What's the difference between post-irony, new sincerity, and post-postmodernism?

What's the difference between post-irony, new sincerity, and post-postmodernism?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=k6pyufzQs4I
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

that image is so ridiculously stupid

It's entirely true.

That image is silly. I do think he's a charlatan when it comes to post-modernism, but someone clearly has a bone to pick with Peterson here.

Men like him because he goes beyond nihilism. That's the core of his appeal.

cringe

>post-irony
Sarcasm that targets sarcasm itself.

>new sincerity
It's just old-fashioned sincerity with "new" in front of it, to distinguish it as on "this side" of postmodernism and not "that side."

>post-postmodernism
Ideas that are critical of overcritical and over-deconstructing things. Basically anything that argues or suggests that reducing things to their component parts so thoroughly that everything becomes meaningless is a pointless endeavour.

It's different from the standard postmodern criticism because it, again, tends to be satirical. That isn't to say that all satire of postmodernism is post-postmodernism - post-postmodernism basis its entire argument on satire. "Look at how ridiculous postmodernism turns out/has turned out to be - this is why it's bad."

>men

Lel

>he goes beyond nihilism

[citation needed]

Peterson, stop with this obvious damage control

>he goes beyond nihilism
You cant make this shit up. Peterson fans do all the work for you.

The image really is horrible.

I really don't like this image

Frozen is a positive message for girls? Lol

I understand in essence a few of the images critique but it's not at all a fair representation of peterson and his predicament.

>trannies
Blue pilled Sam Harris shill... Easy on the hate speech

Really hating the image, Opie.

Well one difference is the number of letters in each.

Explain to me how lesbian incest is not a positive message for (attractive) girls.

I've read this post several times but I fail to understand anything in it.
Is this what it feels like to have double digit IQ?

>Sarcasm that targets sarcasm

So in other words it's.....sarcasm.

Because both lesbianism and incest are fantasies that when implemented in reality have catastrophic consequences.

wat

The destructive effects of incest speak for themselves.
The same should go for lesbianism but in our post-fag world I guess it can stand some elaboration.
Look up lesbian bed death. Lesbianism isn't an actual thing. Women have different biological needs than men and female sexuality does not permit as much variability as male sexuality. Lesbianism is merely political activism. Telling young girls it's real and then hypnotizing them into enacting it is just a way of propagating the ideology.

>post-irony
sarcasm is sick as fuck

>new-sincerity
sarcasm isn’t sick as fuck

>post post-modernism
‘sarcasm is sick as fuck’ is a statement indistinguishable from satire or sincerity, much like “‘sarcasm is sick as fuck’ is a statement indistinguishable from satire or sincerity” is a statement indistinguishable from satire or sincerity.

>sarcasm about potatoes
>So in other words it's.....sarcasm.
how do you know so much O wise truth teller

jesus christ

Ow hard would have been really to horizontally flip the face to match the positioning of the glasses?

this looks way more radical

>t. whomever the fuck that pic is describing

youtube.com/watch?v=k6pyufzQs4I

This video proves 100% that Zizek is a fucking dilettante.

>Men like him because he goes beyond nihilism. That's the core of his appeal.
There are so so many better thinkers than him - actual thinkers - that "go beyond nihilism". Nietzsche himself for one, but most of the so called "postmodernists" do as well, usually because they're influenced by Nietzsche.

>reducing things to their component parts
But that's precisely what continentals criticize analytics for doing. I mean, you mention "deconstruction". Well if you read Derrida you'll see that a large part of his shtick is that you can't reduce or seperate anything into components in the strict sense.

how's he wrong?

Read one thing written by him before you criticize him