3 ms·

> I'm a postmodern neo-Marxist I have never seen a self proclaimed postmodern neomarxist. You're the bogeyman for the alt light, an impossible oxymoron, the et

> I'm a postmodern neo-Marxist I have never seen a self proclaimed postmodern neomarxist. You're the bogeyman for the alt light, an impossible oxymoron, the eternal devil. I've heard lots about various liberals, but what does a self proclaimed postmodern neo-marxist believe? Do you believe all society is power struggle, and that language is the primary means by which this fight is won? Do you see gender and race as the new classes in the marxist analysis? Do you think that all discourse is ultimately about power, and not the truth? Seriously, I've heard many, many things about the postmodern neo-marxist, most of them self contradictory. I've never heard from a self proclaimed post modern neo-marxist. How would you describe yourself?

lidHanteyk 7y ago
Short version: Obviously there's no single overarching metanarrative which ties together all of reality into one objective whole. But, also, Marx's line of thought is still extremely relevant to our current power structures and money systems. Here's an open secret: Power is nothing more nor less than the dual of responsibility. All society is a struggle to manage responsibilities and power, not just power; as we build social constructions, we weigh the dual problems of ensuring that people will fulfill their responsibilities as well as not abuse their powers. Language is interesting. A century of postmodern mathematics has demolished any hope that language is meaningful on its own. Instead, we see that language is the medium by which humans convince other humans to do things; it is a medium of responsibility and power. When a person says to another, "I see a cat," they are asking their partner to alter their worldview such that they are cognizant of a hypothesized cat which was not a feature of their subjective outlook. Race and gender are interesting mostly because people are so stupid about them. Marx couldn't have known; science has marched on. At this point, gender's basically done; the closest we have to gender is the idea that people play symbol-games with each other in order to indicate mating preferences. If we include the fact that some 2% of people are intersex, then gender really goes into the bin along with all gendered language. Similarly, race cannot withstand the basic mathematics of pedigree collapse and genetic mixing. It's gotten to the point where the self-aware racists have to call themselves "race realists" -- they know that they have nothing if science cannot back up their claims of the existence of races. As we shift to phenotype-oriented thinking, ethnic ancestry stops being culturally important. Discourse can't be about the truth, because of Tarski's Undefinability of Truth. I think that Hofstadter's closest to the right mark, and that discourse is about perspective. To the extent that discourse is about esteem, it's also about respect. To the extent that discourse is about power, it's also about responsibility. I would describe myself as a straightforward metaliberal rationalist, an anti-fascist, an examiner of evidence and possibilities. Edit: You know why alt-right folks dislike this so much? It's because they cannot stand it when people are straightforward and honest about the ambiguity and nuances in our society, and they hate when people are well-read and well-considered.

lidHanteyk 7y ago

Short version: Obviously there's no single overarching metanarrative which ties together all of reality into one objective whole. But, also, Marx's line of thought is still extremely relevant to our current power structures and money systems. Here's an open secret: Power is nothing more nor less than the dual of responsibility. All society is a struggle to manage responsibilities and power, not just power; as we build social constructions, we weigh the dual problems of ensuring that people will fulfill their responsibilities as well as not abuse their powers. Language is interesting. A century of postmodern mathematics has demolished any hope that language is meaningful on its own. Instead, we see that language is the medium by which humans convince other humans to do things; it is a medium of responsibility and power. When a person says to another, "I see a cat," they are asking their partner to alter their worldview such that they are cognizant of a hypothesized cat which was not a feature of their subjective outlook. Race and gender are interesting mostly because people are so stupid about them. Marx couldn't have known; science has marched on. At this point, gender's basically done; the closest we have to gender is the idea that people play symbol-games with each other in order to indicate mating preferences. If we include the fact that some 2% of people are intersex, then gender really goes into the bin along with all gendered language. Similarly, race cannot withstand the basic mathematics of pedigree collapse and genetic mixing. It's gotten to the point where the self-aware racists have to call themselves "race realists" -- they know that they have nothing if science cannot back up their claims of the existence of races. As we shift to phenotype-oriented thinking, ethnic ancestry stops being culturally important. Discourse can't be about the truth, because of Tarski's Undefinability of Truth. I think that Hofstadter's closest to the right mark, and that discourse is about perspective. To the extent that discourse is about esteem, it's also about respect. To the extent that discourse is about power, it's also about responsibility. I would describe myself as a straightforward metaliberal rationalist, an anti-fascist, an examiner of evidence and possibilities. Edit: You know why alt-right folks dislike this so much? It's because they cannot stand it when people are straightforward and honest about the ambiguity and nuances in our society, and they hate when people are well-read and well-considered.