Prof. Stephen Hicks: How to Debate Postmodernists Effectively

[@tylermassey5431]

1. Find a postmodernist that wants to debate. 2. Turn around 3. Get as far away from that person as possible 4. Find someone of the opposite sex who has never been poisoned by the education system. 5. Marry that person. 6. Have as many children as you can love. 7. Move your new beautiful family as far away from any city as you can. 8. Live a happy and fulfilling life. Congratulations! You've won the argument.

[@christinbremer6449]

Had a good chuckle.

[@djrychlak4443]

Yeah, education is poison. You lunkheads all stick together. Better that way for grouping.

[@nigachu8249]

​@@djrychlak4443good luck with your liberal arts degree.

[@barryraymond9004]

@@djrychlak4443 Receiving an education by post modernists is like getting a degree in astrology. If it is not a STEM degree, then it is not a real degree.

[@therealmrfishpaste]

"In a climate of subjectivism, some future irrational cultural movement will rise up to take advantage of it" - Hicks in 1998...wow...he was a prophet!!

[@HydetheRapper]

Wait until you find out about C.S. Lewis or G.K. Chesterton. The Abolition of Man is stunningly prophetic-published in 1943.

[@therealmrfishpaste]

@@HydetheRapper Indeed. Lewis even predicted an era when people's opinions would be judged, not on the veracity of the opinion, but on the identity of the opinion holder....he got it spot on.

[@KilgoreTroutAsf]

@@therealmrfishpaste" Lewis even predicted an era when people's opinions would be judged, not on the veracity of the opinion, but on the identity of the opinion holder....he got it spot on" You just described the entirety of human history. Read a book some day.

[@therealmrfishpaste]

@@KilgoreTroutAsf ....Ummm.... CS Lewis was an author....I paraphrased a quote from one of his books...ergo...I have read a book

[@oxcord1635]

@@KilgoreTroutAsf funny coming from someone who likes burning them. You're a mirror image of an actual fascist and you're to stupid to realize it, even in the statement you made "you described all of human history" shouldn't you work to not look at things through the same view the nazi's did? If everyone did it good or bad you lost all meaning of context there. Maybe you should ask for a refund on your student lones because they sure as shit didn't make you any wiser.

[@Hexecutable]

I just choose not to engage anymore. Infuriates me how intellectually dishonest and deceitful people can be just to justify or bolster their opinions.

[@hootypoot7832]

Good luck

[@jvgauthier]

My view is that debating is a skill and skill needs practice. If only for intellectual self defence, I think it's food to sharpen it every now and then. Now, I don't know that I ever convinced one out of this madness, I will admit that I always get a pure moment of satisfaction of getting one to back peddle.

[@williamdraken6018]

@@jvgauthier If you make one angry and emotional while remaining calm and collected the whole time, its worth it and I consider it a victory.

[@vakilian]

Easy to avoid when it doesnt involve those closest to you. Unfortunately my family has been infected with the virus of social justice, avoiding them only allows it to fester deeper within them, and debate only enrages them. So what is my option, just give up and lose family ? there must be an intellectual solution to this

[@williamdraken6018]

@@vakilian I personally would just never back down if you know you are right. It's their problem if they want to be dishonest and not listen to logic and reason. It's their fault and their choice if it ultimately causes strife among you. Never back down from the truth.

[@awesomemccoolname7111]

Its getting to the point where there are no arguments. Just mobs.

[@seyeolajuyin]

They are tired of talking.

[@awesomemccoolname7111]

@@seyeolajuyin they are tired of losing arguments.

[@awesomemccoolname7111]

@what if hes right? I hope they are losing the battle. To be honest i don't really know about that. Our schools are outright indictrinating our students.

[@awesomemccoolname7111]

@what if hes right? well said.

[@psychcowboy1]

@what if hes right? My guess there is will be plummeting in Hicks field also, philosophy. On close examination what that Hicks says couldn't be figured out by a smart middle schooler? I would like to see Hicks in a debate with a smart liberal or STEM educated person. I think he would get destroyed.

[@jackreacher.]

In the bar, at midnight, the insistence that the socialists buy all the beer is the beginning of the win. 0:17

[@casek6930]

"I need to discover what matters to them the most" --that gave me a big smile because I've just begun to start my debates, by asking, "is it fair to say that the security and welfare of your family and children constitutes your primary value?". I do this because I already know that the arguments driven by their ideology consistently violate that value. Politics will be their primary concern IF you don't force them to recognize deeper concerns. They don't take those concerns seriously because of the safe world we have been living in for so long in the west--their true primary concerns are taken for granted and that gives them the 'liberty' to play virtue games' with theory and detach themselves from political realism.

[@psychcowboy1]

Did Hicks say something smart in this video, or can you identify some post modernist saying post modern things using Hicks definition?

[@MrClockw3rk]

Very good point

[@dogwklr]

They have no actual values as they are entirely selfish and self obsessed while pretending to care about others.

[@ktrigg2]

Well said

[@AtramentousMindframe-ju5fx]

​@@psychcowboy1Yes.

[@diamondmeeple]

The thing is: The postmodernists will not enter a debate/real talk with a strong opponent.

[@djrychlak4443]

You parrots really humiliate yourselves at each turn. Have you seen the Chomsky / Foucalt debates? Can you read?

[@dendradwar9464]

@@djrychlak4443 You have simply proved the previous posters point .. postmodernists will not debate a strong opponent

[@coinswaptrader2915]

We live in a world today where most people care more about pleasure and feelings than truth.

[@TeaParty1776]

They are moving to not even care about those. The Greeks were not defrauded by hedonism.

[@damienhudson8028]

Yep

[@magnusprime10]

What truth are people denying?

[@Archimedes1988]

Well, there’s a whole bunch of us who don’t operate that way.

[@verumdoctrina4215]

Soon, you will not have to argue with them... Their own resentment is aiding in their own destruction. They are "deconstructing" themselves.

[@jeremyponcy7311]

Absolutely true but you can't ignore it because it spreads like a disease and will ultimately detonate like a bomb. It's important to contain its spread, deactivate it if possible and limit its collateral damage where necessary.

[@holyfox94]

Sooner or later the revolution devours it’s children but it’ll take about a decade, I fear.

[@dingodog5677]

Damn I hope so

[@transfiguration8865]

In 2014, they said this wouldn’t last longer than 1-2 years. It’s only gotten stronger and now they’re getting violent. I honestly don’t see an end to this until they get power.

[@jwadaow]

@@transfiguration8865 When they get power is when the physical purges start.

[@TIm_Bugge]

@10:20, Let them do all the work. I’ve found it to be even more effective, once they have committed to a logically valid claim, to ask them to give me an example of what a successful refutation of their claim would require. Saves a shit ton of time.

[@TeaParty1776]

Man needs positive ideas, not nihjilism.

[@billmelater6470]

You'll find that a lot of people play argumentation wack-o-mole. No matter what you counter, they will will not counter back, but instead bring up something else and then another thing, and another thing, and another thing and down and down you go into a rabbit hole the more you let them tighten that rope on you. The hardest thing to do with these people and other disingenuous actors is keeping them on topic. Settling one argument BEFORE moving to anther.

[@MrFg1980]

I have too many other hobbies and can't possibly manage the time. That's been my most difficult challenge and the hardest part for me.

[@billmelater6470]

@@MrFg1980 Keeping them on topic might help then. The times I make an effort to plant my heals and not let them do that, they tend to get upset and rage quit. The "argument" does not last near as long.

