Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
In general I find this line of debate fruitless; belief that one's opinions are «postmodernist» in the common derogatory sense is at odds with what we understand as having a belief, so it's practically impossible to get someone to do a yes.chad. Nowhere is this clearer than in this exchange with Hlynka. @SecureSignals, too, has a set of beliefs about material reality that he thinks are objectively true.
And from my perspective your argument there was the «postmodernist» one, and your claim of only having loyalty to truth was disingenuous:
Here you conflate (cramming into the same spectrum) the belief in objective correctness of popular narratives, interest in objective truth and conviction in its existence. I think those are all different issues (with the first and other two orthogonal), so I don't even know how to approach this kind of posture.
You conflate merits of science and art, and inferre the truth of a given sociopolitical idea from high quality (measured by popular success) of its propaganda. Restricting the valid scope of our truth evaluation procedure to the whole world or conclusions of wars is unprincipled, so by this token Nazi propaganda, too, was truer than anti-Nazi propaganda within the scope of its dominance in 20th century Europe. So was Lysenkoism in 1938-1962 in the Soviet Union, I guess. What you wrote is definitional postmodernist relativism, pretty much «truth is what sells» and «might is right». This is not me beating up a strawman, you actually practice such a restriction:
This is a snappy slogan. What is «putin's system» – do you mean stuff like logistics and military doctrine? That's too trivial and more consistent with SS's theory than with your argument. (Checking: SS, do you think Hitler's Germany was right about every instrumental issue?) So, had Putin's generals made a few sensible calls prior to 24th February 2022, would that cause Ukrainian nationalism to be discredited? Or the whole of "Rules-Based International Order"? Or all opposition to totalitarians? This is not some Pascal's Mugging; epistemology vulnerable to such pedestrian counterfactuals is laughably flimsy.
If I understand you correctly, your opposition to postmodernism is simpler and more radical than what people «bitching about wokes» espouse. You reject what you call postmodernism as a method, you claim deconstructions of successful things cannot be valid (of course, this is gibberish: any successful paradigm asserts to explain the failures and delusions of its vanquished predecessor, so this method would retroactively invalidate itself). You say: "yes, it could be the case, logically, that many/most people would believe in constructed propagandistic bullshit, but actually bullshitting is just not that potent and people converge on truth". This is a childish just world theory and a thorough rejection of skepticism.
I see terror under your snark. This is an unsustainable and inconsistent prior. Your epistemology is broken, not his. I believe that you'll experience a thorough mental collapse if you ever allow yourself any scrutiny of authenticity of your received wisdoms.
Did the image of my friendly neighbours being secretly replaced by nefarious aliens tip you off?
Yes, obviously, to a degree. If the ukrainians had welcomed their russian liberators in 24 hours, ukrainian nationalism would be discredited and putin’s ‘on the unity’ view would be validated(again, to a degree). Reality is the testing ground for opinions just as much as it is for science.
There is a signal in a military defeat, there is a signal in popular belief, the Truth is trying to tell you something. And if you say ‘widespread popular belief just means more effective propaganda’, you’re putting your fingers in your ears.
How can a deconstruction of science be valid? Besides, postmodernism invalidates itself retroactively, proactively, presently, it can deconstruct anything anytime.
Yes, correct. There are limits imposed by the truth. Propaganda can’t make them believe they have 5 arms. They do converge on the truth, even if they miss it.
I’m actually very agreeable, I take everything I hear on faith, I avoid any area of controversy and I certainly would never go out of my way to invite people to explain to me exactly why I’m wrong. Come on. Blow my mind. You have my permission to collapse my mental sanity if you can.
You said SS has a set of beliefs about material reality that he thinks are objectively true. But when I say it, my epistemic systems are about to give out.
What if they were as oppositional as in reality, but Russian forces were just more competent and swiftly crushed all resistance?
This is not a matter of degree, this is a matter of things having nothing to do with each other. You talked of defeat. The signal in defeat can have zilch to do with merit of ideology.
All of science is deconstruction of earlier failed science: both procedure and facts finding new shared mechanical explanation. We know why Galileo failed to measure the speed of light with lanterns, because we know how all parts of the system work, and which of his assumptions were erroneous.
Can propaganda make a child believe she is in some truer-than-life sense a boy with a penis, and only the nature's caprice has made it seem otherwise?
