Most everything you've said is wrong, and nothing you've said is verifiable. I'm not sure what your goal is here? If it's just to provide me with ironic amusement--well, thank you!
(1) Not obsessed, just interested, because the more I dug the more I realized it actually has seemed to have a surprisingly large (and, unfortunately, mostly negative) influence. Maybe I'm wrong, but I've yet to find much evidence.
(2) You dismissively, and without much understanding, claim I'm dismissive and without much understanding. This is a particularly hilarious one!
(3) If you think my criticism of critical theory is harsh, you need to see me up against a right-wing propagandist.
(4) There's no visceral reaction to mentions of stuff--that's completely a fiction you've invented. My objection is intellectual.
I mean, I do figure out when some phrase is usually an alert for impending nonsense, and do have some emotional reaction to that, if you can count a facepalm as visceral. Like, "Facts don't care about feelings." What's the chance that the next few sentences are going to be carefully thought-through and fully supported by evidence? (I'll still do my best to evaluate any actual argument on its merits.)
(5) Have I even talked about Cultural Marxism (to the extent that it is different than Critical Theory, which it mostly is, despite CT having significant intellectual heritage from Marx)? Certainly not here. If yes, could you remind me where? I spend roughly zero time thinking about it.
(6) Again, it's funny to see you imagining an entirely different scenario than what actually happened regarding where my perspective came from: the "prejudice" is from reading critical theorists and observing the fruits of that kind of thinking! Do you seriously think that by inventing some other fictional account that you can alter what actually happened? You might be able to delude some observers beyond yourself that your fictional account is the true one, but I have enough confidence in readers who are willing to slog through all this material to expect that they won't take your word for it. Hopefully, if for some odd reason my mental attitude and not the actual arguments are what matters, they won't take my word either, and will probe for further details. People are unreliable narrators, for various reasons.
(7) I'm not sure what you think I'm trying to succeed at, but I agree that the length and detail of my post is unlikely to sway a lot of people. But maybe it will encourage some of the right ones to investigate more deeply for themselves.
Again, I'm not going to assume I know what internal mental processes are going on that induce you to write a reply like that, so rich with irony. But you seem to like this sort of thing, so maybe some speculation is in order?
Maybe you have no clue what you're talking about, but you know the right kind of phrases to troll people who you imagine to be on the wrong side of something or other.
Maybe you actually know a great deal about Critical Theory, but for some reason rather than educating people, you prefer to express dismissive hostility, with a little more confidence that you won't immediately end up shown to be the fool.
Maybe something else! There are lots of reasons for human behavior.
Anyway, ha-ha! Maybe I have a weird sense of humor, but I really do find this genuinely funny.
If you want to talk about something serious, I'm open to that too--wanna talk Adorno? I haven't read Negative Dialectics yet (and wasn't planning to unless someone made a good case that it's central)--maybe you know something there that is a good example of how I'm wrong? Shall we quote from the last couple chapters of Eclipse of Reason where things start getting epistemologically unhinged? We can go round the humor circuit again, though, if you want. Or just call it quits.