundational is joan scott's article evidence of experience from 1991 in which she critiques the notion of experience as something that is "given", something that "lurks" until it is expressed in its proper terms. she instead insists that experience must be historicised.

this is so so so good! just read this:

[littlescaryinternetguy]

The entirely correct post above is an excellent example of how the right wins, and how the right won.

Critical race theory (CRT) is a framework of legal analysis that posits (among other things) that race in humans is not biologically grounded but is in fact socially constructed, and that racism in America that puts whites in a position of power over all other races is the norm. One example would be the redlining of neighborhoods in the 20th century. It is a specific set of theories, a set of prisms through which one can look at law and how it is constructed.

Persons like Christopher Rufo have been extremely open about what they wanted to do with terms like Critical Race Theory: turn it into a signifier, a shibboleth for wild-eyed Stalinists Who Threaten The Very Fabric Of American Society.

American media, which continues to operate under the assumption that actors such as Rufo operate under good faith even though he happily broadcasts his bad faith, then reports on Critical Race Theory acting as if it MIGHT be a set of legal frameworks or it MIGHT be what Rufo created out of whole cloth. Rufo banks on the fact that Western liberal society must give him the benefit of the doubt, even though he loudly proclaims what he is doing, over and over again.

So now the idea that critical race theory is a legal framework (which is the truth) has to compete with the idea that critical race theory is an Airborne Toxic Event of woke evil. Well, which one is going to stick in someone's mind better? Rufo and his ilk are currently doing this with the concept of DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) if you want to watch it in real time.

So when you see someone say "Tell me more about how critical race theory shouldn’t be taught in school"... well, it isn't! And it shouldn't be! Because grade schoolers don't read Delgado and Stefancic! What that person means to say is "tell me more about how black history shouldn't be taught in school", but he is using the enemy's definition of CRT as a stand-in.

Language, especially now, is a battlefield. In America, bad actors such as anarchocapitalists (Thiel, Musk) and fascists (Rufo, Trump) work hand in hand, realizing that the entire project of liberalism... that there are rules on a battlefield that must be followed... can have it's back broken by just ignoring the rules. One of those rules is that words have a finite number of agreed-to meanings, and certain things are true. In the 80s, the right bemoaned what they called 'postmodernism', they said it taught that truth was relative. So what could be true if there isn't one truth? They took their warped idea of postmodernism to heart, and in America, 2024 in the Era of Bad Faith is the result. The only way to fight this is to be precise in your language. Say what you mean, if you don't know how to say what you mean, learn how as well as you can.

This by the way is why I get all whooped up when I see the blanket usage of "borrowers" for "very very small people" but that's something else we don't need to get into.

[ladybugmania]

BE AWARE: HISTORY IS REPEATING ITSELF

Trump & Hitler Compared

Comparison 1: Nationalism and Scapegoating Minorities

Hitler (1930s Germany):

Hitler’s rhetoric emphasized an ethnically pure German identity and national rebirth, exploiting economic despair and cultural anxiety following WWI. He blamed Jews, communists, and other minority groups for Germany’s defeat and economic troubles. The Nuremberg Laws institutionalized racial discrimination, stripping Jews of their rights as citizens.

Trump and the GOP (2015–Present):

Trump has repeatedly used xenophobic and racially charged language, calling Mexican immigrants “rapists” and proposing a “total and complete shutdown” of Muslims entering the U.S. His administration instituted the Muslim ban, attempted to eliminate DACA, and enacted family separation at the border. Republican-backed state laws increasingly target immigrants and minority voters, using the guise of security or voter integrity, echoing exclusionary policies of the past.

Comparison 2: Undermining Democratic Institutions

Hitler:

After becoming Chancellor, Hitler manipulated the Reichstag Fire in 1933 to invoke emergency powers. The Enabling Act gave him the authority to legislate without parliamentary consent, effectively dismantling democracy. He repeatedly painted political opponents as traitors or enemies of the state.

Trump and the GOP:

After losing the 2020 election, Trump refused to concede, launched dozens of baseless legal challenges, and incited the January 6 insurrection—an unprecedented attack on the peaceful transfer of power. He and his allies have labeled political opponents as “deep state,” “communists,” or “enemies,” aiming to delegitimize dissent and create a hostile political climate. Many GOP figures continue to downplay or deny the events of January 6, paralleling historical patterns of rewriting or ignoring threats to democracy.

Comparison 3: Control of Media and Disinformation

Hitler:

Joseph Goebbels led the Nazi Ministry of Propaganda, controlling all media, art, and public messaging. The regime spread disinformation, suppressed dissenting voices, and crafted a narrative that glorified the regime while demonizing its enemies.

Trump and the GOP:

Trump labeled mainstream media “the enemy of the people,” a term used by authoritarian regimes to delegitimize journalism. He and GOP-aligned media outlets like Fox News, Newsmax, and OANN have been pivotal in spreading conspiracy theories (e.g., QAnon, election fraud), while vilifying fact-based reporting. This creates an alternate reality for supporters and undermines trust in factual information, similar to propaganda methods used by authoritarian regimes.

Comparison 4: Cult of Personality and Loyalty Above Law

Hitler:

The Nazi regime revolved around the Führerprinzip—absolute loyalty to Hitler. Personal loyalty to him was expected above all else, including law, ethics, or reason. Independent institutions were absorbed or dismantled.

Trump:

Trump demands personal loyalty from public officials, often attacking or firing those who disagree with him (e.g., FBI Director James Comey, former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, or military leaders). Loyalty to Trump—not the Constitution or democratic norms—has become a defining feature of many in the GOP. Those who criticized his actions, including former allies, are frequently branded as traitors or RINOs (“Republicans In Name Only”).

Comparison 5: Militarization of Patriotism and Law Enforcement

Hitler:

The SA (Sturmabteilung) and later the SS were paramilitary forces used to intimidate opposition, enforce Nazi ideology, and maintain “order.” Hitler used them to blur the line between state power and partisan violence.

Trump and the GOP:

During the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests, Trump deployed federal agents (often unmarked) to suppress demonstrations, particularly in Portland, Oregon. He encouraged violent responses to protesters, infamously saying, “When the looting starts, the shooting starts.” Some extremist groups like the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, and others that support Trump have acted as quasi-paramilitary forces—prominent among those who stormed the Capitol.

Conclusion:

While the U.S. remains a functioning democracy, the parallels between Hitler’s authoritarian rise and the tactics employed by Donald Trump and elements of the Republican Party are real and well-documented. They include:

Scapegoating and demonizing minorities

Discrediting democratic institutions

Spreading propaganda and disinformation

Fostering a cult of personality

Encouraging or ignoring political violence

These tactics, if unchecked, threaten the foundations of democratic society—just as they did in 1930s Germany. As history shows, democracies often crumble not from external attack, but from internal erosion.

Be Aware: History will repeat. This has happened in the past and it can happen again.