Yeah. It's usually where (your page) I confront the ones I'm talking about but I just couldn't take anymore. I may well unblock them in a few days idk. I despise censorship so good on you for tolerating them

@Don_Provolone If I block all the fuck wits out there how I am going to be able to troll hem in the name of free speech ?

I think there are a lot of liberals that disagree with me on many topics. And I with them. But they bring an honestly different point of view and the intellectual honesty to have a conversation. Then these 2 ( may just be the same guy) with the hard core progressive stance "Im a nazi" "white people are evil" "gender is a construct" look at this article from mother jones or huffpo. I just got both frustrated and bored.
I'm on a Atheist page. Im a fairly devote Christian. Obviously I disagree with their position. But the conversations tend to be polite and articulate and based in history and science and fact. in the end we disagree but it's the discussion Im looking for. Otherwise whats the point?

@Don_Provolone, yeah, that last part. What do I change? Me.

What else exists?

Well, I've read a lot of really useful ideas that you don't recognize yourself. Why don't you? To each their own. But, I've also RELATED to others who value some of the same things I do. At some point, we are responsible for making meaning, but also seeking it.

So that.

@Don_Provolone, to think a buttload of structure (whatever that means) or formatted interaction (whatever that means) Is an INvalid way to interact (whatever that means) is bogus. Are you taking the shit--the shit I'm supplying for what it is? Ummm, nope. You're not. You're doing what you're telling me not to do.

@Don_Provolone, nice judgment. I don't think it's wasted effort at all. I understand that you do. Should I be exactly like you? Or mostly like you? Exactly how much can I deviate from you and still be an acceptable human being? Oh, I know. I'm going way weird, and I'm just going to be me. And, you can practice what your preach or we can continue to rub sandpaper over it, haha.

Too long; DON"T read!!!

Postmodernism isn't the vile subversive thing it's made out to be. The vile subversive thing is what came along and gutted it, skinned it, cannibalized the tools developed by postmodernism...

If you consider modernity, the idea that the world can be known through reason and empiricism; that it can be explained through natural causes and that no unnatural--supernatural--explanations will possibly hold up to a growing comprehension of nature as it actually IS; modernism is the intellectual proposition that knowledge is nature and its mechanics. Modernism makes for astounding engineering, but sort of annihilates personal meaningful experience.

Postmodernism is the study of things unseen. It was the attempt--to my mind--by mostly incompetent literature and linguistics scholars, to answer Nietzsche's demand for a big enough bathtub to wash away the blood of God as modernism was actively murdering Him in the minds (and then hearts) of society. Philosophy was looking around at society and observing that the masses are but one new understanding of nature away from losing faith in an "ultimate meaning" that makes the misery of life tolerable.

Postmodernism was attempting to find the meaning that modernism was dismantling. It was proposing stuff like, "well, really, what can we actually know that we know?" Science says that 90% of a table is empty space, but that isn't how we experience a table. What do we mean by "table?" The word merely signifies a concept; the concept you hold for the word isn't the same as the one I hold for the word, but the word raises the concept in each of our minds; you and I don't know the scientific "atomic table," the word "table" is an arbitrary signifier constructed by society generations prior to the "table" in your or my mind, and neither of us can ever know the first table the word signified, nor the table each other of us carries around in our minds to cast upon the atoms of science when the word is invoked. What do we know but the personal manner in which we each experience existence and interaction?

I don't remember who the hell said it, but it went something like, "A question asked and unanswered for 3000 years is best dismissed as uninteresting. What IS being? What IS meaning? Who cares? The interesting question is how do we change it." The "IT" in question was the meaningless suffering of human existence. The answer most widely settled on was "emancipation." How can we deconstruct the social systems that oppress the masses and release them from the futility of their servitude? Well, we just left postmodernism, and move on to Critical Theory.

Postmodernism was an attempt to explain how, no matter the extent of our natural knowledge, we experience the world through the society constructed by and handed down from our heritage; the world I know and the world you know are different worlds, but we're both so formed by our experience within culture that neither of us can know how TRUE our perceptions really are. Postmodernism was attempting to build a framework through which we might "make meaning" for ourselves through an broader understanding and practice of interpretation. '

Critical Theory was application, interpretation through deconstruction, toward the goal of individual liberation through social criticism and activism. Privilege and oppression is a "Critical Theory." Intersectionality is a "Critical Theory." Neither are "postmodern," really, because both present and take themselves as knowledge--doctrine. They're exactly the sorts of ideologies that postmodern thinking was aiming against when it devised the "How do we change it?" question to begin with.

@Don_Provolone, TO YOU. Just to you. That's YOUR feelings on it. I tend to invest myself more. Maybe you should invest yourself more. Instead of arguing in snippets, we can argue in full form. I'm guessing that's not interesting to you, so you can understand why I'm never going to be the guy post 4 words of snark, every one saying fuck you. It's not my style. My style is to explain to someone why I'm telling them to fuck off. Funny. That weird human variability thing, huh?

@Don_Provolone, again coming back to YOU. Hold the judgment on whether or not a member is judging another poster's pov. You're contradicting yourself. YOU choose to write in snippets without committing anything to it. That's YOUR PREFERENCE. I don't find a lot of value or enjoyment in keeping everything at the surface level. I tend to LIKE TO dig in a bit. Others like to be even more thorough than I am. Some people post videos without introduction, so you don't even know what the video's about. Again, that's not very helpful to me. I tend to ignore all of those videos. Won't even click on 'em. I don't watch a ton of videos anyway. I have other stuff going on--some of which involves watching videos. But, I appreciate when Remi posts videos he lets you know what the video's going to be about. We've covered this ground. You hate it that I don't see the video thing like you do. Why? You pick on anyone picking on something. Surely, you see the irony? So, you're telling me how to be, and I'm asking you why you don't practice what you preach.

For God's sake, NO! Don't block each other.

We'd miss this...

"We" meant "I."

@Don_Provolone

Postmodernism gets a bit of a bad rap because of what followed from it.

@Don_Provolone Besides, I warned you it was too long to bother with.

@Don_Provolonek, I'm not talking about your pronouns. I don't need your permission. That's never been in question. I have entertained your criticism to be polite. I'm just pointing out you're doing the same thing you're criticizing, and that's pretty fucking funny, to be honest. But, really--it's a challenge. This is one of the lamer arguments that happens on the internet--the 'stop criticizing them because whatever' arguments, which, of course is criticizing another poster. You are necessarily trapped into your own criticism. Surely, you've thought about this before if you have actually run websites.

@Don_Provolone, really? We're going to cooperate to a mutual blocking? This must be satire.

@govols,

Postmodernism gets a bit of a bad rap because of what followed from it.

Isn't this like all of them, though? Modernism got a bad rap because people twisted it into something more than it was meant to be. Pre-modernism gets a bad rap because people twisted it into something it wasn't supposed to be. Socialism's workable. It really is. BUT, it working is dependent on perfect people staying perfect. What will inevitably happen is less than perfect people will twist it up. That's what's happened to date. Some people want to win the game, and that's where idealism ends. Postmodernism has a couple good pieces to it (less so than premodernism or modernism, in my opinion), but it's been twisted to be quite damaging. Look at nationalism too. Look what they've done to it. It's a pejorative. Yet, there is tons of good packed into nationalism--good neighbors. So, point taken. You're right. There is good to postmodernism, but taken too far--like we humans do--it's really dangerous.

@Don_Provolone, I wish you had even an inkling of power to make it happen.