Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine are you having fun al? are you having van al? dei has never hurt anyone you jackass dei must go gaolang > your fav hi rej hi rejj hi rejjj is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? life goal sister harem real madrid reloaded is innocent tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you watch for haters weebs discussing politics lmao worst thread ever
Not necessarily objective, but absolute, yeah, they do.
Ravager, Nameless and Herrera are essentialist in their methods. Their vision of the world is monolithic and dogmatic. Highly push by a conservative vision of the world and social structure.
All three are highly inspired by the big colonial rethorics and the philosophy of the renaissance of universalism.
HERERRA is convinced that technology and an absolute vision of freedom will create a peace without ever thinking about the power dynamics and the domination relationship between social structures.
NAMELESS has a very strong colonist vision of his country and the part that should play the west in the world. He has convinced himself of the existence of a big threat from all kind leftist and the sciences of social studies relying on the observations of the structural and the diversity of power dynamics of the world.
RAVAGER is completely glued to essentialist visions, especially reactionnary ones such as the way we usually teach children about the differences between men and women as a way to vulgarize gender.
I've encountered others here who have an absolute and essentialist vision of science and rationnality or even social structures. I'm often criticizing those people when they use dictionnaries as an evidences or what they use their outdated knowledge of science without ever taking the contextual informations or the new development in social studies into account.
Post-modernism is anti-universalistic philosophy. It contest and even reject the vision that tried to build the big stories of the colonization and the rise of the modern age.
After all, they did just ask me "so you don't mind people hating white people?" . Because they believe in stuff like reverse racism as they were sold to the idea that racism was somehow an universa behavior that can be shared by everyone without any notions of power and domination dynamics.
So they are not post-modernists, they are the reactionnary avatars of modernism. Their vision is linked to idealism and a rejection of materialism. (which would not be a problem - at least for a time - if they were able to project themselves toward other out-groups, have empathy and have a vision of CLass struggles like Blax)
Ravager, Nameless and Herrera are essentialist in their methods. Their vision of the world is monolithic and dogmatic. Highly push by a conservative vision of the world and social structure.
All three are highly inspired by the big colonial rethorics and the philosophy of the renaissance of universalism.
HERERRA is convinced that technology and an absolute vision of freedom will create a peace without ever thinking about the power dynamics and the domination relationship between social structures.
NAMELESS has a very strong colonist vision of his country and the part that should play the west in the world. He has convinced himself of the existence of a big threat from all kind leftist and the sciences of social studies relying on the observations of the structural and the diversity of power dynamics of the world.
RAVAGER is completely glued to essentialist visions, especially reactionnary ones such as the way we usually teach children about the differences between men and women as a way to vulgarize gender.
I've encountered others here who have an absolute and essentialist vision of science and rationnality or even social structures. I'm often criticizing those people when they use dictionnaries as an evidences or what they use their outdated knowledge of science without ever taking the contextual informations or the new development in social studies into account.
Post-modernism is anti-universalistic philosophy. It contest and even reject the vision that tried to build the big stories of the colonization and the rise of the modern age.
After all, they did just ask me "so you don't mind people hating white people?" . Because they believe in stuff like reverse racism as they were sold to the idea that racism was somehow an universa behavior that can be shared by everyone without any notions of power and domination dynamics.
So they are not post-modernists, they are the reactionnary avatars of modernism. Their vision is linked to idealism and a rejection of materialism. (which would not be a problem - at least for a time - if they were able to project themselves toward other out-groups, have empathy and have a vision of CLass struggles like Blax)
Last edited:
Post modernists as they're known today, are those who believe in personal truths regardless of empirical facts. There's a reason why people refer to Trump as the first post modernist president. Objective reality is optional for people like that, so is dogma and ideology. I don't speak for the other two, but ravager is 100% a post modernist. It's all about his personal truth, which is ultimately guided by those who brainwashed him in the first place.
Yeah, that's not it lol
Post modernism is a philosophical, artistic and scientific movement of the 20th that pointed out big flaws of modenism and universalism. In Art it CAN be a reject of the structural nature of modernist medias (which is usually why people could say that Modern reactionnary are post-modernist) but that's just a fake appearance.
In reality, post-modernism forces us to adopt an outward vision of the world, a vision that is not absolute, not centralized on big stories or absolute concept such as nationalism or gender, but more scattered narratives and identities. it's more than anything a way to push the voices of the marginalization. This is why post-modernism was very usefull for social struggles all over the world.