How does postmodernism accrue popularity at all, in your theory?
Then there would be less of a raw signal wrt the legitimacy of the ukrainian nationality and more of a signal regarding putin's(and the russian state's) competence (it would still reflect positively on his views on nationality).
I mean, why? If a religious lunatic charges naked against a besieging army because he thought God would help him and gets eviscerated instead, has his claim to prophethood not been discredited?
There is still a signal in what he did. You're switching between meanings of deconstruct. Truly deconstructed science would be throwing dice and reading the speed of light as 'five'.
First, mistakes happen (though even they are closer to the truth than random nonsense). Second, epistemic defense mechanism. "Shit, marxism fails all its predictions. Wait, how do we know what's true anyway? I'm boring myself already, let's just say it's all bullshit. Now I don't have to update."
Because bad guys can in fact win. The belief that the opposite is true is what is called «just world theory».
What an example. You sure are soft on yourself, o truth-lover. Consider a strident democracy lover who organizes an anti-war rally in Berlin 1939. It is not, let's say, as entirely implausible as in the case of a lunatic that he might succeed in changing the course of history. Nevertheless he fails, is arrested and processed. Consider my friends who stayed in Moscow and get summoned to court on this very day for doing the same. The main signal I see here is that they are instrumentally outgunned, perhaps naive, less charitably – deceived by their Western «friends». This isn't much of a blemish on their ideology.
Indeed, I would argue that they constitute its best and truest part. And the worst parts are clearly triumphant, gloating, this is the woke stuff we've written and read so much about.
Bad guys can win, both within and without a movement.
You are. This is the canonical idea of deconstruction (or perhaps better said epistemological break), the motte of it, what I practice, what science practices, the entirely valid practice of skepticism about widely held beliefs/metaphysics/epistemologies/ontologies that you condemn people for using: the tough question of whether we actually know what we think we know, whether our method for ascertaining truths is good enough, and whether the apparent consensus of our esteemed experts is organic, genuine and best-possible attempt at parsing all available evidence.
Pomo garbage in the style of «Making Black Women Scientists under White Empiricism» is cynical or deluded cargo-cult application of this valid premise, and precisely what ought to be deconstructed – as an attempt to manufacture an inorganic, bad-faith consensus.
It's deconstruction all the way down. You can't escape it. What you are trying to do here is deconstruction of a popular epistemology too.
Indeed, how? Do we just ask a bunch of older white males? Is there, historically speaking, a surer way to know?
Oy, did you see this:
Pedestrian understanding of the mechanisms responsible, but even they agree.
No, their understanding is exactly correct: people cling to power, and power worship is rationalization of the status quo, to minimize losses from opposing the strong or getting crushed along with the weak. Might is right because it can redefine terms, in a perfectly postmodernist manner: words mean whatever the stronger party wishes them to mean, so the only question is, as Humpty Dumpty argued, which is to be master. And with the next master, new meanings come, so no learning from history is possible. Of course, theorizing to the effect that the Universe (devoid of God in your picture, incidentally) is so configured as to make each successive Master in some objective sense external to the struggle more deserving, and his meanings Truer, is nothing more than Just World theory. The world is not obliged to be just.
Kamil flaunts his faux-wise Asiatic cynicism of the Russian prison cell, and the fact that you prop this up as evidence is quite hilarious. Once again, even Greks knew better.
(There's a moral lesson in italic at the bottom).
You've really corn cobbed yourself. Just admit that your whole belief system stands on air and adopt something more mature.
They’re using the veneer of the always-popular sheeple theory, but I think it boils down to the sheeple basically being right, as always.
Minimizing losses is a valid logical reason. An average joe who challenges a muscle-bound giant to a fistfight doesn’t have a pristine epistemology, he’s just stupid. The giant didn’t twist reality.
Perhaps the problem with postmodernists is that since truth is supposedly power, they don’t know what to do with observed power, it’s just meaningless, assigned a value of zero, like history. So they get their asses kicked.
Karlin approved of Putin swallowing russian-speaking territories when it carried no cost, and that was sensible, for him, for the russian people. They weren’t blinded by power, they just saw the world as it was. Now that the cost-benefit has changed, their view must change also. I don’t see where Humpty dumpty is supposed to be, manipulating them.
@Amadan is it fair to call this gibberish? I suppose he can't be thinking he makes a solid point.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link