the physicist who tried to debunk postmodernism

Your video is a bit overly verbose and grandiloquent. A deep dive on the Sokol Affair should have been less pompous and more concise. The fact that Alan Sokol's BS Social Physics Paper about 'Quantum Gravity' being a social construct (which it just happens to be) being published in a "glorified zine" rather than a "Peer-Reviewed Sciennce Journal" may mean that it was "not an own" as you say, but that doesn't counteract the valid criticism about Postmodern Critical Theory and "Cultural Studies" (or STS). And the fact that many Peer-Reviewed Sciennce Journals" are pay-to-publish and lack intelectual ethics doesn''t discount the fact that hard sciences and mathematics are objectively testable and outside of any given social context or intersubjective contructs regarding the ideas around the objective facts of the science (and math), the fact remainst that scientific realism is correct that the physical sciences are obective and rational independent of any social forces, whie social "sciences" and forms of critiqe are at best statistical confermations of subjective and intersubective realities of individuals and groups at specific times and in specific contexts. The 'Soft Sciences," like psychology and sociology, literary philosophy, or even brain-biology (chemistry) and philosophy of mind are openly trying to create a less rigorious form of academic study that denys the objective analysis that facts and measurements provide by using things like 'feelings' and 'thoughs' as reporteed by individuals as 'evidence' in various research and/or arguments. There is a place for critical analysis of systems and power structures, and the academic study of such interpersonal phenomena such as sexual politics and gender studies, but it is not in the least to be considered HARD SCIENCE. Putting these arguments about the nature of scientific rigor in a political context of "Left vs. Right" is a mistake. We can't use "Science and Technology Studies" in the form of Cultural Studies to pretend to some higher wisdom about reality or our shared intersubjective social constructs. These attempts to explain the underlying injustices we see from the perspective of traditionally marginalized or oppressed minorities are valid academic subjects only as long as they use objective facts and measurements that can be verified and tested. Left or right, regardless of one's political ideology, money should be ethically excluded from scientific inquiry. Sokol Affair not only revealed the BS of Postmodern Critical Theory but also indirectly revealed the lack of rigor and the contradiction in 'pay-for-publishing "scientific journals. The fact that you made an hour-long video that gets patrons and sells ads on YouTube proves that Sokol's project was successful, in more ways than he intended. The point, finally, is that the academics of most American Universities have been confronted by the money and lost the trail, because the academics, especially in the soft sciences and liberal studies, find it necessary to BS in order to publish and produce controversy for their profit, credit, and funding. Publish or die. In other countries, there must be some practical outcome to your studies, but in the USA, simply staying in the Pension Fund for tenured professors and becoming famous is enough. You need to produce nothing of use. I'm now done posturing as intellectually superior in my hegemonic power structure of inequality since birth. Good faith criticism complete.