In reality, the concepts of "objective reality", "absolute truth", "dogmas", "rationnality" and what you describe as "personal truth regardless of empirical facts" are more linked together than you think. The "personnal truth" of Ravager (but also the one of many people here such as Zenos for ex) are ALL linked to this twisted vision of rationnality resulting from the beliefs of the age of enlightement..
When Ravager is saying "BIoLoGyyyy!!" what he is actually saying is "I believe in the basic notions of science that were taught to me as a child" and what he doesn't know is that those notions are - for the most part - the result of capitalist, imperialist, colonist system and the early stage of rationnalism +universalism themselves. All reactionnaries here are stuck in a world between their basic knowledge of the world (modernism+ universalism + the cult Rationnalism) AND a big rejects of anything that tries to counter the inherent biases of the modern age, capitalism, imperialism and colonialism (and other systems)
As such, they will claim to know everything about science while rejecting ALL the work that sciences managed to create after its self-critic that arrived with the help of marxism, historical materialism, postcolonialism, post-modernism, structuralist and post-structuralists.
So no, Trump or Ravagers are not post-modernists, they are the complete opposite.
Post modernism is a philosophical, artistic and scientific movement of the 20th that pointed out big flaws of modenism and universalism. In Art it CAN be a reject of the structural nature of modernist medias (which is usually why people could say that Modern reactionnary are post-modernist) but that's just a fake appearance.
In reality, post-modernism forces us to adopt an outward vision of the world, a vision that is not absolute, not centralized on big stories or absolute concept such as nationalism or gender, but more scattered narratives and identities. it's more than anything a way to push the voices of the marginalization. This is why post-modernism was very usefull for social struggles all over the world.
In reality, the concepts of "objective reality", "absolute truth", "dogmas", "rationnality" and what you describe as "personal truth regardless of empirical facts" are more linked together than you think. The "personnal truth" of Ravager (but also the one of many people here such as Zenos for ex) are ALL linked to this twisted vision of rationnality resulting from the beliefs of the age of enlightement..
When Ravager is saying "BIoLoGyyyy!!" what he is actually saying is "I believe in the basic notions of science that were taught to me as a child" and what he doesn't know is that those notions are - for the most part - the result of capitalist, imperialist, colonist system and the early stage of rationnalism +universalism themselves. All reactionnaries here are stuck in a world between their basic knowledge of the world (modernism+ universalism + the cult Rationnalism) AND a big rejects of anything that tries to counter the inherent biases of the modern age, capitalism, imperialism and colonialism (and other systems)
As such, they will claim to know everything about science while rejecting ALL the work that sciences managed to create after its self-critic that arrived with the help of marxism, historical materialism, postcolonialism, post-modernism, structuralist and post-structuralists.
So no, Trump or Ravagers are not post-modernists, they are the complete opposite.
This subtle and indirect shade is meant for you @Uncle Van 
lmao not only
Sorry, I'm not internet smart, what do you mean ?
Sorry, I'm not internet smart, what do you mean ?
To me, it is satisfying to be analyzed.
Tragiciferous isn't a real world. I used it to mean tragic, like "oh well..." or "unfortunate".
Oh ok. I'd rather say myself that I'm repoliticizing their position. I don't diagnose people (especially because i've a bad history with the word lol)
When I see those replies coming from leftists, I lose all hope. The confusionnism..
But hey I won't share your irrespect. If you want to prove me wrong, I'm willing to listen. Go find me some viable ressources on post-modernism to explain me why people like Ravagers who essentialize men and women are somehow critical of modernism, universalism and the colonial era.
Good luck.
When I see those replies coming from leftists, I lose all hope. The confusionnism..
But hey I won't share your irrespect. If you want to prove me wrong, I'm willing to listen. Go find me some viable ressources on post-modernism to explain me why people like Ravagers who essentialize men and women are somehow critical of modernism, universalism and the colonial era.
Good luck.
This is the crux of my problem with you. You run with your own assumptions of what you read without actually listening to contemporary scholars and what they have to say about a post modernist world view in the year 2025. You'd do well to let your French side rest for a bit and listen for a change.
This is the exact reason why despite your best efforts, you do not succeed at changing minds. At no point was I rude to you.
Postmodernism has become synonymous with personal truths. With rejecting consensus and embracing opinions over facts.