POL I'm in an epic argument on facebook.
I think this guy boxed me in here. Do I have any other recourse beyond admitting the holocaust was a good thing?
I'm arguing that postmodernism is shit, and he's basically saying if you don't like postmodernism you support the holocaust.
PIC VERY MUCH RELATED
Other urls found in this thread:
ideally I don't want to be in a position where I am defending the holocaust or denying it to a normie.
I was kind of winning for a while and then this happened. How do I refute postmodernism without endorsing genocide?
Holocaust was shit because they couldn't finish the job.
Just call him a cuck and block him
The holocaust had nothing to do with modernism but more with the fact that people were poor and angry.
He's got multiple degrees. You're fucked.
No, that is conceding that he is right. We're already over 200 replies deep on a comment.
Also I'm not even friends with the guy I'm arguing on another person's facebook status.
top kek
"i do not accept your premise"
Sure.
He claims it will happen again but what makes him think so?
Also word to the wise--you better start speaking up and out about this shit. Don't worry about not appearing "mean."
"JEWS" won't work on them though. Trust me. That's how you lose them, you pick your battles.
Wait is he trying to say he has multiple degrees in poststructuralism. Just start shitposting about that.
Post this:
>Listen up I'm about to go and get rich
>Fuck with me my nigga
>We gon' circle round the Ville and hit a lick
>Cop some tree my nigga
>And some powder, bag it up and make it flip
>You gon' see my nigga
>One day we gon' graduate and cop a brick
>And thats the key my nigga
>Listen up I'm bout to go and get rich
>Stand back and watch if you want to nigga
>Me I want my pockets fat, a badder bitch
>Tired of seein' niggas flaunt, I wanna flaunt too nigga
>Watch some rollers in the fuckin' Crown Vic
>Tryna lock a nigga up, thats what they won't do nigga
>Wanna know a funny thing about this shit?
>Even if you let em' kill your dream it'll haunt you nigga
but why u hate? we have white noise, crying of lot 49, the coen brothers, etc
imo david hume was the first postmodernist anyway. way before the holocaust.
I mean we've been going back and forth on all of this. I was earlier arguing that the Belgians weren't solely responsible for the Rwandan genocide and that most of the blame lay at the feet of Rwandans for example.
I'm kind of at the end of my philosophical rope.
thinking about posting this:
"Wait, you have multiple degrees in postmodernism? How does that even work? Since it rejects objective truth how can your knowledge of the subject even be measured since it is all relative?"
Tell him he's stupid for wasting money studying that shit.
I could say that, but I myself have a degree in Political Science and Spanish which isn't much better.
>postmodernism is good because it's not modernism, which causes holocausts
Am I reading this right?
Insult him for not having a stem degree and ask him about all those jobs he doesn't have. Lol
>just start shitposting
First, mock his multiple degrees bonfires by stating that his 'shit don't stink.' Follow that by reminding him that the ability to regurgitate the opinions of sociologists does not make one informed or at all expert.
Next, refute the claim that the holocaust was borne out of modernism. Google is your friend.
Finally, state that even if the premise that modernism led to the holocaust were true, that doesn't automatically make post-modernism anything other than shit. Demonstrate all the shittiness born out of post-modernism.
So he has multiple degrees in memorizing other people's opinions?
its a really old line of argument that undergrads make in liberal philosophy departments whose curriculum consists mainly of dead french people
>it's bad because holocaust
Hitler thinking caused the holocaust.
You're thinking right this second.
Why isn't there another holocaust?
Oh, maybe two things that happened at the same time didn't cause each other.
Oh look, another "Sup Forums PLEASE HELP ME, I'M TOO UNINTELLIGENT TO COME UP WITH MY OWN ARGUMENTS ON KIKEBOOK" thread.
Please just fuck off OP, this isn't your fucking blog and no one gives a shit.
>Postmodern """""art"""""
Objectively a fucking colossal mistake.
examples please! I will jewgle but time is of the essence!
Kek
OP definitely use this vicious retort
fuck you I can post what I want you anti-freedom faggot
This is an ideological battle we are waging, fuck off shill I will not back down.
Who cares it is his opinion it doesn't mean shit.
