ALSO Karl and Synergy...Idk if these are in there but here are 2 cards that link to every k and are pretty good
The K’s denial of social reality makes the NEG complicity with the worst atrocities in human history.
MacKinnon 2000 (Catharine, Symposium On Unfinished Feminist Business: Points Against Postmodernism, Chicago-Kent Law Review, Prof of Law at Univ of Mich and Prof of Law at Univ of Chicago, lexis)
It is the denial of their social reality that is complicated and raises difficult philosophical questions. Understand that the denial of the reality of such events has been a philosophical position about reality itself. Unless and until effectively challenged, only what power wants to see as real is granted reality status. Reality is a social status. Power's reality does not have to establish itself as real in order to exist, because it has the status as real that power gives it; only the reality of the powerless has to establish itself as real. Power can also establish unreality--like the harmlessness of pornography or smoking--as reality. That doesn't make it harmless. But until power is effectively challenged on these lies, and they are lies, only those harmed (and those harming them, who have every incentive to conceal) have access to knowing that that is what they are. So it has taken us all this time, and a movement that has challenged male power, to figure out that women's reality is also a philosophical position: that women's reality exists, including women's denied violation, therefore social reality exists separate from its constitution by male power or its validation by male knowledge. This analysis raises some questions about postmodernism that [*706] are not simply a report on my current mental state. They are: Can postmodernism stop the rape of children when everyone has their story, and everyone is presumably exercising sexual agency all the time? Can postmodernism identify fascism if power only exists in microcenters and never in systematic, fixed, and determinate hierarchical arrangements? How can you oppose something that is always only in play? How do you organize against something that isn't even really there except when you are thinking about it? Can postmodernism hold the perpetrators of genocide accountable? If the subject is dead, and we are dealing with deeds without doers, 47 how do we hold perpetrators accountable for what they perpetrate? Can the Serbian cultural defense for the extermination of Croats, Bosnian Muslims, and Kosovar Albanians be far behind? If we can have a multicultural defense for the current genocide, because that's how the Serbs see it, why not a German cultural defense for the earlier one? Anti-Semitism was part of German culture. Finally, for another old question, if you only exist in opposition, if you are only full in opposition to the modern, 48 it has determined you. Don't you need an account of how you are not merely reiterating your determinations? From postmodernists, one is not yet forthcoming. The postmodernist reality corrosion, thus, not only makes it incoherent and useless--the pragmatists' valid criticism 49 --but also regressive, disempowering, and collaborationist.
Attempts to enact liberatory pedagogies fail and worsen racism, sexism, and banking education.
Ellsworth 1994, Elizabeth ‘Why doesn’t this feel empowering? Working through the repressive myths of critical
pedagogy’ the education feminism Reader ed. By Lynda store
I want to argue, on the basis of my interpretation of C&I 607, that key assumptions, goals, and pedagogical practices fundamental to the literature on critical pedagogy – namely, “empowerment,” “student voice,” “dialogue,” and even the term “critical” – are repressive myths that perpetuate relations of domination. By this I mean that when participants in our class attempted to put into practice prescriptions offered in the literature concerning empowerment, student voice, and dialogue, we produced results that were not only unhelpful, but actually exacerbated the very conditions we were trying to work against, including Euro centrism, racism, sexism, classism, and “banking education.” To the extent that our efforts to put discourses of critical pedagogy into practice led us to reproduce relations of domination in our classroom, these discourses were “working through” us in repressive ways, and had themselves become vehicles of repression. To the extent that we disengaged ourselves from those aspects and moved in another direction, we “worked through” and out of the literature’s highly abstract language (“myths’) of who we “should” be and what “should” be happening in our classroom; we moved into classroom practices that were context-specific and seemed to be much more responsive to our own understandings of our social identities and situations.