Why is Post Modernism so hated on here?

I see a lot of /pol/ and Veeky Forums trashing on post modernism.
Why are individuals like Rorty and Rescher so disliked? I am legitimately curious.

The devil's own philosophy

Veeky Forums got an influx of conspiracy theorists who think it's part of some grand conspiracy to destroy the white race.

I dislike communism. Most post-modernists are communists, so I dislike post-modernism.

This.

We see an example of a tin-foiler right here.

I'm ok with some of Rorty's ideas. But very broadly, structuralism has real intramemetic utility to people, and postmodernism doesn't add anything that other modes of epistomoyannical analysis don't already provide. Also it is (broadly) enpalumenced in jargon, and in some fields, presents suppositions without supporting evidence, simply accepting the mellifluous harmony of the concepts themselves as ipso facto ontological justification.

underrated post

Can someone explain in basic terms what post-modernism is

Because it's obscurantist garbage.

well outside of like art/design, it's a school of thought that says anything that is believed to be an objective truth, fact, or quality of a idea/subject cannot be definitively known, as humans are dependent on subjective/contextual language that cannot fully describe the idea/subject.

we're trapped in our own senses and language, and therefore any truth is ultimately relative to whoever claims it.

>tfw 4chans journey from innocent board for neckbeard and weebs and pedos to retarded sjws and americans pretending theyre white masterrace is a perfect allegory for the dangers of post modern thought

But see what gets me is that the people who propagate such an ideology also try to explain objective reality through deconstructivism. They try to reach underneath metanarratives to get at what's really going on. But wouldn't they just be replacing the existing metanarrative with their own metanarrative? If you truly believe that everyone is subjective, how can you ever purport to be explaining things objectively? You're just replacing someone else's bullshit with your own.

It's just edgy contrarian kiddies hating on something they're too stupid to understand.

Well that sounds correct desu

If you accept the emphasis on subjectivity then that naturally leads to you wanting to impose your narrative since all interpretation is just about who is in power to push what they want.

Yeah. But Post-Modernism never said all ideas are equal. You can be less wrong than someone, even if you never reach objective truth.

Understanding the social context and usebof language and ideas helps us be less wrong.

congratulations young one, you have shakkashurried Noam and become a full fledged Chomsky honk.

but yeah that's the sad/hilarious/infuriating paradox of it all. also if you accuse any of the derrida/foucault die-hards of this sort of hypocrisy you get all kinds of bullshit jargon to cover up a fundamental flaw in deconstruction as a method.

desu the jargon is what really burns my ass. I hate how people can get lauded as geniuses for turning every noun they can find into a verb and writing goddawful works of bloated nonsense.

the citiquing of western society is marxist and social justice is revisionist and apologist. Those groups have claimed the banner of post-modernism and the rest of society which is post-mdoernist as well is seekign to purge them from the ethos of huaminity and post-modernity as a whole.

On top of that crafts are not art and calling them that only makes people hate them more. Just look at how they keep gettign run over and arrested in scores, to not hate them is to oppose the law's judgementon them

But in that case it's intentionally disingenuous about trying to reach objectivity and /pol/ is vindicated

But then it's just people trying to be less subjective than each other, which has sort of been the entire purpose of Western philosophy for almost all of history hasn't it? If that's the case is just seems like they've taken something that everybody was already doing and added their own fancy jargon to it. The lack of insight doesn't seem worth the fame they have.

It's funny that you use the word jargon, that's exactly what I was thinking of just as you posted. That's really what it is, it's nothing ground-breaking or worthy of the fame it has.

That's kinda retarded logic right there.

Why can't you just hate post modernist for being post modernists?

right, it is true for many human perceptions, but it can only go so far. If you treat it as an indestructible axiom, that allows for all kinds of syllogistic bullshit and an indefensible method of critique as you can just atomize anything beyond recognition.

I can close my eyes and sit in the basement at noon, but that doesn't mean that the sun is gone because I can't see it or feel the rays, and if I told you that the sun was no longer there, you would have the right to call me a jackass.

This is a fair point. Rorty himself made a good analogy for this.
He called it the game of philosophy.
“(1) A game in which each player is at liberty to change the rules whenever he wishes can neither be won nor lost.
(2) In philosophical controversy, the terms used to state criteria for the resolution of arguments mean different things to different philosophers; thus each side can take the rules of the game of controversy in a sense which will guarantee its own success (thus, in effect, changing the rules).
(3) Philosophical arguments are, in fact, won and lost, for some philosophical positions do, in fact, prove weaker than others.”
Another point to be made is that most post-modernists don't assert that objective reality doesn't exist in an epistemological sense, it just cannot be known. Science is a good tool for description of reality but it doesn't quite "hit the nail." (cf. Rorty)
Not quite, like another poster said, while we cannot reach absolute truth, some truths are more correct with others. There are still systems of catergorization.

Because it's nothing more than intellectual masturbation.