4 ms·

The extremely frustrating thing about this current instantiation of the postmodern critical approach is that EVERYTHING is problematic. By it's own logic, by th

The extremely frustrating thing about this current instantiation of the postmodern critical approach is that EVERYTHING is problematic. By it's own logic, by the only logic that makes any of these arguments stand... the whole point is that ALL "structures" and "narratives" (in other words "ideas") are problematic -- by their very nature, in a multitude of ways. Problematic doesn't mean "immoral", it means "not the objective, absolute truth." So -- Yes, virtually any element of US history is problematic. So is every concept from every culture/nation that came before it. And even if we recede to this newspeak version of "problematic" as meaning "immoral" (in one way or another)... it's a completely facile exercise to see that every human society has struggled and/or been oppressed throughout history. So the unerring tendency for the current wave of critical postmodern-inspired social rhetoric to focus on one set of targets rings extremely hollow. "US History is problematic" (and awful and deeply shameful and requires this raft of policy prescriptions I like, etc)... but god forbid you try to discuss extant social structures or historical conflicts in Africa.

WaxProlix 5y ago
A lot of people are talking about social structures and conflicts in Africa, I think. The time where it's inappropriate is when used as a deflection from discussing one's own current situation and its historical roots. That's disingenuous and also frustrating. Just an internet stranger's opinion, but I also think it might be worth engaging with some of these ideas a little more before writing them off, since it sounds like you share a position I once had - annoyed by 'problematic' stuff everywhere, for instance - and furthermore share an apparent misunderstanding of postmodernism with the Jordan Peterson crowd. But you can take a critical eye to the power structures and ways of thinking of the past, and their implications for our social structures today, without screeching or hysteria. At least be open to it :)
- MikeUt 5y ago
  > The time where it's inappropriate is when used as a deflection from discussing one's own current situation and its historical roots. One man's deflection is another man's context.

WaxProlix 5y ago

A lot of people are talking about social structures and conflicts in Africa, I think. The time where it's inappropriate is when used as a deflection from discussing one's own current situation and its historical roots. That's disingenuous and also frustrating. Just an internet stranger's opinion, but I also think it might be worth engaging with some of these ideas a little more before writing them off, since it sounds like you share a position I once had - annoyed by 'problematic' stuff everywhere, for instance - and furthermore share an apparent misunderstanding of postmodernism with the Jordan Peterson crowd. But you can take a critical eye to the power structures and ways of thinking of the past, and their implications for our social structures today, without screeching or hysteria. At least be open to it :)

MikeUt 5y ago
> The time where it's inappropriate is when used as a deflection from discussing one's own current situation and its historical roots. One man's deflection is another man's context.