White privilege and other matters

[Slick]

I wasn't getting at anything other than it's difficult to find anti racist symbols that racists are comfortable with.

OK. No idea what the point is, but OK

That whatever the symbol, racists will still complain about it.

If they choose to stand on one leg rather than kneel, racists wil still find a way to take issue with it and boo it in grounds.

Therefore why bother changing it?

I understand why it's been adopted - taking a lead from American resistance and trying to show uniformity of purpose/solidarity with the cause - but I also appreciate a sentiment for changing it. Quite aside from any association with BLM as an organisation (rather than the sentiment), kneeling instinctively feels like a submissive act and the wrong sort of gesture for standing up to something.

But it’s not for the racists, it’s for everyone who wants to stand up to the racists.

Your last paragraph sums it up, as a symbol it isn’t something everyone can get on board with, even some black athletes, so find something simple everyone can use. People will still boo, people will still be racist, but find something that can unite everyone that wants to stand up to it and leaves no wiggle room for apologists.

Don’t know what it is

[Slick]

I wasn't getting at anything other than it's difficult to find anti racist symbols that racists are comfortable with.

OK. No idea what the point is, but OK

Are you being deliberately thick? You said that they should find a gesture less divisive than kneeling. He replied by saying that racists are not going to be happy with any gesture

See above.

And then fuck off

[Tichtheid]

The kneeling came from Colin Kaepernick, who first sat, then knelt as opposed to standing for the national anthem.

The way it's been politicised, it's anything but a submissive gesture.

[Random1]

That is genuinely hilarious.

Have you ever come across the phrase "That is not even wrong"?

It comes from an academic who was shown an undegrad paper that was so far off it was "not even wrong"

Care to explain?

Just so as we can establish some common ground regarding the terms, and in order that we are talking about the same things, perhaps you could outline some tenets or a definition of Postmodernism?
Then the same with Marxism

I'll start, among other things Postmodernism is about scepticism, irony, ambiguity, deconstructionism, self-reference, it denies universal truths, objective reality and materialism.

Marxism ain't that, at all.

I think Jordan Peterson saw that a couple of French guys were Marxists in the 60s and made some great big leap, with which he made a million bucks a year from desperate people on Patreon.
It's a bit like Scientology.

Agree in general to the definition you use for post modernism (I always smile when the definition is written down, as it reminds me it is supposed to be hyperskeptical, which is a self defeating proposition, but that’s an aside).

The one thing I would add is post modernism highlights that social constructs are pivotal in terms of power and ultimately oppression.

That’s the core aspect that I feel links Marxism to post modernism; that there is a social construct that causes a power imbalance, which is subsequently reinforced and exploited by those in power. In Marxism the construct was class, in post modernism, it is anything wielding power (hence its current favourite target being the western white patriarchy )

The stuff Jordan Peterson bangs on about I agree is fanciful. His view that post modernism was designed as a means of sneaking Marxism under the radar is not something I subscribe to.

When I said that there are philosophical links I meant as a progression of the philosophy in an evolutionary sense. Without Marxism, I’m not sure we’d have post modernism, just as without Kant, you don’t get post modernism.

That make sense?

[Tichtheid]

Care to explain?

Just so as we can establish some common ground regarding the terms, and in order that we are talking about the same things, perhaps you could outline some tenets or a definition of Postmodernism?
Then the same with Marxism

I'll start, among other things Postmodernism is about scepticism, irony, ambiguity, deconstructionism, self-reference, it denies universal truths, objective reality and materialism.

Marxism ain't that, at all.

I think Jordan Peterson saw that a couple of French guys were Marxists in the 60s and made some great big leap, with which he made a million bucks a year from desperate people on Patreon.
It's a bit like Scientology.

Agree in general to the definition you use for post modernism (I always smile when the definition is written down, as it reminds me it is supposed to be hyperskeptical, which is a self defeating proposition, but that’s an aside).

The one thing I would add is post modernism highlights that social constructs are pivotal in terms of power and ultimately oppression.

That’s the core aspect that I feel links Marxism to post modernism; that there is a social construct that causes a power imbalance, which is subsequently reinforced and exploited by those in power. In Marxism the construct was class, in post modernism, it is anything wielding power (hence its current favourite target being the western white patriarchy )

The stuff Jordan Peterson bangs on about I agree is fanciful. His view that post modernism was designed as a means of sneaking Marxism under the radar is not something I subscribe to.

