I'm thinking of writing a book or essay called "The Postmodern Assault On Objectivity And Truth".

[Tooting Carmen]

Or something like that. Topics I shall explore:

- The claim that race and sex are "social constructs" rather than objective realities. Key mantras in this semi-religious belief system include "races don't exist" (despite there being plenty of genetic evidence to show they do) and "trans women are women" (even if they have not undergone any treatment whatsoever to make them such).

- The claim that social class is mostly to do with subjective feeling and identity, rather than a description of income, occupation and wealth. Particularly grating are people who say things like "I'm a millionaire but still working-class and proud".

- More generally, the rise of therapy culture and how too many people no longer aspire to search for the truth, but merely "my truth".

[Jacques de Imbelloni]

Thank God it's you! I thought this was some of the ramblings of JamesBond007

[Jacques de Imbelloni]

Some materials that you should take a look:

[Jacques de Imbelloni]

[Token]

Or something like that. Topics I shall explore:

- The claim that race and sex are "social constructs" rather than objective realities. Key mantras in this semi-religious belief system include "races don't exist" (despite there being plenty of genetic evidence to show they do) and "trans women are women" (even if they have not undergone any treatment whatsoever to make them such).

That's a straw man. Have you read Foucault and Judith Butler? The so-called "queer theory" that you're referring to is pretty much entirely based on their writings and, trust me, their arguments are not ridiculous as you're making them sound. I've also had to write an essay "attacking" some of their theories for a midterm project, and it was no trivial task.

You will need to decide if what you want to attack is the actual arguments or the right-wing strawman made of them. The first will demand a lot more work and will probably be a lot less popular than the latter.

[B01AB20]

Or something like that. Topics I shall explore:

- The claim that race and sex are "social constructs" rather than objective realities. Key mantras in this semi-religious belief system include "races don't exist" (despite there being plenty of genetic evidence to show they do) and "trans women are women" (even if they have not undergone any treatment whatsoever to make them such).

- The claim that social class is mostly to do with subjective feeling and identity, rather than a description of income, occupation and wealth. Particularly grating are people who say things like "I'm a millionaire but still working-class and proud".

- More generally, the rise of therapy culture and how too many people no longer aspire to search for the truth, but merely "my truth".

There're many books about the issue.
You should become a prominent member of a leftist political party (labour I guess) and then proclaim these ideas... and let see what happens.

[JamesBond007]

That's a straw man. Have you read Foucault and Judith Butler? The so-called "queer theory" that you're referring to is pretty much entirely based on their writings and, trust me, their arguments are not ridiculous as you're making them sound. I've also had to write an essay "attacking" some of their theories for a midterm project, and it was no trivial task.

You will need to decide if what you want to attack is the actual arguments or the right-wing strawman made of them. The first will demand a lot more work and will probably be a lot less popular than the latter.

He needs Marxist Theory but is too stupid to realize it :

Daniel: So long as capitalism exists, there will be an ideological battle waged against Marxism on behalf of the capitalists. Whereas in the 19th century, the defense of capitalism was very direct; capitalism was described as the best system, it was liberating humanity, bringing about freedom and prosperity. By the 20th century, that was no longer really tenable. And so the main defenses, the different defenses of capitalism in the 20th century took a very indirect character – not only admitting the horrors of capitalism, but to a certain extent even emphasizing the oppression that capitalism produces, but in such a way as to give the impression that it was impossible to have a different kind of society or to understand the source of these oppressions.

And postmodernism is one of these trends in bourgeois philosophy, and these days it is the dominant one. And it is in reality directed chiefly against Marxism. Its basic ideas are the rejection of the possibility or even the desirability of progress for humanity, and the rejection of the possibility of objective knowledge, of the ability to describe the world as it really is or even whether there is such a world is rejected. And it is therefore an idealist philosophy. In other words, for postmodernism, consciousness is independent of the material world. Rather, the material world has no independence from consciousness. Whereas Marxism is thoroughly materialist; in other words, for us, the material world is the only world that exists, and human thought or consciousness is a particular expression of that material world and cannot be independent of it.

Now, the idealism of postmodernism fits into a broader trend, the same trend I’ve already been discussing, that we can call irrationalism. This is the dominant trend throughout the different trends of bourgeois philosophy in the 20th century, and we have many different schools of it. For example, in the United States, pragmatism. We have empirio-criticism that Lenin famously criticized, and we also have the phenomenology of Husserl and Heidegger. And these, postmodernism is in fundamental agreement with all of these, which essentially say that, is a kind of shame-based idealism. It masks its idealism by saying that the material world does exist. However, it’s just as consciousness is dependent upon the material world, which they admit; so the material world is dependent upon consciousness, and the two cannot be separated.

And this is a fundamentally idealist position, because it denies the independence of the material world. The main reason – well, there’s really two main reasons for this, which I’ll discuss.

The first main reason for this dominant trend in bourgeois philosophy in the 20th century is that by the 20th century, human knowledge had advanced to the point where the world was so complex and so contradictory that it baffled the typical bourgeois philosopher from their individualistic and ahistorical standpoints. Not only in natural science, but also the human sciences like archaeology, anthropology, all of these revealed the staggering complexity of nature and human society, the many-sided character of it, and as a result, many bourgeois philosophers and scientists just sort of gave up in a sense.

What was needed to understand this complexity and contradictoriness was a dialectical philosophy which embraces the ideas of contradiction, history, and change. But bourgeois philosophy stopped at that threshold. It turned back and it fell a very long way ...

https://university.marxist.com/en/ma...-postmodernism

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

Or something like that. Topics I shall explore:

- The claim that race and sex are "social constructs" rather than objective realities. Key mantras in this semi-religious belief system include "races don't exist" (despite there being plenty of genetic evidence to show they do) and "trans women are women" (even if they have not undergone any treatment whatsoever to make them such).

- The claim that social class is mostly to do with subjective feeling and identity, rather than a description of income, occupation and wealth. Particularly grating are people who say things like "I'm a millionaire but still working-class and proud".

- More generally, the rise of therapy culture and how too many people no longer aspire to search for the truth, but merely "my truth".

No one is going to read it unless you're already a public figure, or an academic who has published papers.

Class is about social status than actual wealth, really. Read this:

Class: A Guide Through the American Status System

The bestselling, comprehensive, and carefully researched guide to the ins-and-outs of the American class system with a detailed look at the defining factors of each group, from customs to fashion to housing.

Based on careful research and told with grace and wit, Paul Fessell shows how everything people within American society do, say, and own reflects their social status. Detailing the lifestyles of each class, from the way they dress and where they live to their education and hobbies, Class is sure to entertain, enlighten, and occasionally enrage readers as they identify their own place in society and see how the other half lives.

Obviously, each country has its own habits that reflect people's social class but the point is it doesn't have anything to do with how much money you make.

[JamesBond007]

Thank God it's you! I thought this was some of the ramblings of JamesBond007

Too bad for you if I designed to write a book it would get published meanwhile TootingCarmen's book would be self-publishes at best.

TootingCarmen mentions he wants to write a book and you post video rather than books. That shows you are a moron

[JamesBond007]

No one is going to read it unless you're already a public figure, or an academic who has published papers.

Class is about social status than actual wealth, really. Read this:



Obviously, each country has its own habits that reflect people's social class but the point is it doesn't have anything to do with how much money you make.

I read that book by Paul Fussell. However, it is old so a significant amount of info may be outdated.

I have also read Karl Marx and other Marxists and it seems to me Paul Fussell was trying to obfuscate class during the cold war.

However, money is a tool and does not make you a member of the bourgeoisie unless you invest it into owning or jointly owning the means of production.