The term "post-modern" has become immensely overloaded so is hard to use clearly. Obviously, the notion that "everything is relative" is even self contradictory

The term "post-modern" has become immensely overloaded so is hard to use clearly. Obviously, the notion that "everything is relative" is even self contradictory but is not what is meant when the term is used seriously. It is the idea that some values are absolute and can be forced on other that was originally being objected to. Some historical cases are obvious others are still ambiguous. Thus a debate is interesting. Likewise, inside our society we have crucial rights justified as being "endowed by our creator". We would need to justify these values on something stronger than a particular theology to explain their universality. So again, discussion is worthwhile. I believe raising this point is what caused a ruckus in Iran. But yes, the term "post-modern" has made it's way into pop culture and is so widely used it is often hard to figure out what the speaker means by it. Better would be specifically referencing "Rorty's ideas" which I am certain you would find coherent and very intriguing. Rorty was most definitely not in Iran to say "theology is as good as democracy".