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

[Tooting Carmen]

Do not expect to be taken seriously while building strawmen, that's the only thing that I'm trying to tell you since the first post.

Though I fully agree that some of what we see nowadays may not have been the intention of the original Postmodern philosophers themselves, all the same we have reached the risible stage where lesbians are now called "transphobic" and "bigoted" for refusing to date or have sex with men claiming to be lesbians.

[gixajo]

Says it all

rl]

Maybe some people understand it better with a text:

The post-truth era has taken many by surprise. Here, we use massive language analysis to demonstrate that the rise of fact-free argumentation may perhaps be understood as part of a deeper change. After the year 1850, the use of sentiment-laden words in Google Books declined systematically, while the use of words associated with fact-based argumentation rose steadily. This pattern reversed in the 1980s, and this change accelerated around 2007, when across languages, the frequency of fact-related words dropped while emotion-laden language surged, a trend paralleled by a shift from collectivistic to individualistic language.

[Token]

Though I fully agree that some of what we see nowadays may not have been the intention of the original Postmodern philosophers themselves, all the same we have reached the risible stage where lesbians are now called "transphobic" and "bigoted" for refusing to date or have sex with men claiming to be lesbians.

So your intention is to write a book attacking some caricatures? You will not be attacking postmodernism with that, the serious assault on "truth and objectivity" was and still is being done by intellectuals and not some idiotic political activists. You will be read by some few resentful guys and that's all, will it be worth the stain?

[Aldaris]

I am certainly no believer in 'traditional' gender roles or sexuality. A man can be a nurse, a woman can be a mechanic, a man can play netball, a woman can play rugby etc etc. Nonetheless, we should avoid conflating this with the notion that biological sex either doesn't matter at all, is what we say it is or even is a complete fiction altogether.

Very diplomatic answer, Tootitng, I see you're good at it. No sarcasm. But I wasn't talking about 'gender roles'. I was talking about psychological differences that makes more women being a nurse, more men being mechanics, more women playing netball or more ment playing rugby. The reason for the percentages of the people in respective posititions being very different is not random, neither it's for 'cultural reasons'. It's something profoundly neurochemical. Women evolved to be nurturing, social and stuff like that, while men had to evolve strength, hunting skills and achievement-orientaion.. for some examples. It makes sense when you think you about niches of each gender and it doesn't have to include the theory that we are biological machines with ghosts inside.

[Tooting Carmen]

Very diplomatic answer, Tootitng, I see you're good at it. No sarcasm. But I wasn't talking about 'gender roles'. I was talking about psychological differences that makes more women being a nurse, more men being mechanics, more women playing netball or more ment playing rugby. The reason for the percentages of the people in respective posititions being very different is not random, neither it's for 'cultural reasons'. It's something profoundly neurochemical. Women evolved to be nurturing, social and stuff like that, while men had to evolve strength, hunting skills and achievement-orientaion.. for some examples. It makes sense when you think you about niches of each gender and it doesn't have to include the theory that we are biological machines with ghosts inside.

I know what you are saying. Still, women even in patriarchal cultures and times can be powerful in their own way, albeit with the men not always realising it. As the mother in My Big Fat Greek Wedding said: "The man may be the head but the woman is the neck and she can turn it anyway she likes".

[Jacques de Imbelloni]

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

Go take your meds loony.

[Aldaris]

I know what you are saying. Still, women even in patriarchal cultures and times can be powerful in their own way, albeit with the men not always realising it. As the mother in My Big Fat Greek Wedding said: "The man may be the head but the woman is the neck and she can turn it anyway she likes".

That'd correct if the male is weak enough to put the pussy before the cause.

[Tooting Carmen]

One of the biggest ways that truth is distorted is the (deliberate or accidental) misquoting/selective quoting of individuals. Two prominent examples:

- Margaret Thatcher's "no such thing as society" quote. If you read the whole interview, far from advocating selfishness and hedonism, she wanted to put a greater emphasis on personal (as opposed to social/collective) responsibility.
- Joseph de Maistre's "no such thing as 'man'" quote. Reading the whole text, far from being a racist and imperialist, what he actually said was that different societies and cultures had their own ways of doing things and there cannot really be a single, universal, one size fits all answer to everything.

N.B. For those of you who think I have undergone some sort of Damascene conversion, I am still essentially a social democrat who loathes many of the social and economic changes brought by neoliberalism. Nonetheless, it is clear that Thatcher and de Maistre, to name but two especially prominent examples, have become boogeymen for many on the Left, without realising what they really were saying.

[Incal]

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

This forum is a fine example.

[Token]

One of the biggest ways that truth is distorted is the (deliberate or accidental) misquoting/selective quoting of individuals. Two prominent examples:

- Margaret Thatcher's "no such thing as society" quote. If you read the whole interview, far from advocating selfishness and hedonism, she wanted to put a greater emphasis on personal (as opposed to social/collective) responsibility.
- Joseph de Maistre's "no such thing as 'man'" quote. Reading the whole text, far from being a racist and imperialist, what he actually said was that different societies and cultures had their own ways of doing things and there cannot really be a single, universal, one size fits all answer to everything.

N.B. For those of you who think I have undergone some sort of Damascene conversion, I am still essentially a social democrat who loathes many of the social and economic changes brought by neoliberalism. Nonetheless, it is clear that Thatcher and de Maistre, to name but two especially prominent examples, have become boogeymen for many on the Left, without realising what they really were saying.

De Maistre's in this quote is perfectly in agreement with postmodern deconstructionism. Foucault, for example, proclaimed the "death of man", in the sense that the "individual" is a modern fabrication which ought to be destroyed by a genealogical analysis which shows the contingency of "absolute, universal truths" and the falsity of biological essentialism. This can be seen as an extension of Nietzsche's proclamation of the "death of God". I see how this can be annoying for social-liberals who see themselves as "left", but not for postmodernists. I see you conflacting postmodern thinking with Left, when this association can't be made nowadays.