Post-Modernism

Currently. Writers, get to work.

Feminists are modernists. They dislike postmodernism. The idea that people are created equal, that women are beautiful equally (or even its opposite) are not postmodern, as they require you to speculate on women in general. There is no such thing as women in general, but people go on believing they totally know what that's like (good or bad) because they think that modern society has conjured such an entity into being. They also think that giving a trophy to everyone or a vote to everyone or any of those other intangibles got more real and concrete because there are machines for it now or numbers for it now or you can survey enough women to create the magical women in general and apply that to women in your life. You can't and yet the modernists go on believing they have the one true system (whether feminist or MGTOW)

You mean modernists not postmodernists. If they were postmodernists, they wouldn't be in a group based on an abstract faith construed as fact.

They are surely not modernists. I would say they use postmodernist arguments to justify their behaviour.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodern_feminism

They are modernists. The link you cited would make most of them very very mad, because postmodern feminism believes things like
>Traps are superior at performing feminity to any female who doesn't shave her pits
>Women who are paid less are worth less, not undervalued
>Giving a trophy to everyone makes the trophy meaningless or makes its meaning "an award for banality"
Those are probably not the feminists you are talking about because then they would not be giving out trophies with a "well done!" to everyone, and if they did give out trophies indiscriminately would do so with a "you're utterly indistinguishable from every other fucker who got one of these in terms of merit"

The feminists you probably have have modernist ideas like
>Women are undervalued and therefore not paid as much as they should be
>Women shouldn't have to work on not being ugly and you cannot tell fatties to join a gym or die
>Women are equal in all respects to men which is why we should handicap men for fucking with our "facts"
The above are modernist feminist stances. Postmodern feminism says those women might as well be Nazi scientists.

>post-modernism is a behaviour
Are you baiting?

Well, I'm talking about feminist that think that:
-Government is a social construct
-Race doesn't exist.
-The stereotypical family dynamic varies from culture to culture; there is no inherent family structure.
-Gender (Which is subjective) can define you as male/female.
-There is no universal outline for education.
-There is no objective beauty
-...

Being in Yea Forums board and lacking reading skills lol

if there is a beggining there is an end.
the structure modernism was built upon is essentially gone.
the postmodernists today are the right wingers. they all know and we all know that they are not serious about their appeals to "reason" or crying about western tripleparenthesis culture. This is a veil over something much darker and more cynical bu, paradoxically more honest. it's also interesting how as much as they bitch about identity politics these people themselves buy into the opressor-oppressed majority-minority dynamic they claim to call bullshit on. It's just that they see themselves as the oppressed minority.

modernism is long gone. postmodernism won, because it is right. argument over. now the conversation is about what that means and where we go from here

You seem to know about it. Can you answer my post please?

which one

Oh, the first one, I am OP

Those are modernist, because they assume a system of facts which are superior to experience. Like the Nazi scientist, they have a prejudiced world view for which they'll take an axe to reality to defend from the bits of the real world that need to be lopped off to fit their view.
The chances of them getting behind a study which shows differences in genetics between black and white people is about the same as the chances of a Nazi scientist getting behind a study which shows similarities between Jews and Germans. Modernism assumes such "facts" surpass reality. In reality, nearly everyone picks the hot trap over the fat hairy chick, because most people like fucking beauty.

>the structure modernism was built upon is essentially gone.
Hahahaha hahahaha no. For that you would need to not be on the internet, and everyone around you to have gone Unabomber.

>In fact there are only like four jewish authors who have ever lived

Attached: 1518926534407.jpg (640x474, 44K)

Name 5 capitol L literature authors who were of the tribe

reason, mass, the overt (but not covert) dominance of the state, mainstream(and therefore anti-mainstream), industry, materiel, centralization, etc are all basically de facto gone. This world is a husk of the one in the mid to late 20th century. In reality it has changed dramatically, but only just now are it's characteristics begging to be seen. 9/11 and Trump are just the begging. Modernism was 1940-1960s America. This new era will be Shenzhen ruled by Putin.

Kafka Moses Freud Marx Proust
Whether you like them or not, the fact that neither of them needs a full name is enough.

>Kafka
Renounced
>Moses
Not an author
>Freud
Not literature
>Marx
Not literature
>Proust
Shockingly in this case his jewishness may have tempered his naturally degenerate frog nature with semitic wit

You didn't ask if they were practicing, you said "of the tribe."