[@billmelater6470]

@Mark Kenny No doubt. That's how pretty much every attempt at "discussion" goes on any form of internet media, including in person with some immediate family members. And let's not forget the non standardized set of "rules" they use. They can insult you, but if you even vaguely insult them even once, then that is now the focus of the discussion, that's why they can't have an "honest" conversation, blah blah blah. Or they get to evade all of your questions, but never have to answer any of yours. Wash rinse, repeat.

[@billmelater6470]

@Dole Pole In my experience, they will then hone in one how you insulted them and that will be the new focus of the discussion even if they've spent the whole time insulting you, a fact they will thoroughly ignore and deny.

[@billmelater6470]

@Dole Pole Yes, which is precisely why you disagree with them. If you want to make them mad, then stick to facts. When they insult you, simply inform them that insults are not arguments. The point to which you simply trade insults and slogans is the point at which you have lost and you are no better than they are. The biggest mistake you can make is turning into them. Remain calm and stay out of the mud. I believe it was Mark Twain who said; "Never argue with an idiot. He will just bring you down to his level and beat you with experience". *"As the insult battle goes on at some point you tell them to go fuck themselves and almost everyone will believe you won the debate."* No, it's at that point you sound like you lost because you had no real response.

[@AliRadicali]

In my experience, at least in text-based formats, being patient, understanding and genuinely curious about a PoMo's beliefs will get them incredibly angry and flustered. Most of them know how to follow the critical theory script and attack other ideas, but if you poke and prod a little it turns out they have no ideas of their own, no alternative to mindlessly tearing down what exists because it's icky and oppressive. Other than that, I'd say the most common verbal sleight of hand to look out for is the motte-and-bailey argument, whereby they will switch back and forth between two different definitions of the same word as and when it suits them. When pressed they will revert to a commonly understood definition of a word (I.E. racism is racial prejudice), but as soon as they can get away with it they'll switch back to their preferred social justice definition (IE "racism is power+prejudice") without informing the audience. Try to catch them on these word games, force them to define their terms and hold them to them.

[@AliRadicali]

Also, regarding the point on looking at the personal motive of a Postmodernists, I think it's perfectly fair game, because the postmodern conception of the world is that everything is based on power structures and groups seeking benefits for their in-group. If it's OK to assert a priori that any aberration from the average must be the result of elite racism or sexism, it most certainly iought to be fair game to beat the PoMos with their own logic by pointing out how they stand to benefit from their envisioned utopia. It might not be the most reasonable argument to someone using logic, but I don't see how a postmodernist would refute the point without resorting to the very enlightenment reason they so despise.

[@npc5649]

this

[@DaveE99]

What alternatives would you like to hear about? Democracy at work is one. Doing things to fix issues or at least make them right in certain respects.

[@thefuturist8864]

@@AliRadicaliYour understanding of ‘postmodernism’ is somewhat narrow. Leaving aside the fact that, historically, ‘post-modernism’ was a movement in art and that Hicks’s target is more likely ‘post-structuralism’ (which is related but not the same thing), it’s a straw man to claim that it is all about power structures. Post-structuralism is a loosely-related series of texts that attempt to go beyond the confines of structuralism in order to think about how structures change throughout history. When they talk of power they are rarely talking about power in the sense of something wielded by a person (eg over another person) but rather they’re talking about it in the sense of how electricity ‘powers’ various things and enables us to make use of them.

[@evolgenius1150]

I thought Mott and Bailey arguments are like: Motte: They should raise the minimum wage to $20/hr Rebut: Ah but wouldn't that create cut hours and layoffs, creating a larger problem? Bailey: So you're saying you want people to work for slave wages!?

[@johnterry8958]

Regarding arguing with post-modernists, knowing the lack of intellectual honesty and hysterical emotions often displayed by such people makes me think of the following quote: "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and it annoys the pig."

[@psychcowboy1]

I don't know who these alleged post modernists are, but I love arguing with Hicks/Peterson fans for how quickly they squeal, i.e. make a fool of themselves. Hicks is a purveyor of intellectual dishonesty for describing socialists as mind control, and Peterson is the king of histrionic emotions, telling us on the verge of tears that you can actually get out of bed and do things. Thank you Jordan, but I knew that already.

[@djrychlak4443]

Dude, you are postmodernizing your insipid response. You've been groomed.

[@EveKeneinan]

Sir Roger Scruton’s _Fools, Frauds, and Firebrands_ seems to fit the bill.

[@englishguy9680]

Chomsky was asked what he thought about post modernism and said it's impossible to have a view on something that's ildefined and therefore you can't critique it, and that's their whole game. Scruton saw through it too

[@brianfinnegan664]

@@englishguy9680 the one thing that chomsky got right

[@englishguy9680]

@@brianfinnegan664 If you think that's the only thing he got right then you're probably not giving him a chance, what are you afraid of? I think Scruton and Chomsky both had important things to say, I respect both of them.

[@brianfinnegan664]

@@englishguy9680 I kno he blames the United States for 9/11, basically letting religious fanatics off the hook. I kno he's a smart guy and I'm sure I agree with him on some other things but I honestly can't get past that. Its the reason Hitchens parted ways with him too

[@englishguy9680]

@@brianfinnegan664 It doesn't let them off the hook, they are still responsible for their crimes. You have to remember that the United States was real chummy with Osama Bin Laden when the Afghans were fighting against the Russians. Chomsky's point is a broader one that you should choose your allies better since it's beyond dispute that the Taliban which became a regime that gave safe haven to anti US terrorists were only able to gain control of Afghanistan because of American weapons and assistance. Now you've got an exact reversal of roles with Putin's government aiding those fighting the US in Afghanistan. The US trades with Saudi Arabia for oil and sells them weapons even though America has plenty of their own oil and Saudi Arabia has enough money to manufacture their own weapons, this is the corner the west have painted themselves into, they trade with and enrich a regime like Saudi Arabia thar hates their guts and funds terrorism against the US and nobody stops and questions the trading relationship with them, something which Chomsky and Hitches agreed about. That's what Chomsky is addressing even though I agree with Hitchens it can be interpreted as diminishing the responsibility of those actually flew the planes and it was somewhat tasteless to make such an argument at that time, but still not invalid to question that relationship which continues to this day. But to think that people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran or Syria are not to some degree justified in distrusting or even hating the United States is burying your head in the sand

[@jeremyponcy7311]

Postmodernism is meant to instill doubt, doubt creates inaction and as the saying goes "all that is necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." Postmodernism is an extension of Marx's Critical Criticism. It branched off and ultimately took on a life of its own. From its inception postmodernism was a political tactic not a philosophy which is why it doesn't matter that it is completely contradictory to the very Marxism that espouses it. Tactics don't need to be complimentary, if fact the more contradictory the tactics the better as it makes them difficult targets to hit.

[@harrymills2770]

Marxists pivoted to postmodernism by necessity, when the horrific realities of Soviet Russia and Maoist China could no longer be swept under the rug by socialist fellow-travelers in the West. They continued to push Marxism without calling it "Marxism."

