Ok, cheers. Missed that one and will have a look now.
-
-
-
It's an excellent piece - and I say that as someone who got a side-serving of pomo with classics (it being the 90s, after all).
-
Ok, read it. Much agreement. I wrote about it in 90s and in my PhD in 1998 a bit. But I'll just reiterate the point: your target is illiberal social justice/identity politics (eg MacKinnon, CRT, Said, etc.); not so much pomo. I know pomos; they're ok. I know SJWs; they're not ok.pic.twitter.com/d5Ep0NYC0h
-
Sometimes I get the impression putting those ideas in the hands of illiberal authoritarians is the real issue: like giving toddlers pistols.
-
I think that hits the nail on the head. In my experience, 1 Pomos are debunkers & quietists, seeing society as a disorganized, directionless mess 2 SJWs/SocJus/IdPol are ideologues & activists, who sniff "oppression" in every word & tea leaf, and want to use *force* to remove it.
-
The moral righteousness and epistemic certainty has a quasi-religious feel to it, yes.
-
Which is absent with pomos, as well. A pomo is not going to have you garrotted, though they'll confuse you with weird stuff about non-linear fractal rhizomes, etc. A famous pomo Nick Land (whom I know) cofounded the NRx movement/Dark Enlightenment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Enlightenment …
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.