Throw him in an Oven and his opinions don't matter worth a shit do they.
>invisible loss.jpeg
other people are agreeing with him.
And while it doesn't mean shit, I don't want to concede that he is right. Nor do I want to be a complete jackass.
I want to use logic and reason to demonstrate why he is wrong.
This is literally word soup. He is positing something as an axiom that has to be demonstrated by suggesting that the Holocaust NECESSARILY resulted from the industrialization. That's the biggest non fucking sequitur I've ever seen. Morals and industrialization ARE directly connected because morals are a result of abundance. When there's scarcity of primary resources like food and water, it's every man (and his small collective) for themselves. The only reason we've been able to move into a postmodern society with the high morals we enjoy is because of the technological advancements of the last hundred years, most especially those that came as a result of WWII.
This guy is full of shit. Also, nice bait witht he "POL"
gonna need a bit more context then
1. They may thought that modernism led to something horrible, but is there a necessary connection between modernism and terrible things happening? How would one go about showing this?
2. Even if its granted that postmodernism led to great works of art (lol), modernism was supposedly abandoned because of its political ramifications, not because it was disastrous in the art it produced. Who would even hold that? If you take away modernist art from the Louvre, what's left?
3. Following from 2, what sort of political foundation has postmodernism provided? What sort of political foundations CAN it provide?
4. What sort of ethical/moral foundations can postmodernism possibly provide? It is incompatible with all of them. You can't found any sense of justice on postmodernism. It is moral acid. Why not kill a baby? Why not be racist?
>A postmodernist will say that because a grand narrative is lacking, there is no moral foundation to justify colonialism, but if a culture is intent on colonizing, what could a postmodern say to this culture to dissuade them from doing so? It would point out that the colonizing culture has no moral foot to stand on, but if that culture isn't colonizing for the sake of morality, how could a postmodern persuade the colonizer to care for morality?
tl;dr, sounds like a complete red herring
Well for starters he is making assertions and robbing people of their agency in the third and fourth paragraph and in the fifth paragraph he not only makes an appeal to authority he also makes an adhom attack against you.
So much for being educated i will stick with my middle grade high school level of education if that is what a university education produces.
>I was earlier arguing that the Belgians weren't solely responsible for the Rwandan genocide and that most of the blame lay at the feet of Rwandans for example.
Well if he's denying objective fact (Rwandans are humans with agency, therefore their actions are their own responsibility) then he's not worth bothering with.
>opening the door for artistic development
Well fucking look where that got us
The holocaust had nothing to do with industrialism. It has everything to do with the fact that the jewish people try to subvert every society and industrialism simply made it easier to round em up and potentially end their shit.
Adding more to two. Society is governed by law, and law is founded on a modernist understanding of what makes law legitimate, i.e., what makes a government's use of violence legitimate. If you take away the criteria for what makes law legitimate, can law still exist? Without law, can a society still exist?
MLK Jr., based his opposition to Jim Crow laws on modernist ideas about natural law, justice. He thought there was a grand narrative, a justice whose jurisdiction spans the whole of the earth. He thought that there is such a thing as natural law, and that man-mad law (positive law) is legitimate only when it abides by the moral laws of nature. If we undermine modernism, we undermine MLK Jr.'s justification for civil disobedience. We thereby have no reason to oppose segregation.
There is nothing wrong about genocide in itelf, its part of nature, especially human nature and its been with us ever since one tribe of hunter gatherers wiped out another for the first time. It's only bad when your peope are the ones being killed. I don't mind the holocaust and I don't expect other nations to care much about the genocides we were subjected to. Moral universalism is stupid and genocides were, are and will be happening all over the planet anyway, post modernism or not. The idea that post-modernism changes anything is silly because its lack of belief makes it easy to replace by anything with a grand narrative like Islam. And basically the modern West has a grand historical narrative, just incredibly stupid and childish. Its current yearism, the idea that as time progresses humanity inevitably emancipates itself from the white capitalist cisheteropatriarchy towards a tolerant utopia of global coexistence. My grand narrative is the thousand years and counting of the survival and growth of my people and their culture and there's nithing post-modernists can do about it.