When I said that there are philosophical links I meant as a progression of the philosophy in an evolutionary sense. Without Marxism, I’m not sure we’d have post modernism, just as without Kant, you don’t get post modernism.

That make sense?

A postmodernist view is that class is dead or meaningless, that is probably the most profound example of why the two are completely incompatible, but they have been conflated by those that don't seem to understand either.

[Random1]

Just so as we can establish some common ground regarding the terms, and in order that we are talking about the same things, perhaps you could outline some tenets or a definition of Postmodernism?
Then the same with Marxism

I'll start, among other things Postmodernism is about scepticism, irony, ambiguity, deconstructionism, self-reference, it denies universal truths, objective reality and materialism.

Marxism ain't that, at all.

I think Jordan Peterson saw that a couple of French guys were Marxists in the 60s and made some great big leap, with which he made a million bucks a year from desperate people on Patreon.
It's a bit like Scientology.

Agree in general to the definition you use for post modernism (I always smile when the definition is written down, as it reminds me it is supposed to be hyperskeptical, which is a self defeating proposition, but that’s an aside).

The one thing I would add is post modernism highlights that social constructs are pivotal in terms of power and ultimately oppression.

That’s the core aspect that I feel links Marxism to post modernism; that there is a social construct that causes a power imbalance, which is subsequently reinforced and exploited by those in power. In Marxism the construct was class, in post modernism, it is anything wielding power (hence its current favourite target being the western white patriarchy )

The stuff Jordan Peterson bangs on about I agree is fanciful. His view that post modernism was designed as a means of sneaking Marxism under the radar is not something I subscribe to.

When I said that there are philosophical links I meant as a progression of the philosophy in an evolutionary sense. Without Marxism, I’m not sure we’d have post modernism, just as without Kant, you don’t get post modernism.

That make sense?

A postmodernist view is that class is dead or meaningless, that is probably the most profound example of why the two are completely incompatible, but they have been conflated by those that don't seem to understand either.

That’s nowhere near the most profound difference for me. The biggest difference in my mind was that Marxism was/is touted to be scientific, and therefore provable objectively. Post modernism completely rejects that proposition.

The class thing is just a relatively minor category substitution.

[Biffer]

I wasn't getting at anything other than it's difficult to find anti racist symbols that racists are comfortable with.

OK. No idea what the point is, but OK

Are you being deliberately thick? You said that they should find a gesture less divisive than kneeling. He replied by saying that racists are not going to be happy with any gesture

Yep

[Tichtheid]

That’s nowhere near the most profound difference for me. The biggest difference in my mind was that Marxism was/is touted to be scientific, and therefore provable objectively. Post modernism completely rejects that proposition.

The class thing is just a relatively minor category substitution.

We haven't agreed on a definition of Marxism yet, but I'm not getting a sense of an understanding of it here.

[Random1]

That’s nowhere near the most profound difference for me. The biggest difference in my mind was that Marxism was/is touted to be scientific, and therefore provable objectively. Post modernism completely rejects that proposition.

The class thing is just a relatively minor category substitution.

We haven't agreed on a definition of Marxism yet, but I'm not getting a sense of an understanding of it here.

I’m referring to classical Marxism - more specifically, base leading to superstructure and exploitation by the powerful of the powerless.

Obviously Marxism is much wider than that, but those are the main elements I feel are antecedents of post modernism.

[Tichtheid]

That’s nowhere near the most profound difference for me. The biggest difference in my mind was that Marxism was/is touted to be scientific, and therefore provable objectively. Post modernism completely rejects that proposition.

The class thing is just a relatively minor category substitution.

We haven't agreed on a definition of Marxism yet, but I'm not getting a sense of an understanding of it here.

I’m referring to classical Marxism - more specifically, base leading to superstructure and exploitation by the powerful of the powerless.

Obviously Marxism is much wider than that, but those are the main elements I feel are antecedents of post modernism.

Well, class is absolutely central to classical Marxism, whereas postmodernism rejects the theses of political and economic class, insisting instead on power being a social construct, I could go on but the main criticism of postmodernism is that it's wordy and almost meaningless in itself, it paints itself into a corner of epistemological meltdown.

[Rinkals]

Agree in general to the definition you use for post modernism (I always smile when the definition is written down, as it reminds me it is supposed to be hyperskeptical, which is a self defeating proposition, but that’s an aside).

