Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- lb:socjus [2025-09-27 09:45:30] – [What is it?] ninjasr
+++ lb:socjus [2026-02-17 17:10:44] (current) – [Other Post-Modern Ideologies] ninjasr
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ====== SocJus ======
+<div subtitle>
+<span stamp navy>Politics</span> <div callout caution>This article is //not// unbiased.</div>
+</div>
 <blockquote>
 My point is not that everything is bad, but that everything is dangerous, which is not exactly the same as bad. If everything is dangerous, then we always have something to do. So, my position leads not to apathy but to a hyper- and pessimistic activism. I think that the ethico-political choice we have to make every day is to determine which is the main danger.\\
@@ Line 65: / Line 68: @@
     * Why: SocJus is basically the same thing except that there isn't really a grand conspiracy. Their beliefs just happen to support ideas and strategies that line up with globalism as a concept.
   * Leftism
-    * Used by: Themselves, right-wingers, Whatifalthist, Ubersoy, Carl Benjamin (Sargon of Akkad)
+    * Used by: Themselves, right-wingers, [[lb:Whatifalthist]], Ubersoy, Carl Benjamin (Sargon of Akkad)
     * Why: SocJus deliberately positioned itself in opposition to conservatism (which is on the political right), which is itself completely antithetical to Post-Modern thought. As a result, they've become heavily associated with the political left.
   * Liberal
@@ Line 95: / Line 98: @@
 Hm, scratch the previous paragraph, I decided to list some of the tactics here with a one-sentence description just to give you an idea of ‘what's up’.((:fn:>‘Post-Modernists’ will be used to collectively refer to all the ideologies including SocJus.))\\
 They are listed in no particular order and some of them are related to each-other:
-  * **Dishonesty** – Post-Modernists are rarely honest about their intentions in discussions. Though this isn't always conscious.
+  ? **Dishonesty**
-  * **Projection** – Post-Modernists tend to project their beliefs/desires/actions onto their opponents or in situations where it does and doesn't make sense. This sometimes comes off as tone-deaf or stupid.
+  : Post-Modernists are rarely honest about their intentions in discussions. Though this isn't always conscious.
-  * **Sesquipedalianism** – Post-Modernists like to over-complicate their language to make themselves feel and appear intellectually superior to their opponents, even if they don't understand the meanings of those words.
-  * **Jargon/Redefinition** – Post-Modernists like to redefine words to make terminology more vague; or to make themselves appear/feel superior; or simply to explain internal ideological concepts to fellow adherents.
+  ? **Projection**
-  * **Rebranding** – Post-Modernists will go out of their way to change the terms they use to refer to each-other specifically to avoid accountability or hide from the general populace (which hates them). This is why the term ‘woke’ has become pejorative: people noticed that crazy people called themselves woke, so pattern-recognition took over.
+  : Post-Modernists tend to project their beliefs/desires/actions onto their opponents or in situations where it does and doesn't make sense. This sometimes comes off as tone-deaf or stupid.
-  * **“Conspiracy Theorist”** – Post-Modernists like to label their opponents as conspiracy theorists.
-  * **Insults** – Post-Modernists rely heavily on ad-hominem attacks in the form of childish insults to win arguments.
+  ? **Sesquipedalianism**
-  * **Normalization** – Post-Modernists are fine with compromising in the short-term as it contributes to their overall strategy of normalization.
+  : Post-Modernists like to over-complicate their language to make themselves feel and appear intellectually superior to their opponents, even if they don't understand the meanings of those words.
-  * **Shifting the Topic** – Post-Modernists, upon detecting they are losing an argument, will choose to change the topic of conversation to avoid losing. Taking the phrase “missing the forest for the trees”: they are making you focus on the trees so you miss the forest.
-  * **Misrepresentation** – Either intentionally or unintentionally (due to stupidity), Post-Modernists will misrepresent their opponents and their arguments. This is just an ad-hominem.
+  ? **Jargon/Redefinition**
-  * **Isolation** – Post-Modernists like to isolate and block opposing voices for the sake of maintaining ideological purity. This has the intentional effect of increasing radicalization and the unintentional effect of creating echo chambers which warp perception of reality.
+  : Post-Modernists like to redefine words to make terminology more vague; or to make themselves appear/feel superior; or simply to explain internal ideological concepts to fellow adherents.