Sociology isn't science. It's a fucking collection of opinions and overly pragmatic bullshit that was literally created to make mental midgets feel special. Fuck his opinion. He has degrees that make him a certified correlator. Yay. Post modernism is basically when rationality left the picture. Retards painting on walls with their own shit would literally qualify. Quantity does not equal quality.
In summary, just post this and be done with it.
What grounds does he have to suggest that industrialized genocide is a bad thing? The moral relativity of post modernism doesn't support that.
But honestly, what kind of opinion is "postmodernism is shit?"
"Postmodernism" isn't an ideology. There is no such movement, and most of the writers lumped into it disavow it.
Also, not all modern philosophies are teleological. Has he never heard of Kant? This guy is just posturing. Call him on his bluff.
These are both solid bits of reasoning.
Be sure to mention that his obscurantism of the subject only proves what little shaky ground his arguments stand on that he needs to inflate them with appeals to authority.
I like this a lot, thank you.
Will post with follow up screen shots.
>Morals and industrialization ARE directly connected because morals are a result of abundance.
Don't post this OP, this is bullshit. Will make you look stupid
I don't get how he linked postmodernism to politics like it means anything
Id just ask him how postmodernism is related to the discussion in any way and whether it has any bearing on anyone's life or is more a reflection of societal tastes and preferences
Tell him not to shift the goalposts, we were talking about X now you're talking about Y
Suggest to him that his assertion about postmodernism and it's sister.movements being "proven fertile ground for artistic expression" is false. Male him prove it. Require identifiable source references. Suggest that what he is asserting is subjective in nature and therefore invalid as one cannot prove something subjective as at its base subjectivity is a matter of preference.
He has multiple degrees, he ought to be able to work his way out of that. If he can't he's a dumbfuck with multiple joint papers.
yeah I was going to but decided not to.
Even hunter gatherers have morals and often more downtime to think than in industrialized society.
reply
"what is wrong with genocide"
do not back down from any claims that you are a racist or what have you
just ask him what is objectively wrong with genocide because besides what buzzwords he has been conditioned to throw at you there is ultimately nothing wrong with it, as edgelord as that sounds he will be stumped
300 confirmed degrees m8
''was the holocaust even that big of a deal?'' but really just say without the grand historical narrative society becomes listless and degenerate.
Yeah, sorry I can't help more, but I have to get up for work in 5 hrs.. Good luck with the argument!
Sorry, just tell him that he's implying an awful lot about where postmodernism came from, and its based on nothing but theories and speculation, argue that from your perspective there's very little difference between the two, and any differences you do see are more of a simple rebellion to the cultural norms of modern times than a deliberate denial of the politics that led to the holocaust. Not every artist is a philosopher.
Then say, if you're going to pretend that your degrees make you somehow more adept at critical thinking, maybe you should have studied a subject that didn't require so much rote regurgitation
this is how we got onto the subject of postmodernism.
pic related
>Muh Phineas Priesthood
The guy is spouting SPLC memes.
"multiple degrees"
>muh appeal to authority
>this is what Professor Goldstein taught me so it must be OBJECTIVELY true and not arguable at all!
get_a_load_of_this_guy.jpg
Also as said above, just because X was shit doesn't somehow automatically make Y any better
Point out that the basis of his argument:
>After the second world war, the academics of Europe dropped modernism and its focus on grand historical narratives
is a grand historical narrative itself.
It seems like his ideology is self contradictory, so by default, the premise that modernism caused the holocaust is suspect at best.
Just say
MUH 6 GORILLION
YOU'RE A BIG GUY
AYYLMAO
Works every time
you're both hipster pseudo intellectual swine
the other guy even more so since hes such a cocky fuck
Ask him if Vonnegut will be remembered in 50 years time let along 500
LOL, what a smug homo. Can you post any more of the argument OP?
Hitler lead to the Holocaust, nothing else.
Ionno, maybe point out that his racial equality ideology is rooted in Christian morality from the reformation???
Vonnegut probably will be because he's too in-line with contemporary narrative "war is bad" unless that somehow changes and it's removed from school curriculum.