[@englishguy9680]

Exactly right, it's a tactic to demoralise those who want a real debate by making genuine debate impossible. It's attritional designed to wear people down. If you haven't seen it watch Adam Curtis's film called Hypernormalisation

[@truebomba]

@@harrymills2770 Have you checked that. The reality is that postmodern ideas emerged where the socialist parties still popular in Europe. Stephen Hicks said it himself, he doesn't care about the interesting ideas that emerged from "post-modernist" like the Deleuze's "Rhizome" or Foucault's analysis of the dynamic of power through the control of knowledge. He only cares about the ideological version of post-modernism and he is too concerned about his own ideology. Post-modern ideas are extremely insightful as a critical philosophical theory. Critical theories are by definition critical, they try to analyze and deconstruct the biases we make in reading social, historical, ethical... phenomena. It doesn't proclaim by essence to provide a political solution. It is a pure act of intelligence most of the time. But as E Fromm stated "It is the rule rather than the exception in the historical process that ideas deteriorate into ideologies; mere words take the place of the human reality; these words are administered by a bureaucracy, which thus succeeds in controlling people and gaining power and influence. And usually the result is that the ideology, while still using the words of the original idea, in effect expresses the opposite meaning. This fate has happened to the great religions and to philosophical ideas; it has happened to Marx’s and to Freud’s ideas." and so of human rights and liberalism to dogmatic neoliberalism. It takes a great leap of dogmatic faith to think that there is no problem in the manifestation of capitalism at this point in history. Stephen Hicks's book is full of such mistakes. A fair enough critic can be found in Cuck Philosophy channel.

[@petarjovovic308]

@@harrymills2770 Great dude you can qoute Jordan Peterson,but he hasnt actually read any Postmodern work or any Marxist work for that matter.And i doubt you have either.

[@englishguy9680]

@Craig Bowers did you even read what was written above. I don't have a problem with Marxism in theory but nobody has ever been able to live their life in a way that accords with the philosophy, not least Marx himself.

[@isaacmalown7003]

It's unresolved emotional trauma and a lack of secure bonding.

[@GetFunnied]

ur mother has trauma piece of garbage

[@k20z3keith7]

@@GetFunnied You just proved his point lol hit you too close to home huh

[@b3hemoth448]

@@k20z3keith7 quite amusing when people attack others and live in denial because they dont want to see their own flaws and correct them.

[@radicalfraction8570]

spare the psychoanalysis, this isnt actually a critique of postmodernism

[@b3hemoth448]

@@radicalfraction8570 how so?

[@nikolaneberemed]

So, there is no objective truth? It's all just narratives? -Yes. Good. That means postmodernism is just a narrative. Have a nice day.

[@nikolaneberemed]

@Logan Arendt I kinda think it's just pointing out that postmodernism undermines itself along with everything else. Even if it were true, it would not be true, if that makes sense. But I see what you're saying. Try thinking of it as claiming that everything is wrong. If that's true, then the claim that everything is wrong itself is also wrong.

[@seanmoran6510]

Post modernism is the philosophy that deconstructs itself. There is no truth and that’s the truth 🤦‍♂️

[@englishguy9680]

If you made that argument you are pointing out the inherent contradiction but they will perceive you're admitting they are right 🤦

[@nikolaneberemed]

@@englishguy9680 No. It means that even if they're right, they're wrong. It means that there is no merit to PoMo.

[@englishguy9680]

@@nikolaneberemed I agree with you they would be wrong. However the argument you've given when viewed through their eyes would be a proof that they are right. So it's not an effective strategy to change their mind

[@kennethalbert4653]

10:27 Sorry Steven, when arguing with those people, they will never give you a "yes or no", it will always be some sort of maybe. They know their argument sucks and they know they will eventually be cornered, therefore they will never commit.

[@7hinkable]

This is an old interview so im assuming they had more fight in em back then

[@jvgauthier]

I say it's possible to corner them as well: When they don't want to commit to a strong position, the focus should be then to get them to admit that their axioms are soft and polymorphic. My suspicions is that they know it more or less consciously and their instinct tells them it's not firm ground, best kept as a secret. But with enough contradictions and some good debating skill, they can be cornered.

[@psychcowboy1]

Whose argument sucks, and what argument are you referring to?

[@kennethalbert4653]

@@psychcowboy1: the left, the more dipped in Postmodernism, the worse they are. I say dipped because, generally, they dont realize they are. It doesn't matter what the argument is, they use tactics (knowingly or not) rather than facts....because they dont believe in them.

[@psychcowboy1]

@@kennethalbert4653 can you give me an example of these alleged post modernists? Certainly Jordan Peterson is a complete idiot, so are his fans post modernists?

[@treesurgeon2441]

It all seems to boil down to "make them be specific about what they believe and why." This is surprisingly difficult I find when you challenge someone who is well versed because Post modernist argumentation can be slippery and complex. It's very easy to make an argument that's essentially philosophical gobbledygook and much more difficult to untie the knot it leaves you in.

[@ShamanDandy]

'philosophical gobbledygook' that's just what philosophy sounds like dude - lots of terminology to learn

[@thefuturist8864]

@@ShamanDandyand as we all know, difficult things are always nonsense, like medicine, maths or law.

[@thefuturist8864]

It’s *very* easy to dismiss something as ‘gobbledegook’ merely because we’ve not yet grasped it. I’ve lost track of the times people have claimed that philosophy, or a particular text, is ‘nonsense’ despite the fact that countless people have studied and understood it. Too many people aren’t willing to put the work in.

[@biancavonmuhlendorf2608]

Prof. Hicks is excellent! Love it.

[@nicvoge2234]

Better, I think, to ask these two excellent questions of oneself.

[@ytpah9823]

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:13 *🍻 Prof. Hicks recalls his first encounters with post-modernism in graduate school, often through late-night debates in bars.* 00:39 *🧐 He emphasizes assessing if the interlocutor is honest and truly interested in meaningful debate.* 01:08 *⌛ Recognizing evasive tactics is crucial; it's often not worth debating with those who avoid genuine discussion.* 01:34 *🎯 Focus debates on what matters most to the interlocutor, typically their political motivations.* 02:16 *💡 Most post-modernists engage in debates due to political agendas rather than epistemological interests.* 02:44 *🌟 Emphasize the positives of capitalism and liberalism rather than only criticizing socialism.* 03:24 *📈 Highlight the successes of Enlightenment principles and individualism to make a strong case for capitalism.* 04:06 *📚 Technical work in epistemology is essential but should be paired with effective communication strategies.* 06:11 *🚫 Avoid ad hominem attacks; focus on arguing against post-modernism's relativism instead.* 07:08 *📖 Paul Johnson's book "Intellectuals" is mentioned as a resource that examines the personal lives and psychological traits of influential leftist intellectuals.* 08:06 *🗣️ Successful debates should ensure the interlocutor articulates their core concerns rather than diverting the topic.* 09:01 *🔍 Identify the core disagreement and address it directly rather than getting sidetracked by secondary issues.* 09:42 *🔒 Pin down the interlocutor to their most important argument and ask if disproving it would change their stance.* Made with HARPA AI

[@TopsideCrisis346]

The only problem I see with what is said here, is that these tactics are only effective against someone who is a.) interested in honest, open debate; b.) honestly seeking to learn and gain insight into points of view contrary to their own; and/or c.) willing to alter their own paradigm if presented with valid information which contradicts their current presuppositions. Such individuals are few and far between on the extreme ends of the political spectrum.

[@DaveE99]

How often do you have people actually present good well thought out information?

[@Bballbunny10]

Can anyone recommend an introductory book/ course on debating, enlightenment philosophy and rationality?

[@integral3452]

Why Materialism Is Baloney By Bernardo Kastrup

[@ShamanDandy]

The History of Western Philosophy by Betrand Russell is one of the best books on philosophy you can ever read. Then delve in to any period that interests you. But it will help you to see the evolution of ideas, how things relate to what came before them. Like modernism and post-modernism

[@landsea7332]

John Locke kzbin.info/www/bejne/mIvMiI2AnK-Hbas .