-  * **Crybullying** – Post-Modernists like to goad their opponents into attacking them and then crying to authority to make it seem like they're the victims. This is both a conscious and subconscious tactic.
-  * **Victim Mentality** – Post-Modernists will eternally portray themselves as victims for the sake of maintaining moral authority and superiority (within their view). The idea that a victim might be deserving of their position is directly contradictory to their worldview.
+  ? **Rebranding**
+  : Post-Modernists will go out of their way to change the terms they use to refer to each-other specifically to avoid accountability or hide from the general populace (which hates them). This is why the term ‘woke’ has become pejorative: people noticed that crazy people called themselves woke, so pattern-recognition took over.
+  ? **“Conspiracy Theorist”**
+  : Post-Modernists like to label their opponents as conspiracy theorists.
+  ? **Insults**
+  : Post-Modernists rely heavily on ad-hominem attacks in the form of childish insults to win arguments.
+  ? **Normalization**
+  : Post-Modernists are fine with compromising in the short-term as it contributes to their overall strategy of normalization.
+  ? **Shifting the Topic**
+  : Post-Modernists, upon detecting they are losing an argument, will choose to change the topic of conversation to avoid losing. Taking the phrase “missing the forest for the trees”: they are making you focus on the trees so you miss the forest.
+  ? **Misrepresentation**
+  : Either intentionally or unintentionally (due to stupidity), Post-Modernists will misrepresent their opponents and their arguments. This is just an ad-hominem.
+  ? **Isolation**
+  : Post-Modernists like to isolate and block opposing voices for the sake of maintaining ideological purity. This has the intentional effect of increasing radicalization and the unintentional effect of creating echo chambers which warp perception of reality.
+  ? **Crybullying**
+  : Post-Modernists like to goad their opponents into attacking them and then crying to authority to make it seem like they're the victims. This is both a conscious and subconscious tactic.
+  ? **Victim Mentality**
+  : Post-Modernists will eternally portray themselves as victims for the sake of maintaining moral authority and superiority (within their view). The idea that a victim might be deserving of their position is directly contradictory to their worldview.
 ===== Description =====
 ==== A very brief history ====
@@ Line 128: / Line 156: @@
 Currently, in 2025, SocJus is on the decline but remains quite influential. Post-Modernism itself seems to be partially but not fully affected. Hence the need for an article like this.
 ==== What is it? =====
-<WRAP caution>
-**Note:** I discovered that I actually did a bad job of explaining what post-modernism is which is obviously a grave error. I'll fix this issue at some point, hopefully in the near future.
-</WRAP>
 SocJus is a Post-Modern ideology. I should note that I previously made the error of assuming it //was// Post-Modernism, which I realized was an error because there are //other// Post-Modern ideologies. But let's ignore those for now.\\
 That said, SocJus is //probably// the purest Post-Modern ideology due to it being the closest to its originating roots. Plus it's the most radical.
@@ Line 141: / Line 165: @@
 The other other reason comes down to post-hoc rationalization. Don't let their justifications distract from the fact they've already decided on all of their positions before they ever wrote or said a single word.
-All of this applies to SocJus and many other Post-Modern ideologies, though not all of them are quite as complicated as SocJus. And yes, we can move onto SocJus now.
+Now that I've explained that Post-Modernism is simple, it's time to explain **what it actually is**. Per the book //Cynical Theories//, Post-Modernism can be reduced to two ‘**principles**’ and four ‘**themes**’.((:ref:cythe))\\
+Those are:
+  * Principles
+    * **The post-modern knowledge principle**((:ref:cythe))
+      * The belief that objective truth is unobtainable and, consequently, the belief that all ‘truth’ is actually culturally constructed.
+      * In practice, this manifests as a denial of reality, the belief that objectivity of any kind cannot exist and an acceptance of fact only when convenient.
+    * **The post-modern political principle**((:ref:cythe))
+      * The belief that society is constructed of systems of power and hierarchy that determine what can be known and how.
+      * These systems of power (oppression), by determining what is ‘true’ also determine what is ‘good’. These systems also perpetuate themselves via things like common sense, education and the market.((:fn:>This looks very much like a conspiracy theory because it //is// a conspiracy theory. However, //Cynical Theories// points out that it's a conspiracy theory without conspirators because essentially //everyone is a participant in the perpetuation of these systems of oppression//.))
+      * In practice, this means that any ‘oppressive force’ (can be as benign as a father figure) is automatically and unequivocally bad, while the ‘subjugated’ are always good especially if they actively rebel.