Just link him to this thread so we can tear the smug faggot a new asshole OP
Apparently Vonnegut wrote books because he hated the holocaust
and that Postmodernism isn't anti-Holocaust
The roots of post-modernism are pre holocaust, and many post modern artists supported or were supported by genocidal states like soviet Russia et al.
To say that modernism inevitably leas t genocide is laughable. Genocide occurred before modernism and even in the post modern era with Rwanda.
So many times, it happens so fast. You trade your passion for glory. Don't lose the tip of the dreams of the past, you must fight just to keep them alive.
What Vonnegut did you read in school?
All right, history major here. I got this.
First, have him clarify his position. What exactly does he mean by postmodernism? It seems he's skipping a lot of ground with the second paragraph ("the academics dropped modernism and its focus on grand historical narratives because those processes led to the holocaust"). Where is his reasoning for that? I need names here. What body of literature is he going off of?
Second. What the fuck is poststructuralism? This guy loves his 'isms", doesn't he?
>clash of civilization discourse
>using discourse unironically outside of academic writing
This guy is retarded. He's the type that overwhelms his reader (or the poor TA that grades his papers) with a lot of fluff while saying very little of substance.
>Vonnegut
What the hell is he bringing up Vonnegut for? What is this argument about in the first place? Now I'm confused.
kek, very true. His own account of European intellectuals dropping modernism after the war is itself a narrative. He's also implying a telos since postmodernism, according to him, is a natural progression from modernism.
this, OP
pic related
this is what I ended up posting
pic related
I am saving the MLK argument to counter his next response
He actually speaks directly against the message of postmodernism when he talks teleologically about "ages" and that bullshit. Also, he's an academic. True postmodern men are artists. Waste of fucking space.
I think OP made the mistake of citing Harrison Bergeron,which was written as a mockery to people who criticize egalitarianism
Just tell him he's spook'd and post a pic of Stirner.
Slaughter-house 5, do you not read this in school? I guess it's Fahrenheit 451 curriculum-tier
Just redpill him on holocaust, you pussy, it doesn't start good, but I still manage to make them look clueless in the end.
I brought up Vonnegut earlier in the discussion.
We were arguing about socialism. I said I disagreed with it and why.
And I also mentioned the short story Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut.
It was basically a story where strong, capable, fit people are chained up and have restraints placed on them in order for everyone to be "equal".
I was trying to argue that government enforced equality would never work for the exact reasons that the main characters in Harrison Bergeron eventually revolt and break free of their chains.
just make fun of him
youtube.com
You can beat him in 3 simple words.
Not
An
Argument.
Nice retort, Matthew Bommarito.
yes I mentioned Harrison Bergeron as an example of why I don't think socialism or government enforced equality would work. Why is that a mistake?
>missouri
you really couldnt choose a better state to live in?
Also happy birthday.
>help, I can't think for myself please give me something to parrot
>arguing on kikebook using your real name
Behind his fancy words he is basically saying "Postmodernism exists because of people dropped modernism for no reason because of genocide."
except they didn't, it was transition
J.k. ROLLING
>Slaughter-house 5
nah - what year of school did you read that in?
I didnt read Farenheit 451 either (when I was a kid), just the spark notes for the class quiz
Ended up reading it later on when I was bored, pretty entertaining read after all - jut not as entertaining as Nickelodeon all summer long.
Bretty good senpai
Fix your hair, switch your glasses to something not out of the 1970's, and go to the gym daily
Also OP, be sure to call him a cuck, get on his nerves, they conceded faster that way, they can never handle the bantz for too long.
Tell him that the holohaux never happened and that he looks like a fag.
why should I live in fear?
I already lost a few friends earlier in the year for having a massive facebook post about why I think people should vote Trump in the primaries.
thanks, I'm from here, actively trying to move away, but Missouri ain't bad. Well St. Louis sucks but I'm not in STL.
youre fucked
you ran yourself in a circle
apparently quoted a postmodernist, agreed with a postmodernist then said postmodernism is shit. Ya goofed.
good job OP
I think when we were 16/17, you know because >muh dresden bombings
"we can be bad too, you know"
I also remember reading Orwell's Animal Farm.
And yeah, replace Nickoleon with WWE and PS2 and that was me.