[@TeaParty1776]

Atlas Shrugged

[@TeaParty1776]

@@integral3452 Ive never had an ideal baloney.

[@thristanebben8902]

“Figuring out the memes” Mr Hicks gets it.

[@stevecronin]

Recently I’ve been interested in Ken Wilber’s commentary on stages of psychological development and their typical corresponding belief systems (postmodernism or otherwise)

[@TeaParty1776]

Psychology is the effect of the choice to focus or evade.

[@joanr3189]

Where, besides KZbin, can I hear more of Stephen Hicks? I like the way he talks, and would hear him in actual debates, i.e. “prescription in action.” In the meantime, I can re-listen to Parts 1 and 2 on my headphone, while walking. Thanks for this intro.

[@saerain]

He says socialists tend to be well aware of the flaws of socialism, and so he advises to focus on the strengths of capitalism. But my experience is that they perceive it all as half distraction, half lie. Focusing themselves on claims of capitalism being "literally hell" and "literally killing everyone".

[@cockoffgewgle4993]

"Focusing themselves on claims of capitalism being "literally hell" and "literally killing everyone"." Isn't that what capitalists say about socialism?

[@thefuturist8864]

But the reality is that neither full-blown capitalism *nor* full-blown socialism works. How many capitalism-based societies can you name that are (i) stable, and (ii) without some sort of state-based support system (eg healthcare, education, emergency services, transport etc)? We regularly confuse capitalism with marketism. We have seen, throughout history, that market-based economies work very well, but only when participation is maximised (hence Milton Friedman’s lament that capitalism has a propensity to pull money out of the marketplace and into the hands of a select few).

[@utah20gflyer76]

I’ve never met a socialist that had any idea that socialism had weaknesses. Socialists don’t tend to be deep thinkers.

[@jedimasterham2]

Trying to argue with fools is itself foolish. Since many of them rely on the emotional argument, emotional support and inclusivity is arguably the only way to get them to see your side. Anything else will make them defensive.

[@erso3302]

Got a commercial for CAIR with Linda Sarsour. Good job, KZbin.

[@psmitty6790]

Dude with the tri-state accent at the end was great

[@Louis-wp3fq]

(Okay?) I kid. I love this guy.

[@DaveE99]

I’m curious what specifically they are saying is subjective when they talk about subjectivism?

[@shenlonggohan]

Debates are for allies, over minor disagreements. Enemies just get the boot.

[@TheSameDonkey]

As someone who randomly stumbled in here I'm wondering what the deal is with presenting capitalism and socialism as an either or option? I see it a lot and it seems very strange to me.

[@HydetheRapper]

Capitalism and socialism are on two sides of a spectrum. Capitalism relies on a free market, devoid of government interference, to advance the economy. Socialism, on the other hand, relies on government regulation to control the economy, theoretically to the benefit of all. If there’s a third option for dealing with the economy, I’m not sure what it is. Economically, at least, those two systems represent a binary choice. What third option do you see (serious question, not rhetorical)?

[@TheSameDonkey]

@@HydetheRapper i think you already understand that all nations have aspects of both. I wasn't proposing a third option (although capitalism and socialism don't form a true dichotomy). My issue was with the discussion being along the lines of one vs the other... It's a useless discussion. The discussion worth having in my opinion is "what do we want society to look like and how do we get there." This tribalism is just a waste of time and energy

[@HydetheRapper]

Studies in Plink That’s fair. It certainly seems to be more along a spectrum than a binary choice. It seems at least somewhat likely that the spectrum develops as a result of compromise between people who tend to be more pure on their ideologies. For instance, I’m a capitalist. I want the free market to control everything. If I were Emperor of the World (heaven forbid), I’d deregulate everything. But there are many compromises I’m willing to accept to get freer markets, even if they aren’t perfectly free. Perhaps the dichotomy is prevalent in individuals, and rare in practice for that reason, and maybe that’s why we tend to discuss these ideas as binaries (although that’s pure speculation on my part). Your point that doing so creates tribalism is an interesting one, though, and I want to think about it. I think the potential barrier to more nuanced discussion is the belief, right or wrong, that the other side’s system will cause immeasurable harm. Capitalists believe that socialism will lead to horrible results for society as a whole. Socialists believe the same about capitalism. If they are correct, then conceding ground and compromise are a step toward a dark and evil path. For a long time, I think, we all largely operated within the same set of general rules (people are equal, freedom is generally good, etc.), and sharing core tenets allowed us to discuss and disagree about the best ways to advance or preserve those ideals. To the extent that people disagree (or perceive disagreement) about those core tenets, they can no longer pull together toward a common goal, even with slight differences about the “how.” Instead, they pull in different directions, and that creates a more binary choice at the core.

[@TheSameDonkey]

@@HydetheRapper I'm curious... When you say "deregulate everything" does that mean you'd rely on companies to not pollute to much rather than having a regulatory agency? And would you do nothing to stop the formation of monopolies and cartels?

[@HydetheRapper]

Studies in Plink I would rely on society to encourage appropriate behavior in corporations, and from what I’ve seen, the market has been shocking good at doing so when consumers put their minds to it (western consumers have been able to alter fairly substantially the means of production in foreign countries by insisting on things such as “fair trade” goods). I am not opposed, in theory, to government intervention to prevent monopolies, but I’m not convinced that monopolies actually arise so long as there is room for true competition (if Amazon can blow up the warehouses of competitors without any fear of blowback, then it can indeed monopolize the market). In my mind, the jury’s still out on whether the government actually needs to intervene to prevent monopolies, or whether it must merely refrain from sanctioning them (as it often has). I’m not an anarchist, and I believe government has a purpose, but I don’t believe that economic regulation is appropriately the realm of government. We as consumers exercise far more control over it ourselves.

[@DaveE99]

Who would be a good person to debate him? I’ve heard him but I’d like to see it.

[@Gardinnas]

I'm currently writing a book on possible rules to apply when solving problems through speech that goes all the way down to propositional logic, and applying some of its axioms in dismantling false arguments. The problem is always to find the axiomatic values of the interlocutor, to which even axiomatic schemas don't answer because ideologues only work with an unknowingly-founded axiomatic schema that's emotion-based. One way to break down the wall of emotionally-grounded circular logic that many radicals use is to simply take their axioms for granted and continually imply the consequences that would contradict some well-known ideology of theirs, and that at every instance of theirs. It's very challenging mentally and you'll get insults and threats anyway, but it'll touch them if they really conceive of contradictions to their beliefs. Most do, despite a lot of people saying they're too stupid or unstable mentally.

[@jerrygreene1493]

Who are the post modernists? I am a liberal and I would rip Hicks or Peterson to tiny shreds, given their flimsy circular argument that liberals are stupid post modernists, and conservatives are smart.

[@theuniques1199]

Gardinnas You've only created your own axiom and/or axioms which means you just like them are neutral, false arguments are based on non false arguments or/and non false arguments are based on false arguments. More conservative is less liberal but less conservative is more liberal/less liberal is more conservative but more liberal is less conservative, you can't escape existence but you can and/or must replicate it to be infinite.

