[techno_tsar]

That's simply not true. Critical theories do not depend on modal logics, nor is your characterization of modal logics correct.

Critical theory and justifications for essentially Marxist ideologies have pretty much nothing to do with Kripke, who was writing within a strict Anglo-American/analytic tradition. Kripke didn't invent any kind of magical thinking. His contribution to modal logic was that he showed, formally, its completeness (as a teenager, too).

You seem to be pointing at a common critique of poststructuralist thinking as focused on the "dissolution" and "destruction" of meaning. This has a lot more to do with Derrida, who wrote strictly in a continental tradition. Critical theories do not rest on modal logics, since many of them are anti-foundationalist in nature, they would probably not rest on anything except works in the 'critical theory' canon (e.g. Marx, Adorno, Foucault, etc).

Ironically, and I mean this sincerely, but if you had actually read anything by Kripke (or critical theorists), you would realize that his most famous work after completing modal logic was restructuring semantics in a way that espoused scientific essentialism (cf. Naming and Necessity). That is something critical theorists would very likely be antagonistic towards.

[motohagiography]

I was reading about Kripke's modal logics for applications in LLM's, so I will agree that my study of them wasn't part of the indoctrination they seem to be used for in cultural studies programs. I had first encountered him in the syllabus of some cultural studies programs where modal logics were used as the formal basis and justification for the a-logical aspects of some feminist critiques in the 90s.

Saying that a subset of post marxist theories are not marxist theories seems pretty standard motte and bailey. I'd refer you to James Lindsay's descriptions of how these critical theories fit together into the miasma of nonsense that is being taught to kids today, as he's done deeper work on the subject. My interest is in synthesizing it, because since it is just internaly consistent and so divorced from reality, there are likely infinite versions of it that could serve as an antidote to the pernicious indoctrination "educators," are subjecting children to.

My politics are unambiguous, they are anti-Marxist, as it is not sufficent to be neutral to it's variants, and one has to actively confront it when it pretends to be anything other than a system of deception.

[calf]

They're just dog whistling about racism, because if you read their comment at arm's length, you would realize that it itself is a negative "modal" argument of the exact form that it seeks to decry.