Post modernism hate thread

completely fair when discussing post structuralists.

Why exactly is that the case?

moooooom

this philosophy person is criticizing my worldview :(((((

mooooom :((((

Not an argument.

I am skeptical about this claim to knowledge about who is oppressed. How are we defining oppression? At present it seems that a group can claim oppressed status and also define the terms of their own oppression. Surely a dubious ploy by the already powerful to extent their control! M-maybe /pol/ was right all along !
Pls gib Breitbart job

shut the fuck up post structuralist scum

grrrrRRRR

dude everything is about power!

*dies from BDSM sex-induced AIDS*

their condradictory nonsense and verbose bungling into one fallacy after another deserves only cursory glances at the text.

.. and now you're a pedophile too or what convinced you?

>post-modernism

yay. its 1992 again.

Foucault is actually coherent though, in contrast to people like Derrida.

In fact, I'm pretty sure Foucault hated Derrida, and thought he was a posturing idiot.

This post is very postmodern.

What an interesting way to justify not bothering to read the arguments of what you're critiquing.

>In fact, I'm pretty sure Foucault hated Derrida, and thought he was a posturing idiot.

Yeah. Foucault did seem to like Deleuze though.

>power structures are a meta-narrative

They are the moment you tell a story about them and claim the story is real.

I'm sorry how are things like slavery or colonialism "stories"

Who says I did not? But to make my statement more clear to you - when you start reading a theoretical work and find several fallacies right off the bat and then the author bases further reasoning on those 'arguments', you have every right to summarize the work entire.

Anyway, read Sokal.

Colonialism brought culture to hellholes and when they got industrialized it actually started morphing into globalisation that turned it into a bogeyman to pauperize the countries that used to profit from it.

Slavery is mainly a nigger trait.

>I'm sorry how are things like slavery or colonialism "stories"

Depends? Whose slavery and whose colonialism?

Because I think you have a specific story about slavery and colonialism in your head, and that story doesn't include the Ottomans or the Barbary States.

>Foucault did seem to like Deleuze though.
Which I never understood, Foucault was like the only person in France who didn't think Deleuze was a infiltrator.

le Sokal meme.

>that story doesn't include the Ottomans or the Barbary States.

why wouldn't it? Orientalism is an essential part of nineteenth century european colonialism

>why wouldn't it?

Because the narrative is that only European people are responsible for slavery and colonialism.

Which is false, hence power structures are indeed narratives.

Colonialism was utterly unprofitable for the colonised and it only stunted the growth that could've been achieved with with sovereignty and protectionism. Read a book, you fucking brainlet.

yes, of course, lots of civilizations have practiced and still practice slavery, but that doesn't exclude the fact that the effects of european and american colonialism are still very real and regard most people around the world

>Colonialism was utterly unprofitable for the colonised and it only stunted the growth that could've been achieved with with sovereignty and protectionism
That's a horribly generalized statement, stop trying to out retard each other.

how's that statement wrong?

Well, it is historical. It isn't "real".

Either way, you can frame any power structure with an infinite number of narratives.

Exceptions exist like Hong Kong, and a lot of older Taiwanese would say something similar in regards to the Japanese.

it is still very real. The fact that France can still intervene at any moment into one of her former colonies' political affairs for example.

>exceptions
so you're literally taking a few fishes into a sea of shit. Kinda proved my point, doesn't it?

Any powerful country can intervene into any countries' internal affairs.

Doesn't mean they will.

Nothing is absolute, except for this sentence.

What do you mean by 'intervene' in this case? I'd say there's no other country on earth that can legally invade a former colony

>legally

By whose standard would it be legal?

By the actual pacts made between France and her colonies

White imperialist capitalist Christian men dindu nuffin wrong

If u disagree ur le cuck

Largely so, as the europeans were not really out to civilize but rather to squeeze all the profit out of the colonies, usually from resources, so no human development. However I concur as the mistake of colonialism was often the not weeding out of native institutions, especially in africa. But that was never going to happen as profit driven policy was often necessary as colonies more often than not were not profitable.

>what convinced you?
My hatred towards them was becoming too extreme. I decided I shouldn't feel like that towards authors I've never engaged with.

Why should he read Sokal, so he can see how a guy used his credentials (he was a PhD after all) to publish nonsense in a non-peer reviewed publication? Because those degenerate twins /pol/ loves pulled the same stunt with a STEM journal, only this time it was their fucking PhD thesis, but of course you'll just ignore this as usual
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_affair

STEM people should be denied the status of human beings, Jesus fucking Christ.

...

Sokal is clueless about the disciplines he criticizes, and he isn't smart enough to understand the authors he criticizes in the first place. Philosophy and the human condition in general are beyond STEMtards.

>Philosophers
>disciplines

>find several fallacies

back to /pol/

>i hate whitey reeeee

back to Logic 101

you realize postmodernists enabled reductionism and scientism? thank your structuralist forefathers when their weapons are used against you, you cuck

>It was actually me writing this all along
>I'm sad but I've come to accept that
>the main character is what I wish I was and i thought you should know

Well, at least you're answering now, despite your answer making absolutely non-sense, as usual with you cunts.

>postmodernists enabled reductionism

Are you high son, none of the guys who fall into the postmodernism boogeyman could write anything shorter than 50 pages