+  * Themes
+    * **The blurring of boundaries**((:ref:cythe))
+      * Post-Modernism actively seeks to eliminate boundaries between anything and everything as a means of denying them legitimacy as anything objective.
+      * This includes but is not limited to objectivity/subjectivity, truth/belief, science/art, natural/artificial, humans/animals, man/woman and health/sickness.((:ref:cythe))
+    * **The power of language**((:ref:cythe))
+      * Post-Modernism believes that language is a means of controlling what can be believed and how. Thus language is a dangerous tool with which you can control all of society...meaning words are inherently dangerous.
+      * In practice this allows words to be interpreted however the Post-Modernist desires, ignoring the intentions of the author. This is due to an adaptation of the concept of [[lb:Death of the Author]].((:fn:>To sum up what this might be for those interested. ‘Death of the Author’ is an idea in literary analysis which posits that the author cannot be asked about the meaning of a work. It is entirely up to the observer to determine what that meaning is, regardless of the author's intentions. In practice, this just means that observers (literary critics/analysts) choose to project anything they want onto a work. Which is how something like Toy Story can be interpreted as fascist propaganda. Even pointing out that this is ridiculous is considered invalid, because Death of the Author also suggests that no one interpretation is better than another.))
+      * In practice, this also manifests as nitpicking words and focusing a lot on definitions to achieve victory in a given discussion.
+    * **Cultural relativism**((:ref:cythe))
+      * Post-Modernism holds that because objectivity does not exist and because people's biases are inherent to their position in society...no one culture is superior to another. Further, because no one culture is superior to another, any critique of a culture is seen as an implicit suggestion that the critic's own culture is inherently superior, which is morally abhorrent.
+      * However, not all cultural critiques are seen as equal. Generally, someone in a superior position of power per theory (such as white males) are seen as unequivocally evil. Thus their critiques should be discarded. This is because they have no way of knowing what it is like to be oppressed. On the other hand, those who belong to the oppressed (such as black women) are free to criticize the oppressors and themselves to their hearts content.
+    * **The loss of the individual and the universal**((:ref:cythe))
+      * Post-Modernism holds that the individual as a concept doesn't exist. And neither does a universal principle (such as humanity).
+      * Essentially, Post-Modernists believe that humans are not individuals but are instead a product of their race, sexuality, class and so on. Because it is impossible (per their view) to see things from an angle different from the one you are a ‘part of’, the only way you can possibly relate to others (and communicate to them) is by sharing some of those traits (such as race, sexuality or class).
+All Post-Modern ideologies have the same principles/themes and all of them follow the same pattern of over-complicating themselves. Some of those principles/themes also manifest slightly differently depending on what exactly they're focused on. Though not all of them are quite as complicated as SocJus. And yes, we can move onto SocJus now.
 So...what //is// SocJus, really? Well, it isn't //one// ideology but rather an alliance of ideologies. This is called ‘intersectionality’ and I'll explain it in a bit more detail later but, for now, all you need to think of it as is a voluntary alliance.\\
@@ Line 178: / Line 226: @@
 Let's use an example to illustrate what I mean:
-> Exercise is white supremacy.\\
+<div center-text>
+<span denote>Exercise is white supremacy.</span>
+</div>
 How any reasonable person can come to this conclusion is difficult to understand...until you break it down. Believe it or not, this //is// a rational position – in the sense that it can be reached thru rational thought, not that it is reasonable.\\
 This position is gained via the alliance between Fat Studies and CRT. Fat Studies believes that exercise is a tool of oppression against them. That's step 1. But what's step 2? Statistically, obesity is more prevalent among blacks. CRT, via its alliance with Fat Studies, has been convinced that this //isn't// a crippling fact and, in fact, obesity and being fat is a core part of ‘Black Culture’. That's step 2.\\
@@ Line 251: / Line 301: @@
 Post-Modernists will be intentionally ambiguous about the meanings of terms to avoid contradictions. Basically, they're treating individual terms like Schrödinger's cat: a term has both and neither meanings simultaneously.\\
-This is a very childish yet undeniably effective method of avoiding being hypocritical. They just have to avoid making it clear //what// certain words men and this is why they will tend to get nervous/evasive/aggressive if any attempt at clarification is made – what is a woman?