The one thing I would add is post modernism highlights that social constructs are pivotal in terms of power and ultimately oppression.

That’s the core aspect that I feel links Marxism to post modernism; that there is a social construct that causes a power imbalance, which is subsequently reinforced and exploited by those in power. In Marxism the construct was class, in post modernism, it is anything wielding power (hence its current favourite target being the western white patriarchy )

The stuff Jordan Peterson bangs on about I agree is fanciful. His view that post modernism was designed as a means of sneaking Marxism under the radar is not something I subscribe to.

When I said that there are philosophical links I meant as a progression of the philosophy in an evolutionary sense. Without Marxism, I’m not sure we’d have post modernism, just as without Kant, you don’t get post modernism.

That make sense?

Not really.

Isn't Marxism about ownership rather than class?

[sturginho]

OK. No idea what the point is, but OK

Are you being deliberately thick? You said that they should find a gesture less divisive than kneeling. He replied by saying that racists are not going to be happy with any gesture

See above.

And then fuck off

You were the one who brought it up

[Happyhooker]

Agree in general to the definition you use for post modernism (I always smile when the definition is written down, as it reminds me it is supposed to be hyperskeptical, which is a self defeating proposition, but that’s an aside).

The one thing I would add is post modernism highlights that social constructs are pivotal in terms of power and ultimately oppression.

That’s the core aspect that I feel links Marxism to post modernism; that there is a social construct that causes a power imbalance, which is subsequently reinforced and exploited by those in power. In Marxism the construct was class, in post modernism, it is anything wielding power (hence its current favourite target being the western white patriarchy )

The stuff Jordan Peterson bangs on about I agree is fanciful. His view that post modernism was designed as a means of sneaking Marxism under the radar is not something I subscribe to.

When I said that there are philosophical links I meant as a progression of the philosophy in an evolutionary sense. Without Marxism, I’m not sure we’d have post modernism, just as without Kant, you don’t get post modernism.

That make sense?

Not really.

Isn't Marxism about ownership rather than class?

it's defined as the battle between those who produce and those who own. This is distilled down into a battle of the classes; the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.


Re the kneeling thing, there is never going to be a protest symbol that everyone agrees with, by definition. People like dan Hodges are deliberately confusing the issue. The players have chosen this symbol, that's their choice.

Also, this framing of BLM as a single group is disingenuous at best, there's no central organisation, more a load of not particularly affiliated groups

[sockwithaticket]

The kneeling came from Colin Kaepernick, who first sat, then knelt as opposed to standing for the national anthem.

The way it's been politicised, it's anything but a submissive gesture.

Which has a particular meaning in an American context, but kneeling has an extensive history and present as a submissive gesture, so I understand a certain amount of cognitive dissonance around it being use to protest. All the examples I can think of from my own life, have been related to status/submission. Kneeling in church to pray (before the atheism kicked in), kneeling at cubs before the pack leader during the grand howl, kneeling for sports coaches when being addressed so that they know you were focused on them.

Elsewhere and more generally there's obviously the PM and those being knighted kneeling before the queen. Getting down on one knee when proposing.

Not that a gesture can't have more than one meaning, but this one has such an ingrained association with submission, at least to my mind and surely those of others.

I'd be quite in favour of standing up straight flicking the Vs, though that might be tricky to get on before the watershed

[Tichtheid]

The kneeling came from Colin Kaepernick, who first sat, then knelt as opposed to standing for the national anthem.

The way it's been politicised, it's anything but a submissive gesture.

Which has a particular meaning in an American context, but kneeling has an extensive history and present as a submissive gesture, so I understand a certain amount of cognitive dissonance around it being use to protest. All the examples I can think of from my own life, have been related to status/submission. Kneeling in church to pray (before the atheism kicked in), kneeling at cubs before the pack leader during the grand howl, kneeling for sports coaches when being addressed so that they know you were focused on them.

Elsewhere and more generally there's obviously the PM and those being knighted kneeling before the queen. Getting down on one knee when proposing.

Not that a gesture can't have more than one meaning, but this one has such an ingrained association with submission, at least to my mind and surely those of others.

I'd be quite in favour of standing up straight flicking the Vs, though that might be tricky to get on before the watershed

How about mooning?

I quite like the kneeling, a thought has just occurred to me - Ghandi showed that non-violence can be mighty when standing up to the most powerful empire in history

[Paddington Bear]

It was non-cooperation that did for the Raj rather than the non-violence. If you wanted to make an equivalent here it would be players refusing to play and deleting their social media.

