If these authors are able to write grant proposals and get funding, then clearly someone thinks they are producing something of value. You cannot see the value, so you declare there must not be any?

Well, what isn't? LOL. That and 'cultural marxism' are just scary/meaningful-sounding terms people make up to label and then defame something they don't like.

They're terms that are broad and just accurate enough to describe something, but too vague and imprecise to actually describe anything.

Let me help. You dislike academics who study and analyze society and culture to discover it's biases, unspoken assumptions, and so on, and you don't like that they critique society for the oppressive elements which they believe they've found.

I.e. social justice. Critiques of capitalism. Critiques of systemic racism.

Criticize something specific so we can talk about it. But, the reason you aren't accurate or specific is because if you were, whatever argument you are trying to make would rapidly fall apart.

And I'd love to be proved wrong! Share a specific critique. We can talk about Marxists, neo-Marxists, communists, libertarian anarchism, Progressive Democrats, Social Democrats, The New Left, Poststructuralism, Structuralism, Critical Theory, Postmodernism (though that one's a bit vague), Feminism, Intersectionalism, Third-wave Feminism, Liberation Theology (the current Pope has roots in Liberation Theology, which was a point of contention), and so on.

Or maybe you don't like Democrats? Social Progressives? The entire field of Gender Studies?

Pick something you don't like and let's talk about it.

But, I'd bet your own lack of education (which I don't mean as an insult, more so a factual description - I'm uneducated about, say, genetics) on the things you criticize makes it difficult to do so.

And I'd bet your true dislike is something you'd be shunned for expressing, which is why you hide behind nonsense-phrases that function as dog whistles.

Because we all kinda know what you mean, even though you didn't actually say it.

But actually, I'm having a bit of a hard time understanding what your point is, could you help me? I mentioned a specific line that Paul Graham wrote, then said it was "dumb" for the reasons I outlined. Then, in defense of Paul Graham, you posted links to tweets to snippets of research absolutely without any context at all. How would I know whether that research is good or not? I have no training in any of those fields.

I'm really confused about how what you posted defended Paul. Did you want me to see that someone wrote the words "decolonizing" and "math" together and subsequently think that it is stupid, after all, to write the words "hegemonic" and "whiteness" in the same paper?

Also for what it's worth, I don't see attacks on science in any things you link. I see, perhaps, a call for more empiricism in certain fields, and a call for recognition of our society and it's flaws, and how those flaws may extend into systems embedded within our society, such as the scientific community and our educational system.

I mean, it's clear you agree with some of these criticisms: in the same post you staunchly defend science as, presumably a source of everything productive, but criticize "academia". Yet how do you propose to differentiate between the two? You're both criticizing different parts of the social system scientific discourse is embedded in. What makes the other criticism inherently invalid?

> The end of this line of thinking is to destroy mathematical education and leave children ignorant

I want to call out specifically that there is absolutely nothing you've quoted that supports this claim.

Hopefully we find a way to renew it, or else to do basic science outside of it