Also, not seeing how Freud and Marx's work doesn't count as "literature." Maybe we're working under different definitions. You hear the phrase "Marxist literature" or "psychological literature" referring to theoretical or academic essays and pamphlets all the time. I don't limit "capital L Literature" to novels, poetry, and short stories.

oh my god did you just imply you can inherit being jewish? What a fugging nazi
>I don't limit "capital L Literature" to novels, poetry, and short stories
Yea cause there's like four of them and that's having to include chabon

>I don't limit "capital L Literature" to novels, poetry, and short stories.
You kind of should. That's extremely misleading.

Cervantes, Kafka, Mailer, Heller, Roth, Bellow, Salinger, Proust, Rand

Not really. I just picked particularly influential figures. The Moses one was particularly to illustrate that the entire old-testament of the bible was composed entirely by Jews, with possible minor influence from archaic Persia, and that was definitely more than five people.

In this context you're right, it certainly was. I should've qualified that first. It was kind of a dick move.

Nicely done and better than anyone else I've done this too.
>cervantes
pls
>roth
the definition of jewish filth
>rand
a pre-internet meme

Still a fine job user.

>The Moses one was particularly to illustrate that the entire old-testament of the bible was composed entirely by Jews
lol go back to the 1900s my friend. The pharisees are certainly not the children of god ;^) Jesus was white or possibly all israelites were black

And this proves that the old testament wasn't composed by Jews? The Old Testament is certainly literature.

This fucking /pol/ pseud lmao

>And this proves that the old testament wasn't composed by Jews?

Attached: 1473561893929.jpg (480x480, 60K)

Roth is filth dude. /pol/ is probably the only place on the internet that won't immediately begin shitposting at the mention of Rand. Its pretty ridiculous to immediately default to bitching about /pol/ considering the human stain sounds like a made up shitpost except it's real.

you're implying that they believe things, engage in behavior motivated by the things they believe, and that you know these things to be true. how do you justify this if you are a postmodernist?

I got more tho

Asimov, Auster, Richler, Stein

Attached: 1550892366513.gif (333x358, 1.83M)

You can't keep adding posts. Next logical step is Revivalism or Reconstructionism I think

Nice post. Try remaking it once you know what post-modernism, nihilism, seriously, logical conclusion, fundamental, thought loop, subjective, meaningful and disagree means.

You can be a postmodernist and do any of those things. Your argument is on the level of:

>"ascetics idealize devotion to the divine, and look down upon earthly pleasures"
>well, but they sometimes eat food, checkmate dumb ascetics

>I don't limit "capital L Literature" to novels, poetry, and short stories
Me neither, its a stupid way to view literature.
I include verse drama.

what are the basic tenets of post-pomo?

Bergson, Brodsky, Döblin, Heine, Ionesco, Kertesz, Miller, Pasternak, Zweig

so, like asceticism, the entire premise is wrong?
and aren't any postmodern ethics completely ad hoc, just fitting the person's preferences into their premises arbitrarily? how did derrida come to egalitarian conclusions from his ideas about context, signs, and nothing being rationally justifiable? why are his preferences privileged over mine? you're all so full of shit.

What you really should look into is meta-modernism, IE the accelerationists

reterritorialization
transcendental particularism (aesthetics, ethics)
immanetization of forms/Dasein via the Absolute State
multipolarity; anti-empire
or we can just let the consequences of post wwii thought and the havoc wreaked by the american empire reach their logical conclusion so we can have mad max world or some techno-capital singularity or something

I think you'll find modernism to extend back to the industrial age, and that Shenzhen is not a departure from industry or material centralisation and in fact based on it.
You're asserting things which have no basis in history as though it might stick that "Modernism was 1940s-1960s America" when any basic inquiry into the matter will illuminate how wrong you are.
I'm not implying they believe things: OP listed a set of beliefs for them which I placed within the modernist paradigm and as in opposition to the postmodernist one. I did not say I know these things to be true, and even couched my description of them in probability rather than certainty. I also never claimed to be postmodernist, nor modernist, myself, and suggest you re-read what the posts you cited say rather than dealing with what you wish they had said.

It's kind of sad that anons are this poorly equipped to delineate either modernism or postmodernism. It's as basic as being able to tell a Shakespearean sonnet from a Petrarchan one, and I suspect that foundation to be considered equally rarified by user's ineptitude.