To be honest one of the best things for society right now would be for twitter in particular but all public social media to be shut down.

[Biffer]

The kneeling came from Colin Kaepernick, who first sat, then knelt as opposed to standing for the national anthem.

The way it's been politicised, it's anything but a submissive gesture.

Which has a particular meaning in an American context, but kneeling has an extensive history and present as a submissive gesture, so I understand a certain amount of cognitive dissonance around it being use to protest. All the examples I can think of from my own life, have been related to status/submission. Kneeling in church to pray (before the atheism kicked in), kneeling at cubs before the pack leader during the grand howl, kneeling for sports coaches when being addressed so that they know you were focused on them.

Elsewhere and more generally there's obviously the PM and those being knighted kneeling before the queen. Getting down on one knee when proposing.

Not that a gesture can't have more than one meaning, but this one has such an ingrained association with submission, at least to my mind and surely those of others.

I'd be quite in favour of standing up straight flicking the Vs, though that might be tricky to get on before the watershed

I understand where you're coming from, but to me that's also part of the meaning. It should make people uncomfortable as it is demonstrative of black people's status in society - that they are still treated as lesser in some ways, not through law, not always necessarily through conscious act, but through the structures and habits of society.

[Tichtheid]

It was non-cooperation that did for the Raj rather than the non-violence. If you wanted to make an equivalent here it would be players refusing to play and deleting their social media.

To be honest one of the best things for society right now would be for twitter in particular but all public social media to be shut down.

I think non-cooperation can be seen as part of a campaign of non-violence.

On your second point, I was part of a forum for years where anonymity was not allowed. It was a political forum, amongst other things so there were lots of "full and frank exchanges of views".
However, there was a rule that you could go after the idea as much as you like, but never the person, no flaming, ever.

The lack of anonymity had a big part to play and it led to a lively but workable way to conduct debate.

[Random1]

We haven't agreed on a definition of Marxism yet, but I'm not getting a sense of an understanding of it here.

I’m referring to classical Marxism - more specifically, base leading to superstructure and exploitation by the powerful of the powerless.

Obviously Marxism is much wider than that, but those are the main elements I feel are antecedents of post modernism.

Well, class is absolutely central to classical Marxism, whereas postmodernism rejects the theses of political and economic class, insisting instead on power being a social construct, I could go on but the main criticism of postmodernism is that it's wordy and almost meaningless in itself, it paints itself into a corner of epistemological meltdown.

Completely agree - Marx saw everything through the lens of class. Which is consistent with postmodernism (PM for ease!) ie PM doesn’t just think class is a construct, it believes everything is a construct and people see things through whatever lens their social construct dictates. The class lens is therefore dismissed the same way all other lenses are dismissed it’s not unique that I’m aware of?

Pm is an equal offender crock of shit.

The linkage between the two, as I’ve mentioned above, is that they both believe a construct (base) is inherent , this then ends up in a social framework (superstructure), which becomes political in nature, resulting in real world power dynamics. And that ends in the oppression of the people not holding power. That’s not a casual similarity for me, the thought process is too consistent.

And even if we do take your assertion that PM’s rejection of class means that marxism and PM are antithetical, it doesn’t mean that PM isn’t a derivation of Marxism. It’s quite common for opposites to have linkages.

For example football is literally defined by the use of the foot and explicitly not the hand. Yet the statement that rugby is derived/influenced from/by footy is fairly well accepted.

Same with monotheism and polytheism - they clearly have a fuck off massive difference, but key elements prevail from one into the other and so monotheists are heavily influenced by polytheism whether they like it or not. That’s despite the central, defining, principle being incompatible.

Always like chatting with you - we see things very differently, but I enjoy the exchange.

[Tichtheid]

The linkage between the two, as I’ve mentioned above, is that they both believe a construct (base) is inherent , this then ends up in a social framework (superstructure), which becomes political in nature, resulting in real world power dynamics. And that ends in the oppression of the people not holding power. That’s not a casual similarity for me, the thought process is too consistent.