[@tommyrq180]

Debate on some level is like an athletic contest. Many here say it’s useless or even foolish to argue with postmodernists. However, if you want to reveal their tactics and assumptions, it becomes very useful to see how they respond, what they do when backed into a corner, etc. When encountering a particularly effective tactic of theirs, you will often not respond adequately, but you can think about what happened and craft a response for the next encounter. If you have a decent memory you can gradually improve, see tactics as they emerge, and take stock of the person more rapidly. If you simply don’t want to argue with people, fine. I spent a whole career working out my rhetorical strategies against all manner of sophists. Postmoderns can be very, very effective (unfortunately) because they actively craft rhetorical tactics. I actually admire this about them, although their entire premise is dishonest and sophisistic. So we have much to learn from them about our own weaknesses. Just my two cents. ☮️ Just one additional point: in general, I don’t go through this process to convince THEM, but to convince a mythical (although sometimes present) ignorant but relatively objective third party. This frees me from having to accomplish a virtually impossible objective and from all the accompanying frustration. 😊

[@agapee77]

Hicks is a genius from Canada...

[@TeaParty1776]

He applies Rands ideas, however inconsistently.

[@layzboy81]

Why is it always those who vehemently argue for more tax payer funded government, tax payer funded social welfare programs, taxpayer funding in general; are always the first to argue for more hands in your pocket but the last to lead by example and have more hands in their pockets?

[@afonsodeportugal]

Because it's every pocket but their own!

[@billmelater6470]

Because it gives them a veneer of generosity, a perception with a level of inflation higher than what they would do to fiat currency required to pay for "government provided [enter whatever here] because government appears so large. They talk a big game about helping the poor, but never follow through with doing so. You will be told that personal giving isn't enough so to make "real" progress, they must vote to use State force to take it from their pockets and their neighbors pockets. It is only when this type of person has their money forcibly removed and uses a third party to rob their neighbors that they will "help" others. This is not charity. This is not kindness.

[@layzboy81]

@@billmelater6470 I agree. I find it sad that people think altruism or altruistic acts that their ideologies, life outlooks represent and they believe can only "be" If mandated by government by form of tax and/or byrestricting others rights. That its not done out of kindness of ones heart and one's own pocket book. Forcing others to give something up is not kind or good, it's evil regardless of intent. It actually bothers me that these people can preach that an opposition party/ government/leader is Hitler/nazis incarnate, then want to give that same evil person/government/party more power and reach into their everyday lives and have the legal means to use force or threats to enact. They preach the evils of unearned privilege, yet they can't see the total hypocrisy in what they demand others pay for and for them to have. Its mind bogglingly frustrating speaking with those ideologically motivated dogooder people. They pave the road to hell and then I hear them complain that everything where they live sucks and is too expensive to live or have, but continue to vote for the parties who's policies have directly caused or exacerbated the problems they whine about. I find it mentally exhausting listening to them advocating for mutually competitive and exclusive ideologies and unsustainable tax payer funded programs. It's ludicrous the amount of mental gymnastics needed to try and make any sense of it all let alone pay for it.

[@layzboy81]

@@afonsodeportugal I agree. Rules for thee but not for me. Should be like violet programs instead of being a recipient of the program they should be forced to pay for it first out of their own pockets, before they ask tax payers to flip the bill for it.

[@younggrasshopper3531]

It’s the easy way - say the right things so you can avoid responsibility and still be right

[@ryangarritty9761]

Was that Terry Gilliam asking the first question ?

[@enotdetcelfer]

In case it hasn't been quoted in the comments, for ease of saving: "Is this person honest? ...and second, What matters most to this person? It's easy to waste a lot of time discussing things with people who aren't really interested in thinking something through... They may seem to enjoy debate initially, but it's a game. They're not really open to having their premises challenged, or to think through their assumptions. The mark of this is almost always evasiveness; switching the subject when hot water is sensed... and it's just not worth it to pursue if your idea is to get to the truth."

[@psychcowboy1]

According to Hicks at about 7:30 post modernists have personal problems. Does that make Jordan Peterson a post modernist? Then some guy chimes in that Steve, your analysis was fantastic... PhilosophyInsights or Atlas; can you help us out with what precisely was fantastic about it? Any point that Hicks made that was accurate, and substantiated, when you find it. Thanks.

[@over-educated-sp]

I’m just reading all of your comments. You’re all nerds! I love it! I mean that in the most of endearing ways! I am so at my wits end with just how thinking inside the box people are these days. God forbid that box is taken off of some of these people. I thought these terms were what we were all taught to do? Think outside the box? Did I miss the boat? Are we not supposed to remember that phrase? Seriously? What has happened to that wonderful concept? All I can say is, “WERE DOOMED! DOOMED I SAY”! Lol! I’m kidding, I know what happened. GODDAMN KIDS! GET OFF MY LAWN!

[@nnotny]

Actually I wish someone would use a cutting edge to cut that box open and push the envelope outside it. We need a new cliche for innovative thinking. Well, how about.....innovative?

[@PenTheMighty]

This unfortunatley doesn't work as well as you'd think. These people aren't interested in debate. The moment you catch them in doublethink they go into full rage mode and start screeching at you. Debate means nothing when the person you're debating is arguing in bad faith. It's like attempting to deprogram someone from a cult...It would take potentially years and a lot of real hard experience to get someone within the NuMarx movement to reconsider their beliefs. It doesn't help that they recruit some of the dumbest people you can imagine, people who can contradict themselves on a regular basis with zero self or outer awareness.

[@psychcowboy1]

There are also some tricks that work well in debating fans of Hicks and Peterson. Hicks strawman theory is that we used to be modernists and now we are post modernists; an intellectual movement rejecting reason, science, evidence, freedom, peace, and prosperity. Only the most gullible swallow Hicks whole pill.

[@WhydoIsuddenlyhaveahandle]

Rule 3 of marxists: Overreaction. They flip out when you expose their game

[@Darren_S]

It's better not to debate someone who uses feelings above facts.

[@gemthomas]

Is there a good reddit group full of ppl like those in this group chat. .. glad to get to know a bunch of you

[@gemthomas]

@Just Jeff is Reddit a cancer bc they censor content along party lines instead of equally

[@gemthomas]

@Just Jeff so what you're saying is eventually Facebook will eat it ... Gross 🤣

[@over-educated-sp]

The study of ones flaws, and defects, of a person, or society are somehow going to help us all in the advancement of civilization? How? It seems like so many of our youth are so enamored with this, when all I can think about it being a case of doomed history repeating itself.

[@citizeng7959]

Ever since I was a student, I felt that Postmodernism was indicative of the decline of Western civilization, though not necessarily a permanent decline.

[@KL0098]

Clearly you didn't study "Western civilization" enough to learn that "Postmodernism" is asking questions in line with the philosophical inquiries of many Western thinkers since Socrates at least.

[@citizeng7959]

@@KL0098 I take no issue with the intent, but rather with the result. Fousing on the creative fields, Postmodernism's response to the lofty questions you ascribe to its intent is "nothing" and "everything" at the same time, with the result being a kind of creative purgatory as a harbinger of the socio-econonimic and political purgatory we now find ourselve in. Postmodernism is a symptom of Western civilization groping for meaning, purpose and identity, but with no statisfactory answers. If we get through this peiod to a new prosperous age without some major catastrophe that sets up back centuries, Postmodernism will be regarded as an experssion of the nadir of Western civilization.

[@KL0098]

@@citizeng7959 Evidently you've never bothered to read anything about postmodernism. Also, "the socio-econonimic and political purgatory we now find ourselve in" is the fault of a bunch of thinkers and the college professors who teach them to a diminishing pool of students who enroll in the Humanities? Are you sure there aren't more influential entities to blame? Elected politicians, bankers, stock market speculators, megacorporations, lobbyists, media conglomerates? You really really sure it's the underpaid, overworked college professor teaching "Of Grammatology" to a classroom of 30 young people?

