3 ms·

Not to get too Jordan Peterson-ey but I really think this is the result of postmodern, social-constructionist ideology spreading through the humanities. If ther

Not to get too Jordan Peterson-ey but I really think this is the result of postmodern, social-constructionist ideology spreading through the humanities. If there's no such thing as objectivity and all truth claims are just manifestations of who has power then there's no need for journalists to strive for objectivity and everything you publish is just another salvo in the war against dominant power structures. If social constructionism is true then you're no longer a neutral conduit for facts, you're a culture warrior shaping reality with your words. There's no debate, no 'marketplace of ideas', only dominant discourses and power differentials, and your moral duty as a journalist is not to debate bad ideas, expose them, or allow the reader to make up their own minds, for that only gives oxygen to harmful discourses; instead you must destroy bad ideas through any means necessary, no matter how dishonest (and dishonesty isn't a real thing anyway because there's no such thing as true and false, only that which advances the power of a given group and that which weakens it.) This nonsense is now the reigning ideology among humanities departments at our elite schools and outlets like the NYT are increasingly staffed by young graduates who have been indoctrinated into this cult; is it any wonder that the NYT has gone off the fucking deep end?

zozbot234 6y ago
The ironic and surprising development lately is just how thoroughly this "postmodern, social-constructionist ideology" is being adopted by the socially-conservative right. It's hard to describe the Qanon cult with its surprising and outlandish "claims" about liberal Democrats, Hollywood etc. etc. as anything other than a concious parody of the view that "there's no such thing as objectivity and all truth claims are just manifestations of who has power" in the "war against dominant power structures". The "culture war" does not obviously favor one side!
- whoooooo123 6y ago
  True. Extremism always begets more extremism; if your opponents aren't going to play by the rules then why should you? I mean, what is Donald Trump if not postmodernism personified? (And to be clear, I'm certainly not saying that anything the NYT puts out is remotely as bad as the QAnon nutcases)
twic 6y ago
> If there's no such thing as objectivity and all truth claims are just manifestations of who has power then there's no need for journalists to strive for objectivity and everything you publish is just another salvo in the war against dominant power structures. But i think that the typical current-day NYT journalist would say that there is objectivity and truth, and what they write is objective and truthful. I haven't noticed anything coming from the NYT, or that whole 'progressive' side of politics that suggests they've adopted that stereotypical pomo rejection of master narratives etc.
erichocean 6y ago
> this is the result of postmodern, social-constructionist ideology The activist part of what you described comes from a 1965 paper by Herbert Marcuse called "Repressive Tolerance."[0] The ideas from Marcuse's paper are widely mis-attributed to Karl Popper in that infographic everyone's seen floating around.[1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Critique_of_Pure_Tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Critique_of_Pure_Tolerance [1] https://www.libertarianism.org/sites/libertarianism.org/files/styles/optimize/public/picture1.png?itok=4Lyjcocx https://www.libertarianism.org/sites/libertarianism.org/file...
- whoooooo123 6y ago
  Yep, I'm familiar with Marcuse, and I recommend the book Cynical Theories for a critical introduction to this ideology that's spreading through our once-cherished institutions like a malignant tumor.
  - vzcx 6y ago
    The funny thing is, the critiques of Marcuse, Foucault and the like are 100% applicable to these status and sinecure seekers in the academy. They are worth reading for this reason alone. Lindsay defends the old-academy classical liberalism. The sort of gentlemanly debate that arises from such values is good, but only possible between people with a collegial relationship who both prefer truth over power. They cannot be used against enemies. When dealing with enemies, one must bring weapons, and the postmodernist weapons can be made to work in anyone's hands.
    - erichocean 6y ago
      Curtis Yarvin has new, much-more-concise explanation of the "cathedral" and domininant power ideas up on his Substack that's worth a quick read: https://graymirror.substack.com/p/a-brief-explanation-of-the-cathedral https://graymirror.substack.com/p/a-brief-explanation-of-the... (An oligarchy inherently converges on ideas that justify the use of power.) I think it's as good of an explanation as any for why old-academy classical liberalism is losing (and will continue to lose): truth is not dominant, and least on the timescales the game is played. 100% agreed that post-modernists are still worth reading, and that many of the critiques are relevant. Disagree that doing so will change anything—because truth isn't dominant in the short-term.

zozbot234 6y ago

The ironic and surprising development lately is just how thoroughly this "postmodern, social-constructionist ideology" is being adopted by the socially-conservative right. It's hard to describe the Qanon cult with its surprising and outlandish "claims" about liberal Democrats, Hollywood etc. etc. as anything other than a concious parody of the view that "there's no such thing as objectivity and all truth claims are just manifestations of who has power" in the "war against dominant power structures". The "culture war" does not obviously favor one side!

whoooooo123 6y ago
True. Extremism always begets more extremism; if your opponents aren't going to play by the rules then why should you? I mean, what is Donald Trump if not postmodernism personified? (And to be clear, I'm certainly not saying that anything the NYT puts out is remotely as bad as the QAnon nutcases)

twic 6y ago

> If there's no such thing as objectivity and all truth claims are just manifestations of who has power then there's no need for journalists to strive for objectivity and everything you publish is just another salvo in the war against dominant power structures. But i think that the typical current-day NYT journalist would say that there is objectivity and truth, and what they write is objective and truthful. I haven't noticed anything coming from the NYT, or that whole 'progressive' side of politics that suggests they've adopted that stereotypical pomo rejection of master narratives etc.

erichocean 6y ago

> this is the result of postmodern, social-constructionist ideology The activist part of what you described comes from a 1965 paper by Herbert Marcuse called "Repressive Tolerance."[0] The ideas from Marcuse's paper are widely mis-attributed to Karl Popper in that infographic everyone's seen floating around.[1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Critique_of_Pure_Tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Critique_of_Pure_Tolerance [1] https://www.libertarianism.org/sites/libertarianism.org/files/styles/optimize/public/picture1.png?itok=4Lyjcocx https://www.libertarianism.org/sites/libertarianism.org/file...

whoooooo123 6y ago
Yep, I'm familiar with Marcuse, and I recommend the book Cynical Theories for a critical introduction to this ideology that's spreading through our once-cherished institutions like a malignant tumor.
- vzcx 6y ago
  The funny thing is, the critiques of Marcuse, Foucault and the like are 100% applicable to these status and sinecure seekers in the academy. They are worth reading for this reason alone. Lindsay defends the old-academy classical liberalism. The sort of gentlemanly debate that arises from such values is good, but only possible between people with a collegial relationship who both prefer truth over power. They cannot be used against enemies. When dealing with enemies, one must bring weapons, and the postmodernist weapons can be made to work in anyone's hands.
  - erichocean 6y ago
    Curtis Yarvin has new, much-more-concise explanation of the "cathedral" and domininant power ideas up on his Substack that's worth a quick read: https://graymirror.substack.com/p/a-brief-explanation-of-the-cathedral https://graymirror.substack.com/p/a-brief-explanation-of-the... (An oligarchy inherently converges on ideas that justify the use of power.) I think it's as good of an explanation as any for why old-academy classical liberalism is losing (and will continue to lose): truth is not dominant, and least on the timescales the game is played. 100% agreed that post-modernists are still worth reading, and that many of the critiques are relevant. Disagree that doing so will change anything—because truth isn't dominant in the short-term.