+This is a very childish yet undeniably effective method of avoiding being hypocritical. They just have to avoid making it clear //what// certain words mean and this is why they will tend to get nervous/evasive/aggressive if any attempt at clarification is made – what is a woman?
 This is also why pointing out the contradiction doesn't do anything: in their minds, there is no contradiction, because the term has both meanings at once. This is also why, once you clearly define a term, they will start vigorously denying the contradictions.
@@ Line 288: / Line 338: @@
 Half-Hearted typically aren't as tuned-in to the ideology as the Ideologically Pure, so they often find themselves running afoul of the eternal purity test.
-Basically, anyone who says “I was woke once but I'm not ever since x” then they're almost certainly a former Half-Hearted.
+Basically, anyone who says <q>“I was woke once but I'm not ever since x”</q> then they're almost certainly a former Half-Hearted.
 These differentiate themselves further by having the capacity to see their own hypocritical beliefs. Though their solution to avoiding being hypocritical is the freeze and voluntary shutdown.
-A good (and public) example of a Half-Hearted is Red from [[youu>OverlySarcasticProductions|Overly Sarcastic Productions]]. In her [[you>j-yJDbC_a2c|Gilgamesh video]] there's a frame with a ranty text-wall about the issue of ‘Finders Keepers’((:fn:>‘Finders Keepers’ is the idea that if you discover an artifact during an archeological dig, you basically ‘own’ it. Post-Colonial thought opposes this on the basis that this is theft and, consequently, the former colonial powers should return the artifacts.)) and ISIS. To summarize the rant: Red was basically trying to reconcile Finders Keepers being bad with the fact many artifacts from Mesopotamia ended up being saved from destruction at the hands of ISIS because they weren't in the region. This text wall ends with a dramatic “aaaaaaaAAAAAAA”. In real terms, this just means that she voluntarily chose to stop thinking about it because that line of thinking naturally leads to the conclusion that Finders Keepers can’t be bad in all situations.\\
+A good (and public) example of a Half-Hearted is Red from [[youu>OverlySarcasticProductions|Overly Sarcastic Productions]]. In her [[you>j-yJDbC_a2c|Gilgamesh video]] there's a frame with a ranty text-wall about the issue of ‘Finders Keepers’((:fn:>‘Finders Keepers’ is the idea that if you discover an artifact during an archeological dig, you basically ‘own’ it. Post-Colonial thought opposes this on the basis that this is theft and, consequently, the former colonial powers should return the artifacts.)) and ISIS. To summarize the rant: Red was basically trying to reconcile Finders Keepers being bad with the fact many artifacts from Mesopotamia ended up being saved from destruction at the hands of ISIS because they weren't in the region. This text wall ends with a dramatic <q>“aaaaaaaAAAAAAA”</q>. In real terms, this just means that she voluntarily chose to stop thinking about it because that line of thinking naturally leads to the conclusion that Finders Keepers can’t be bad in all situations.\\
 As a result, the Post-Colonial position that it's //always// bad breaks down.
@@ Line 308: / Line 358: @@
 Escapism (which is what ignoring reality is) is obviously appealing to everyone – I mean, who //doesn't// want to play as a dashing knight who saves the day in a game, right? – but with the added bonus of being a victim who is being treated unfairly by the world, with the means of getting back at the ones who did this to you? It's downright intoxicating.
-Post-Modernism and its descendant ideologies basically fully enable being selfish to the highest degree while making oneself feel //extremely// good in the process. You feel like a warrior constantly battling against evil and all you really have to do is say things like “actually, calling me ‘he’ is transphobic because I identify as demisexual, so please call me ‘xer’. Check your privilege and stop being such a bigot”.
+Post-Modernism and its descendant ideologies basically fully enable being selfish to the highest degree while making oneself feel //extremely// good in the process. You feel like a warrior constantly battling against evil and all you really have to do is say things like <q>“actually, calling me ‘he’ is transphobic because I identify as demisexual, so please call me ‘xer’. Check your privilege and stop being such a bigot”</q>.
 What furthers this perspective is the sensitivity to language. In their minds, literally any mistake, misunderstanding or banal comment is a targeted attack on their very being. This can give the impression that they really //are// being constantly attacked from every angle.\\
@@ Line 342: / Line 392: @@
 Here's the quote from the beginning of the article again:
-> My point is not that everything is bad, but that everything is dangerous, which is not exactly the same as bad. If everything is dangerous, then we always have something to do. So, my position leads not to apathy but to a hyper- and pessimistic activism. I think that the ethico-political choice we have to make every day is to determine which is the main danger.