[@Setmose]

It's more difficult, but this is better advice: to argue against postmodernist-supported positions, you should know postmodernism backwards and forwards, all of it -- know it all cold. That means reading quite a few texts on postmodernism, and reading primary sources such as Foucault, Derrida, Heidegger, Nietzsche. A great resource is the work of Richard Wolin, who can show you exactly where these thinkers went wrong, individually and collectively. After that, arguing against a postmodernist is a piece of cake.

[@psychcowboy1]

Can you give me an example of a current influential post modernist, using Hicks definition?

[@FTW_666]

To argue with a fool makes two.

[@iloverumi]

great clip. thank you.

[@vasilymartin4051]

Well, you direct them to Jay Dyer on KZbin and get them to subscribe to his channel and watch the series on traditional philosophy in his playlist.

[@TeaParty1776]

The Enlightenment was rational. Modernism and Post-Mod are subjective.

[@thefuturist8864]

No. The Enlightenment *was* modernism, and post-modernism is an inevitable development of the Kantian idea of the synthetic a priori. Modernism, generally speaking, concerns itself with one single perspective, usually reason; philosophers like Kant and Hegel believed that human reason could be used to understand *everything*. Then Kierkegaard came along and posited the existence of a purely subjective feeling that cannot be put into words, and as such cannot be expressed in terms of reason (he called it an experience of the divine, but we could call it sublime). Then Nietzsche questioned the primacy of reason by showing that we can do philosophy in biological terms, and that there is no specific reason to prioritise ‘mind’ over ‘body’; he posited that we only do the former if we value it, but we are not predisposed to value it. Postmodernism follows on from Nietzsche. It is not an anomaly. It is a successive stage.

[@TeaParty1776]

@@thefuturist8864 Phenomenal Kant Dare to know Noumenal Kant Reason becomes involved in darkness and contradictions You define by non-essentials. The Christian Kant desstroyed the ratiional Enlightenment with a scarecrow, nihilist version of reason. All later mainstream philosophy increasingly disintegrated the mind. Thus modern "art", Marxism, Nazzism, postmodernism, the return of religion, Trump and Biden. As Marianne Faithful sang, "Weve been trying to get high without having to pay."

[@TeaParty1776]

@@thefuturist8864 The ccontent of your unfocused mind is noted.

[@TeaParty1776]

@@thefuturist8864 synthetic a priori is a rationalization of the unfocused mind. Either the focused mind synthesizes from observation or man dies. Eitherr a farmerr synthesizes his observations of seeds, water, soil, etc or he starves.

[@TeaParty1776]

@@thefuturist8864 The Enlightenment was a brief return of aristotles reality-based reason that was poorly defended. Its two basic cultural effects were America and the Industrial Rev. Kantian nihilist subjectivism ended it w/a fundamental, comprehensive attack. This split reason (Brit-Amer) from reality (Continental) and morality from values. This is modernism. Post-mod merely widens the subjectivism by rejecting the pseudo-reason of earlier modernism for explicit irrationalism. My context ,is the ,metaphysical primacy of existence rejected by Plato, Descartes, Kant,analysis and existentialism, etc. Virtually all of the history of philosophy is a rationalization of the evasion of reason. Thus social justice and the return of religion.

[@sonofode902]

There are two kinds of debate, first to win an argument, second to seek the truth. The first one honesty is not required it takes strategy and wiles. The second one you need honesty and openness. Gin,

[@kenmartin861]

As in all I see is a turd on a plate. Could you please enlighten me. Then the fun starts.

[@sonofode902]

@@kenmartin861 no Ken, you owed to your self to seek either a turd or an enlightment, that is the fun.

[@redfoxonstilts]

I'm sorry, but what does capitalism has to do with Enlightenment and what does socialism has to do with postmodernism? I do not see any links.

[@Drumsgoon]

1998! He was onto them soon!

[@Pengalen]

Uh, despite the apparent naming convention, Objectivism is not the opposite of Subjectivism.

[@jesussotelo4775]

The simplest way to debate a postmodernist is start by asking if all truth is absolute.

[@integral3452]

He wouldn't be a postmodernist if he thought it is...

[@thorsprovoni2525]

Post-modernism is philosophical gaslighting. If one can’t establish an absolute truth, then there can be no framework to engage in debate, which itself is a binary process. It’s been my observation that post-modernists thrive on conflict. For them, it’s all about 'the struggle'. Conflict is what gives their lives meaning, much the same way Atheism is not about 'not believing in God', but rather an obtuse religious belief for those who like to argue.

[@integral3452]

@@thorsprovoni2525 lol

[@jesussotelo4775]

@@thorsprovoni2525 we have a word for postmodernist in Spanish, its called PENDEJO

[@derGhebbet]

@@thorsprovoni2525 "Atheism is not about 'not believing in God, but rather an obtuse religious belief for those who like to argue." That's like saying Xtianity isn't about believing in Jesus, but being smug, judgemental and hypocritical.

[@FrankensteinDIYkayak]

is debating like that really possible at all? in the 1200's and 1300's the old european universities came up with that 12 step method for rational discourse. last i checked that 12 step method was virtually unheard of on university campuses especially on the left. can universities reaaly be called universities without everyone getting that incredibly small smidget of critical thinking which all should have there? degrees will suffer from total degree deflation and then what? gotta get yet another higher level degree then to compensate? discuss and share experiences

[@KL0098]

I never heard of that 12 step method for rational discourse. What's a good source about it?

[@donaldkershaw6371]

Thank You

[@katherinekelly6432]

The philosophical comes out of the psychological. What a person "is" determines what they "do". How they "Do" philosophy is an expression of their "is" (id)The part of the mind in which innate instinctive impulses and primary processes are manifest. When you debate someone you are debating the id. Evaluate them and when you determine the id is invested in not being wrong versus being correct than walk away. Those who want to learn the truth will not need to protect their ego. You can feel it when you engage them. You will feel as if you are in a conflict instead of two people searching for the truth.

[@Threeredbells]

Where have you been Stephen.

[@Atowns]

The biggest compounding issue of post modernism is that everything around us compounds this subjectivity -and Google is the worst offender, it surfaces subjective results vs modernism and objective sources like encyclopaedia Brittanica

[@verumdoctrina4215]

Brilliant.

[@markmartens]

"...it's easy to waste a lot of time discussing things with people who aren't really interested in thinking something through. They may seem to enjoy debate initially, but it;s a game. They're not really open to having their premises challenged or to think through their assumptions. The mark of this is almost always evasiveness. Switching the subject when hot water is sensed. And it's just not worth it to pursue, if your idea is to get to the truth here."

[@psychcowboy1]

Did Hicks say something smart in this video, or can you identify some post modernist saying post modern things using Hicks definition?

[@jerrygreene1493]

Can you give an example of a debate issue you may have with an alleged post modernist who is not open to having their premises challenged? What is your premise? Can I try to challenge it?

[@Igor-ug1uo]

I tried debating many lefties in my life and every time they resorted to dirty tactics and fallacies. Is this usually a problem with most people or just the leftists?

[@bagamer13]

I think it’s just a problem with most people. There are bad faith arguers in every demographic.

[@cguerrini112]

bagamer13 this is true. But in my experience I haven’t met a single person on the left that will actually engage in open honest debate while being willing to actually change their opinions. They never provide any facts or evidence to support their arguments. And when you prove them unequivocally wrong with hard evidence they just completely ignore it and move on as if it never happened. Hundreds of interactions and every one went like this. So yes its on both sides. But its universal (in my experience) on one side.