Post modernism is all about interpretation, nothing is inherent, there is no objective reality. It (post modernism) has been taken up for political purposes and smashed together with Marxism repeatedly until both ends are flat, then they hold it up and say, "see, they fit together"

We could just as easily say that Conservatism is all about the individual take on things, it has far more in common with post modernism in that regard than Marxism does, likewise the major religions have more in common with it than Marxism (though it's a bit of stretch, I'll grant you, but no more than Marxism)

Again, I go back to some looking at a couple of French guys in the 60s, such as Derrida, who identified as politically Marxist, and that scares teh shit of of people, whereas in France it was no big deal to be a member of the Communist Party, especially back then, the mayor of the village I lived in was in the Communist Party - no biggie.

I'm not an academic, but on various rugby forums I have contact with those who are, and post modernism isn't seen as being any kind of force in Academia any more, either in literary theory or political theory. It will still have a place in art museums, but so will Impressionism.
Post modernism is just a label, a bogie man, that the Right use to spread fear. It doesn't seem to be manic here in the UK, but we do follow a lot of what happens in the States.

[Mahoney]

For example football is literally defined by the use of the foot and explicitly not the hand.

Apparently this is disputed - a possible derivation of the name is that it is played on foot, rather than on horseback. A class distinction.

[Yeeb]

Re. all the England football racist stuff I saw a tweet yesterday where someone said "If the first thing you thought of after the penalty misses was the colour of the players skins there is something wrong with you".

I agree with the condemnation of the racist abuse (obviously) but I find the sentiment in the aforementioned tweet pretty deluded. Win, lose or draw the narratives surrounding the outcome of the final were always going to centre around race given the commitment the team has to anti racism, the kneeling and indeed the ethnic makeup of the team. I find it somewhat disingenuous to suggest that noticing race is all of a sudden perverse when it has been so central to the identity of the team and the way it has been covered in the media.

Agree with that tweet, my first thought was ‘Rashford you cunt’ - couldn’t care less about his colour as completely irrelevant (I save that for bad taste camping shop type jokes)

Some boo the knee as it’s mixing politics with football , lineker et al with their righteous posts is deemed when when politicians doing it is wrong and opportunist apparently. Huge double standards in what is and isn’t acceptable and by whom.

But I did laugh at that Manc savills nobhead getting arrested , totally serves him right.

[Tichtheid]

Re. all the England football racist stuff I saw a tweet yesterday where someone said "If the first thing you thought of after the penalty misses was the colour of the players skins there is something wrong with you".

I agree with the condemnation of the racist abuse (obviously) but I find the sentiment in the aforementioned tweet pretty deluded. Win, lose or draw the narratives surrounding the outcome of the final were always going to centre around race given the commitment the team has to anti racism, the kneeling and indeed the ethnic makeup of the team. I find it somewhat disingenuous to suggest that noticing race is all of a sudden perverse when it has been so central to the identity of the team and the way it has been covered in the media.

Agree with that tweet, my first thought was ‘Rashford you cunt’ - couldn’t care less about his colour as completely irrelevant (I save that for bad taste camping shop type jokes)

Some boo the knee as it’s mixing politics with football , lineker et al with their righteous posts is deemed when when politicians doing it is wrong and opportunist apparently. Huge double standards in what is and isn’t acceptable and by whom.

But I did laugh at that Manc savills nobhead getting arrested , totally serves him right.

To be honest I thought the tweet was saying that rather than calling the penalty taker stupid or useless or unprofessional or an arsehole, if the first thing you did was point out their colour plus the other epithets, then there is something wrong with you.

[Tichtheid]

I just read a tweet which made me follow up on the story of how the "taking a knee" started. I didn't know this, it came about after a dialogue between Kaepernick and a former Green Beret who also had a tiny bit of NFL experience.

https://www.skysports.com/nfl/news/1211 ... nate-boyer

[Random1]

The linkage between the two, as I’ve mentioned above, is that they both believe a construct (base) is inherent , this then ends up in a social framework (superstructure), which becomes political in nature, resulting in real world power dynamics. And that ends in the oppression of the people not holding power. That’s not a casual similarity for me, the thought process is too consistent.

Post modernism is all about interpretation, nothing is inherent, there is no objective reality. It (post modernism) has been taken up for political purposes and smashed together with Marxism repeatedly until both ends are flat, then they hold it up and say, "see, they fit together"

We could just as easily say that Conservatism is all about the individual take on things, it has far more in common with post modernism in that regard than Marxism does, likewise the major religions have more in common with it than Marxism (though it's a bit of stretch, I'll grant you, but no more than Marxism)

Again, I go back to some looking at a couple of French guys in the 60s, such as Derrida, who identified as politically Marxist, and that scares teh shit of of people, whereas in France it was no big deal to be a member of the Communist Party, especially back then, the mayor of the village I lived in was in the Communist Party - no biggie.