+<blockquote>
+My point is not that everything is bad, but that everything is dangerous, which is not exactly the same as bad. If everything is dangerous, then we always have something to do. So, my position leads not to apathy but to a hyper- and pessimistic activism. I think that the ethico-political choice we have to make every day is to determine which is the main danger.
+</blockquote>
 This quote is by **//Foucault//** – one of the **founders** of Post-Modernism.\\
 To put this quote into layman's terms: it means that there is //always// more to fight, more to demand and more to gain. It's just that, in the short-term, they need to figure out what to prioritize. But the fight will never end.
@@ Line 351: / Line 402: @@
 By this point, if you don't agree with me...I //failed//. But, if you do, great!
 ===== Other Post-Modern Ideologies =====
+<figure>
+<blockquote>
+I used to think you're obsessed over post-modernists, eventually I thought you've got a point, now I can't even argue, whatever you call them, post-modernists, retards, manipulated drones, these people should be labeled as disabled and have their voting rights taken away.
+</blockquote>
+<figcaption>A friend who preferred to stay anonymous.</figcaption>
+</figure>
 These are other Post-Modern ideologies that I, or others, have identified. These are not as prominent as the ‘Big 5’, but many do still flirt with them and, in some cases, are basically full-fledged members of SocJus.
@@ Line 397: / Line 454: @@
 This connection with Post-Modernism/SocJus is implicitly understood by many people, though they usually don't reach the conclusion that MPC is a distinct ideology that doesn't get along with SocJus.
 ==== Free & Open-Source Software Movements ====
-When I told a friend that I started to think Richard Stallman was a Post-Modernist, he responded with “I don't even know what is or isn't Post-Modernist anymore” which I think perfectly encapsulates Post-Modernism.
+When I told a friend that I started to think Richard Stallman was a Post-Modernist, he responded with <q>“I don't even know what is or isn't Post-Modernist anymore”</q> which I think perfectly encapsulates Post-Modernism.
 Anyways: yes, I'm being serious. Not only am I being serious, but this one might flirt with intersectionality more often than Veganism or Environmentalism.
@@ Line 414: / Line 471: @@
 A very small list of corporations they're fine with would be IBM, Red Hat, Sun Microsystems (when they still existed), Apple, Oracle and many more I can’t think of. A lot of these are at times much much worse than Microsoft, yet they don't care: because //Microsoft is the enemy//, not //Oracle//.
-And like any other Post-Modern ideology, they have the same blindspots. They don't realize that “Embrace, Extend, Extinguish” is a far better description of GNU and Linux's approach to competition than it does Microsoft's.\\
+And like any other Post-Modern ideology, they have the same blindspots. They don't realize that “**Embrace, Extend, Extinguish**” is a far better description of GNU and Linux's approach to competition than it does Microsoft's.\\
 The GNU Project was explicitly founded to clone proprietary software, then promote their use over proprietary software with the explicit goal of becoming the standard to kill proprietary software. How this is seen as ethical is beyond me, but Post-Modernists are not exactly rational thinkers.\\
 Linux has a similar approach, though it could be argued it's accidental rather than intentional like in the case of the GNU.
@@ Line 420: / Line 477: @@
 Oh, and let's also mention the fact Academia in the West is dominated by the Free and Open-Source software movements. Even in this regard they're similar to SocJus.
-Their denial of reality (such as Open-Source software usually being inferior to Proprietary software) and their methods of indoctrination all indicate these are Post-Modern ideologies.
+Their denial of reality (such as Open-Source software usually being inferior to Proprietary software) and their methods of indoctrination all indicate these are Post-Modern ideologies.\\
+The way people online keep announcing that they're switching to Linux and <q>"Never going back to Windows."</q> (sure) is also identical in structure to virtue-signalling. I'm even convinced that a lot of these people are lying, just as virtue-signallers do.
 Something else that's important to note is that the Free Software Movement //cannot// and //will not// support the abolition of copyright. On the surface this is strange and a little contradictory, but it makes sense once you realize...the truth.\\
@@ Line 528: / Line 586: @@
 But what //does// matter is the //reason// you're pirating and, in the second example, it's explicitly to damage a corporation.