[@jerrygreene1493]

The same gullible crowd that swallows Hicks arguments about vague post modernists, also worships Jordan Peterson's nonsense.

[@blokcomNativeFaces]

@@jerrygreene1493 None of them are perfect but comparing them to any marxist theorist or politician, their mistakes are tiny compared to the disaster called communist

[@jerrygreene1493]

@@blokcomNativeFaces Ok Hicks and Peterson are better than communist dictators -- pretty low bar. As intellectuals however these two guys are a joke.

[@Threeredbells]

So 1) its about where your backyard is. 2) then your backyard. 3) then about the who how why some backyards are better then others.

[@khaderlander2429]

Some of the critism of postmodernism towards modernism is on point, people who say reason dictates, rationality dictates, logic dictates and experience dictates, have implicit assumptions which presupposes the very thing they are trying to prove, because their orientation is built into their justification or legitimation of that choice and they have no grounding of their said assumptions, the modernist claim they have access, or in touch with reality then the rest of us, since the modernist have already given up on metaphysical claims of knowledge, they are stuck here on earth with the rest of us, theirs no Jacob’s ladder to heaven. Postmodernist are saying we know the switch, we know what you did in the enlightenment period, you created surrogate deities like reason and logic and the world. God is knocked off the pedestal and we humans, with our superior intelligence and ingenuity have taken over, then the critics of theology became the creative artists once you killed the author, all you are left with is the text therfore one can interpret the text how one pleases is the claim of postmodernism, the claim of modernity that there is one way to interpret the text is faulty modernist logic, all one can say is there is an infinite number of prospectives.

[@Joebethere7]

Can you be against Post Modernism and the failures of Capitalism? Yes! This talk is a cannard

[@danielmartinn.7067]

Capitalism is already doomed. we are ina boat. capitalism is the captain hoarding shit and making the ship tilt. POMOs are some dumb idiots trying to dismantle the ship in the middle of the ocean. .

[@Disturbdindahed]

I'm not even going to watch this. But you're a fool if you don't anticipate that most postmodernists who you've read could win a debate against you on your own terms as well as their own. True: it's not straightforward like structural philosophy. But the point is to seek out paradoxes and tensions, to explore the very modality of meaning-making. Obviously, it makes no sense to read such things if you're looking for clear takeaways or confirmation of your own ideas. ... If postmodernism seems obscure to you, then maybe it is because it seeks in part to illuminate and explore the ground of obscurity--a paradoxical enterprise in itself.

[@Si_Mondo]

"..to explore the very modality of meaning-making," this bit is a description of existentialism. "I'm not even going to watch this," indicates that you are afraid to have your views challenged.

[@Disturbdindahed]

@@Si_Mondo Existentialism looms in the background of postmodernism, as they both engage in metaphysical pursuits. Who said my views were postmodern? I can create meaning however I wish.

[@riccardodececco4404]

"not going to watch this" - the essential Postmodernist: not interested in empirical evidence of ANY kind, just cheap word games and lingo-twisting....

[@Orson2u]

“The poets muddy their waters to make them appear deep.”-Nietzsche

[@tomgang5612]

You can't argue with someone who would never admit defeat.

[@djrychlak4443]

So speaks the voice of experience.

[@queefnugget2000]

I mostly agree with him, but I also remember something Jordan Peterson said about listening to people. Sometimes when you get other people to talk about what they believe, it's their first time having to articulate it so they aren't very skilled. Or they don't know exactly why they think the way they do so they say, "What about this or this?" because they're trying to find a rational support for an emotional opinion they've never really had to think through. Best advice? Debate in private. Crowds become mobs when debating contentious topics and no one ever changes their mind when they're surrounded by their political identity group.

[@psychcowboy1]

Did Hicks say something smart in this video, or can you identify some post modernist saying post modern things using Hicks definition?

[@williamchaney7022]

The first step is: don't trust people who have ideas different than yours, and if they are talking about things you're unfamiliar with then they are evading your argument. The second step is: evade dealing with their arguments by assuming the existence of a "political agenda" that has corrupted this other person beyond their capacity to reason (which means listening to them is a "waste of your time").

[@Molten-Throne]

As someone who subscribed to some postmodernists theory’s i can tell you this is not how to debate us

[@MAX-tw3qz]

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

[@smhollanshead]

Ask these questions: Does truth exist? Is the truth good? Can people know the truth? Can people know the good? Then ask: should there be men and women’s sports? Should men participate in women’s sports? What about men who transition to women, should trans women participate in women’s sports? Then ask: is it true that there is a difference between men and women?

[@KL0098]

Socrates was asking: Does truth exist? Is the truth good? Can people know the truth? Can people know the good? Millennia before "wokism". In fact there's a whole field of philosophy devoted to it, it's called epistemology.

[@mark5846]

Jordan Peterson talks about the dark tetrad is the root of the psychology of progressives today.

[@edenbreckhouse]

Ask them if they are prepared to have a discussion using logic, reason and evidence. They won't.

[@anonymousanonymous9407]

Postmodernism is not about "no logic, reason and evidence", and you(the same as author) know nothing about it

[@ShamanDandy]

I'm up for it. Go ahead and argue using reason, logic and evidence that there is objective truth.. Let's hear it.. There's a reason this movement came after modernism, maybe that there are flaws in enlightment thinking? But anyway, I sincerely mean it, I am prepared.. Tell me why there is objective reality...

[@danielstannard128]

how can you have a unifying debate strategy if within the scope of post modernism you have philosophers whose ideologies contradict each other? this is entire concept of "how to debate post modernists" is an inane polemic

[@C.D.J.Burton]

Postmodernists come to their epistemological methods through their politics. Modernists come to their politics from their epistemological methods.

[@_VISION.]

Postmodernism =/= identity politics

[@joanr3189]

I discovered a strategy on the topic of belief in God, which is a fascinating avenue to explore for a red diaper baby like me. A friend asked me: Do you believe in God? I asked, What do you mean by God?” And What counts as “belief”.

[@AAA-qr8yy]

God is a personal uncreated being who created all that is. “Belief in” God means to trust that what God says is true. And if you truly believed, you would obey God.

[@007kingifrit]

that's just a post modernist argument of pretending you don't know the definition of words , i don't tolerate it at all

[@tylerwhitney3443]

I got into a long FB conversation over astrology, and truth with someone pretty steeped in post-modern subjectivity. It was cordial, but it def didn't start out as such. Since they hold their views so sacred to their identity, it was at first seen as a personal attack, one in which they felt they needed to rise to defend publically on FB. And this was basically just saying that astrology was poor epistmology/not true.

[@theuniques1199]

Tyler If astrology wasn't true then how could you argue about it, truth is based on false and/or false is based on truth, more truth is less false but more false is less truth. Logic creates the illogical or/and the illogical creates logic, you are just like them and hold onto and defend your own beliefs as being true but more right is less wrong and/or less right is more wrong. Astrology is just a more figurative but less literal concept or/and a more literal but less figurative concept, neutrality is the zero sum game which means the zero sum game is neutrality.

[@tylerwhitney3443]

@@theuniques1199 wut...come down from this non-dual/abstract thought(I watched some of your Einstien video..interesting to say the last)...i dont think our primate brains are meant to grapple with such mind-rending concepts, especially with on the day to day basic of understanding "truth" and how to react, it goes miles beyond the practical. Also, I dont even think our language can explain to what you are getting at, hence the muddled back and forth confusion.