I'm not an academic, but on various rugby forums I have contact with those who are, and post modernism isn't seen as being any kind of force in Academia any more, either in literary theory or political theory. It will still have a place in art museums, but so will Impressionism.
Post modernism is just a label, a bogie man, that the Right use to spread fear. It doesn't seem to be manic here in the UK, but we do follow a lot of what happens in the States.

Fundamentally disagree with a couple of things in there.

Things are clearly inherent in postmodernism, that’s precisely what a social construct is i.e. some characteristic that is bestowed by the societal lens through which you see the world. Whether that be western cultural lens or through a patriarchal lens.

The parallel you draw with conservatives and the individual is also a common misconception of PM. Pm is collectivist, not individual in its philosophy. The fact that it logically ends up at individualism is actually one of a series of contradictions in the philosophy.

Here’s a very good lecture on PM, which discusses some of those aspects - can’t recommend it highly enough.

[Ymx]

Assume you guys have your thoughts on critical race theory

[Random1]

I just read a tweet which made me follow up on the story of how the "taking a knee" started. I didn't know this, it came about after a dialogue between Kaepernick and a former Green Beret who also had a tiny bit of NFL experience.

https://www.skysports.com/nfl/news/1211 ... nate-boyer

What a great story.

[Random1]

Assume you guys have your thoughts on critical race theory

Yeah, there was a couple of pages on it back in the thread somewhere.

For what it’s worth, I think CRT has clear links to postmodernism in that it’s definition includes looking at everything through the lens of race, which is textbook PM.

I don’t find the original stuff from professor Bell that bad - after an exchange I had with tichtheid a couple of months back, I find myself agreeing with a central pillar of CRT i.e. the US legal system disproportionately impacts black people.

The parts of CRT where it goes off ranch for me is another pillar that’s called intersectionality, which was introduced by another of the CRT founders, Professor Krenshaw. It basically means black, disabled lesbians win the game of discrimination top trumps and white able bodied heterosexual men need to check their privilege. That sort of stuff is divisive to me.

[Tichtheid]

The linkage between the two, as I’ve mentioned above, is that they both believe a construct (base) is inherent , this then ends up in a social framework (superstructure), which becomes political in nature, resulting in real world power dynamics. And that ends in the oppression of the people not holding power. That’s not a casual similarity for me, the thought process is too consistent.

Post modernism is all about interpretation, nothing is inherent, there is no objective reality. It (post modernism) has been taken up for political purposes and smashed together with Marxism repeatedly until both ends are flat, then they hold it up and say, "see, they fit together"

We could just as easily say that Conservatism is all about the individual take on things, it has far more in common with post modernism in that regard than Marxism does, likewise the major religions have more in common with it than Marxism (though it's a bit of stretch, I'll grant you, but no more than Marxism)

Again, I go back to some looking at a couple of French guys in the 60s, such as Derrida, who identified as politically Marxist, and that scares teh shit of of people, whereas in France it was no big deal to be a member of the Communist Party, especially back then, the mayor of the village I lived in was in the Communist Party - no biggie.

I'm not an academic, but on various rugby forums I have contact with those who are, and post modernism isn't seen as being any kind of force in Academia any more, either in literary theory or political theory. It will still have a place in art museums, but so will Impressionism.
Post modernism is just a label, a bogie man, that the Right use to spread fear. It doesn't seem to be manic here in the UK, but we do follow a lot of what happens in the States.

Fundamentally disagree with a couple of things in there.

Things are clearly inherent in postmodernism, that’s precisely what a social construct is i.e. some characteristic that is bestowed by the societal lens through which you see the world. Whether that be western cultural lens or through a patriarchal lens.

The parallel you draw with conservatives and the individual is also a common misconception of PM. Pm is collectivist, not individual in its philosophy. The fact that it logically ends up at individualism is actually one of a series of contradictions in the philosophy.

I wish I had more time to devote to this, but I simply don't. I also don't have time right now to construct a better answer than just jotting down a few thoughts that occurred whilst reading through your answer;

There has been a long dialogue between individualism and collectivism in the Christian Church, I grew in the church and it in fact its teachings led me to Socialism. The point being that what seems to be a dichotomy (individualism/collectivism) is not confined to postmodernism.