-I mean, just take the phrase they love repeating so much: “It's always moral to pirate X” (Nintendo/Adobe/Other...)\\
+I mean, just take the phrase they love repeating so much: <q>“It's always moral to pirate X”</q> (Nintendo/Adobe/Other...)\\
 It's a very Post-Modern way of thinking basically.
@@ Line 537: / Line 595: @@
 One of the more insidious representatives of Post-Modern Piracy – though one unrelated to Reddit, interestingly enough – is ThePirateBay.\\
 ThePirateBay is responsible for birthing the Swedish Pirate Party, from which all the other European Pirate Parties came. And //all// of those parties are SocJus aligned, just that they're a little crazier due to being technocratic.\\
-ThePirateBay is itself a big rabbit-hole of “what the Hell’ if you bother to look into it...but just keep in mind that the statement “they flirt with Post-Modernism” isn't even the tip of the iceberg. If you're curious, look into Piratbyrån, Telecomix and Kopimi. All of those //really// explain what I mean.
+ThePirateBay is itself a big rabbit-hole of <q>“what the Hell”</q> if you bother to look into it...but just keep in mind that the statement “they flirt with Post-Modernism” isn't even the tip of the iceberg. If you're curious, look into Piratbyrån, Telecomix and Kopimi. All of those //really// explain what I mean.
 Ironically, one of the other big representatives of this particular ideology is probably Mutahar,((:fn:>I had forgotten about him, but **Modern Vintage Gamer** is also a major representative of this ideology. In fact, I think I first identified it with him.)) who is otherwise anti-SocJus. It's just really ironic that he doesn't realize his ideology is Post-Modern. And he also demonstrates Post-Modern-style hypocrisy like the situation surrounding the Switch 2.
@@ Line 557: / Line 615: @@
 But since they believe with 100% certainty that men and women //are// different...a lot of those older roles are starting to make some sense to them.
-So while a regular SocJus Feminist Theorist might see a prostitute nd go “Slaaaay, Queen ♥~” a TERF might look at the same prostitute with disgust. Though take this with a grain of salt, since I'm not 100% sure, only about 93%.\\
+So while a regular SocJus Feminist Theorist might see a prostitute and go <q>“Slaaaay, Queen ♥~”</q> a TERF might look at the same prostitute with disgust. Though take this with a grain of salt, since I'm not 100% sure, only about 93%.\\
 Though it //is// funny to think about.
@@ Line 576: / Line 634: @@
 As far as I know, the following ideas are tied to SocJus/Post-Modern thought in storytelling:
   * [[lb:damsel.in.distress]] being universally perceived as negative.
+  * [[lb:Death of the Author]] probably didn't originate with Post-Modernism, but is dominant among video essayists, reviewers and whatnot...who are all Post-Modernists.
   * [[lb:manic pixie dream girl|Manic Pixie Dream Girl]]. I believe the term originated with them and is considered universally negative.
   * [[lb:ludo-narrative.dissonance]]: coined by Games Journalists, probably the pre-eminent example of being ideologically compromised.
@@ Line 592: / Line 651: @@
   * This section will mostly remain empty for now, because I don't know what to put here besides a few small disconnected notes.
   * When trolling SocJus, an effective counter-tactic is pretending to be a member of one of their constituent ideologies. You can then activate a purity test which will leave them bewildered. Though I don't think of this as a super legitimate long-term tactic – mostly just for harmless fun
-    * This can take the form of them arguing that “x doesn't matter” and you responding with “how dare you suggest this doesn't matter, it's a case of trans rights, bigot”. This is something I actually did once.
+    * This can take the form of them arguing that <q>“x doesn't matter”</q> and you responding with <q>“how dare you suggest this doesn't matter, it's a case of trans rights, bigot”</q>. This is something I actually did once.
-    * Though this could be exploited to maximized in-fighting, it would be too much work, I think.
+    * Though this could be exploited to maximize in-fighting, it would be too much work, I think.
   * Many Post-Modern ideologies are //very// transparent about what they actually believe despite them being wired to lie all the time. The main reason it doesn't seem to be this way is because they're lying for the sake of PR. But if they think you're one of them...they will reveal //a lot// about what they //actually// think.
   * There //is// one weird effect of post-modernism in that, due to how vague and subjective it is, it basically forces being clear. Plus it forces making clear definitions. This is advantageous in the realm of [[lb:storytelling theory]] for example.
     * Actually, I started writing all that out due to the realization that //only// Post-Modern thought seems to be represented in storytelling.