[@sandermalschaert2336]

I have been a lifelong socialist and very critical of post-modernism. As are most socialists I know. I hate what critical theory has done to most things I value in life, not only politically. How is it not intellectually lazy to assume post-modernism and socialism go together automatically? Also if you're going to be uncritocal of capitalism you're just as big a fool as uncritical socialists. I was hoping to learn something valuable in this video, too bad I guess.

[@barneystafford]

Successfully changing somebody's mind used to be called good argument. Nowadays it's called gaslighting.

[@Rino37]

Because, to people living in lies, it honestly FEELS like “gaslighting”.

[@christiancdeb8308]

Unresolved Oedipal conflicts are at the root.

[@tomkat69pc]

so this guy teaches war rhetorics and how to be always stronger even if you're wrong - wow what a revelation .. .

[@CoreyJason]

Can’t debate someone who bases their beliefs or positions on feelings and desires. Logic is the tool of the “oppressor” in their world view.

[@psychcowboy1]

Hicks bases his critique of post modernists on his feelings that they exist, when they don't. As infrequently that Hicks uses evidence to support his positions, effectively he is a post modernist, by his own definition.

[@redgey5163]

The last line of this video is 2020 in a nutshell

[@djrychlak4443]

There haven't been post modernists since the 1990s. Tilting at windmills of the ignorant? I think you are. Guys like you give me the runs.

[@phaedrussmith1949]

Yes, arguing to "win," the true hallmark of the 'intellectual." Then, if you can harness power, you can force the other to live your way, which must be the right way to live, after all, you won the argument, right?

[@gabrielcovington7651]

Capitalism however breeds a relentless suffer through constant comparison. And innovation toward more than having needs met does occurs inconsistently

[@mark4asp]

When debating someone ask yourself : 1. Is this person honest 2. What matters most to this person 1. Do not bother debating dihonest people unless you want to hone your skills exposing lies or you have an audience. If you have an audience the dishonest debater is there purely for you to expose their lies to the audience 2. Most people's choices are politically determined. Concentrate on promoting the positive. For example, when debating a socialist, give the positive case for capitalism; don't bother too much on the negative defects of socialism. When their beliefs come under attack, many people, especially smart people, look for more ingenious ways to defend their beliefs. So - highlighting the positives of Capitalism isn't actually attacking socialism; so does not promote the same defensiveness which makes us so unreasonable.

[@stevematson4808]

GOD spoke the world in to existence. Postmodern man speaks the world out of existence.

[@Yehochanan72]

Rejection of meta narratives is a meta narrative. Done.

[@TiroDvD]

Just ask them for a definition. Any. They will go on and on for hours. It's like shooting a fish in a barrel.

[@integral3452]

Everything is subjective.

[@internetw4nk3r74]

The first two questions would eliminate many discussions entirely since most of these postmodernists are people who don't really have standings, they are drenched in all relativism not only from moral side, yhus they will always be very flighty in debate. Running around like little babies. That's why most of them do not really do debate or discussion. They prefer just screaming, in mobs. Echoing is much easier than thinking. I postulate that you can't cure their warped world view through logic and ratio, by debating them. Nope. What you can do is clinical psychology treatment in mass scale while trying to improve their life situation. Economically that is.

[@jerrygreene1493]

Who are the post modernists?

[@philv2529]

Post-modernism part 2 is a 10-minute KZbin video part 1 is an hour-long what the hell?

[@peterclark4685]

Socialism is easy to debunk. (a) When has any government provided any of the elements of a sustainable society? Tytler sets the limit to around 200 years (birth to inevitable dissolution). (b) We need governments because as long as one of them exists, we all have to have one. (c) Capitalism requires particular circumstances to work. The first being that every participant is also a Capitalist and is free to explore their own value in the system. However most legacy advantages need to be ended (land ownership, wealth based on the previous system, relationships with the local community). Similarly the lifetime of a patent needs to be addressed. Progress has to be extended as quickly as possible and monopolistic-like elements are contrary in purpose to a healthy system. Judging when a fair reward for the development of the concept is extracted; then it becomes public property (by peers). Made essential because the amount of absolutely new inventions that rely on nothing previous whatsoever is tiny (maybe 5 in all of human history - control of fire, writing, money, the ram and screw...) All we need is a dynamic, reliable, informed, trustworthy democracy to protect: the borders and the streets. Oh, and World Peace, and left-handed bananas.

[@anonymousanonymous9407]

Postmodernism is not about socialism or any political system at all. Postmodernism can be as easily libertarian, fascist, theocratic, communist, liberal or whathever system you want. Neither it is about "there is no objective truth"(there is, but postmodernism argues about media, information overload in digital era, junk data, simulakras, propaganda, etc). It's essentially about living in a post industrial digitized tech filled unnatural(unnatural as for human being - we're fitted by nature/God(depends on your worldview, i choose second) to live kinda like medieval pre-industrial lifestyle "on land", not to be surrounded by tech and live in giant cities) world fulled with hoaxes, simulakras and ruin of classical society with alienation(i.e family members sitting on phones and consume junk data instead of interacting with each other). Author has bad understanding of what post modernist philosophy is

[@peterclark4685]

@@anonymousanonymous9407 (a) no one 'chooses' religion. They just can't shake it off. The only cure is 100% Atheism. (b) are you replying to the right comment? (c) Humans will gravitate towards the cheap, the easy, the nasty, the simplified because life is an unwanted burden (unless either deeply stupid or deeply switched-on; aka Stoic). (d) you seem to have extracted from Post-Mod the same hippy beliefs of the early boomers. Far out man.

[@anonymousanonymous9407]

@@peterclark4685 >no one 'chooses' religion I did, grown up in atheist family, became oriental orthodox christian after 21 years of life >The only cure is 100% Atheism. 100% Atheism won't work simply for biologic reasons, we're wired to believe in God and rational universe in neurologic level(read some stuff about that). Faith(of course not modern monotheist one) emerged very quickly in ancient human societies. Postmodernism is also not against it - it's for religion and tradition and against attempts to rationalize your beliefs(like modern american protestants do for example). >Humans will gravitate towards the cheap, the easy, the nasty, the simplified because life is an unwanted burden They will. The problem is - it was always like that. Our brain is not wired to live in tech society with information overload, that's why people choose pre baked "truths" by media. If you want to shut off that aspect you need to somehow erase last 100-200 years of technologies which is far from possible. >you seem to have extracted from Post-Mod the same hippy beliefs of the early boomers. Far out man. Yes, but postmodernists like Foucault is more like skeptic horrified hippies, rather than normal one happy hippies doing drugs

[@peterclark4685]

@@anonymousanonymous9407 (a) Sorry for your loss. However your family is not your only influence. Your friends, school, popular culture, charismatic people, challenging events; all and in any mixture can sway a mind. (b) The mind that created god is proof of a god? That's one sneaky, retiring godhead. (c) Stoicism is the only adult approach to life. Be the best you can be with your mix of talents and passions, period. (d) Proper Science will unlock any substantial pathway to any human ideal society. I've used it to create this base system to resolve Power issues. (my work). facebook.com/Vision-Representation-A-Humanist-Government-262619170609120 OR demvision.wordpress.com

[@bunnychete]

Should check jonathan haidts work on this.

[@chrisstory5328]

Human groups oriented by the time tested concept of objective truth came into being under very different evolutionary conditions. There are good reasons for believing that the relentless pursuit of truth is no longer a viable heuristic for the survival of human groups on earth. The alternative to a truth-oriented civilization is not merely an oppressive academic hegemony or the subjective chaos of personal gods. These are only the alternatives chosen by those foremost concerned with the welfare of their loved ones. For those with loftier concerns, the realm of possibilities is expansive.