One of the points of this discussion was to show that

Depends whether you think post modernism is derived/influenced by Marxism.

For me, the philosophical links between them feel well established.

Therefore I think current culture war stuff can be seen as a Marxist product.

I think that even drilling down here we are still trying to show "well established" links from Marxism to Postmodernism, and it isn't so easy, one could just as well argue that the Enlightenment was a precursor to Marxism and if we are saying, as you did previously, that even though PM is at odds with Marxism in very fundamental ways, it is a precursor -

When I said that there are philosophical links I meant as a progression of the philosophy in an evolutionary sense. Without Marxism, I’m not sure we’d have post modernism, just as without Kant, you don’t get post modernism.

We could equally say that without Descartes, Hume, Spinoza (now there is a head fuck of a thinker), Rousseau etc we wouldn't have Postmodernism.
Without Hegel we don't get Dialectical Materialism, but Andrew Neil and his merry band at GB News aren't going after old Geordie Hegel.

Hegel was a lightweight, it says so in the song.

[Sandstorm]

Interesting email signature from someone employed at a University that we are collaborating with in England:


Becca H
(she/her)
Careers Officer

[Biffer]

Interesting email signature from someone employed at a University that we are collaborating with in England:


Becca H
(she/her)
Careers Officer

I see that fairly regularly now tbh, amongst some of our younger staff members. On email sigs or screen names etc. I'm entirely comfortable with it.

[Tichtheid]

Interesting email signature from someone employed at a University that we are collaborating with in England:


Becca H
(she/her)
Careers Officer

I see that fairly regularly now tbh, amongst some of our younger staff members. On email sigs or screen names etc. I'm entirely comfortable with it.

I think that is the key, my children ( early to mid 20s) are entirely comfortable with the use of preferred pronouns.

[TheNatalShark]

Having a unisex name depending where in the world you are, maybe I should do the same.

They'll still spell my name wrong mind.

[sockwithaticket]

Having a unisex name depending where in the world you are, maybe I should do the same.

They'll still spell my name wrong mind.

Having a fairly common unisex name, I've never found it makes that much difference in direct communication You'll either be referred to by name or in the second person. It's most relevant when talking about someone not in the conversation and 3rd person references are more likely to arise. Even then, them/their or the person's name are usually perfectly sufficient from a grammatic standpoint if you're not sure about using any of the gendered pronouns.

Not to say I disagree with it, if someone feels the need to get their gender identity out there then, whatever, go right ahead. Just noting that 3rd person gender pronouns like she/her don't really impact communications all that much.

[robmatic]

Interesting email signature from someone employed at a University that we are collaborating with in England:


Becca H
(she/her)
Careers Officer

\
Bit daft for folk with an obviously gendered name.

[Biffer]

Interesting email signature from someone employed at a University that we are collaborating with in England:


Becca H
(she/her)
Careers Officer

\
Bit daft for folk with an obviously gendered name.

Unless they prefer not to be gendered and ask to be referred to as they.

[Slick]

Interesting email signature from someone employed at a University that we are collaborating with in England:


Becca H
(she/her)
Careers Officer

I see that fairly regularly now tbh, amongst some of our younger staff members. On email sigs or screen names etc. I'm entirely comfortable with it.

See it quite often from the civil service as well now. Seems a bit superfluous but hardly an issue

[Uncle fester]

In response to an online poll asking if the Sterling won penalty against Denmark was a dive or not, the head of basketball Ireland tweeted "black dives matter".

He's no longer head of basketball Ireland.

[robmatic]

Interesting email signature from someone employed at a University that we are collaborating with in England:


Becca H
(she/her)
Careers Officer

\
Bit daft for folk with an obviously gendered name.

Unless they prefer not to be gendered and ask to be referred to as they.

That would make more sense but not the case here. Although if you were non-binary, surely you would choose to go by a non-gendered name?

[notfatcat]

Interesting email signature from someone employed at a University that we are collaborating with in England:


Becca H
(she/her)
Careers Officer

I see that fairly regularly now tbh, amongst some of our younger staff members. On email sigs or screen names etc. I'm entirely comfortable with it.

See it quite often from the civil service as well now. Seems a bit superfluous but hardly an issue

It will be an issue when you need to recall 50, 100, 200, who knows how many different pronouns. It should be an issue now but anything for an easy life.