The biggest conspiracy here is that a shadowy and unknown organization is trying to make us believe hipsters are heroes.

maybe the same people who led us to believe being a nerd is preferable to also having knowledge outside of your preferable subject matter.

They also hate socialists, too. Turns out, all brands of marxists generally hate other marxist groups once they're identified. They tend to get along though against certain opponents, 'cause the enemy of my enemy is my friend, for now, anyway.

But, fundamentally, how is transgenderism (without transsexualism), which is really important to the "modern left," not a form of post-modernism on a very, very fundamental level? Are we not ignoring empiricism to make room for someone else's "reality" (worldview)? It's easily the clearest example we have (we could go into economics, censorship of science, etc, but then we're actually playing the game then, when the grand majority of the non-political class ["normal people"] is far, far more knowledgeable of this particular topic).
What if you're a nerd of many subjects? What then?

You know, this was a very thought-provoking read. I found it very interesting and informative. You're very smart! I am going to reconsider my worldview!

My feelings exactly.

I draw the line at playing as a cockroach in Bad Mojo Redux. I'm not going any lower and playing a hipster character.

The ultimate issue is that worldviews are an attempt to understand the world around us. The problem with postmodernism (and the "modern left") is the idea that maybe the worldviews are more real than the real world, and that empiricism should not have priority over individual world views. This wouldn't be a problem, if it wasn't then ultimately becoming a battle of mysticism vs empiricism. Osho's fame tells us that we only ever killed God to replace him with this monstrosity. And the "SJWs" are merely the church women of yore, who stuck their nose into everyone's business because everyone was a threat to their self-righteous (see how female hierarchies work) interpretations of the bible. It's just, now that men have joined their ranks and race is a factor.

Define me "post-modernism on a very, very fundamental level"

hehehe Bad Mojo still being talked about after all these years.

It's a game I won't play personally, simply because its gameplay references a style I'm not fond of (I don't play jrpg, consoles are not part of my universe and nostalgia, I don't like these forms of turn-based, menu and abilities combats). What I mean is that the elementd that turn me off are elements present in many mainstream, even classic games.

But I really appreciate gog releasing this. Firstly because the existence of quirky games amuses me (in an industry made of 98% of safe clones), and secondly because it's always fun to see something different dropped on this little anthill of a community, and behold the little forumic deliriums that ensue.

I'm happy that the gog curation values stay a bit broader than its forum community's.

In this case? "I'm 16 and one of my fellow sophomores yelled at me once and now I hate everyone who isn't like me", maybe. It's the equivalent of not liking broccoli because its icky.

If it's "in this case", it isn't fundamental essence of post-modernism becuase it aplies to some "particular" members of the set, and not all members of the term "post-modernism".

I want clear definition of what makes post-modernism what it is, aka "post-modernism on very, very fundamental level".

You know, I got my MA in lit a few years ago with a heavy focus on Modernist literature and indeed spent a lot of time on the diffference between the two; I've been trying to type up a quick and dirty "here's what postmodernism is", but it's a much broader topic than I feel like writing in a forum that I posted in just to mock a bad-looking game, so I think we should let kohlrak do it. Now, if I were assignign this as an essay for class, I'd mark off points unless he includes 1) the relationship between Postmodernism and Modernism 2) where Existentialism fits in 3) how they're related to World Wars I and II and the differences between how each war impacted the resulting philosophy 4) both movements' relationship to Truth 5) both movements' relationship to God 5) the way both movements connected Truth and God 6) why he thinks it's "trying to infiltrate universities" when 15 years ago when I graduated the movement was seen as a decade or two past its sell-by date and shit, I'm asking a 16 year old to write a graduate-level essay. Just say some shit about SJWs, you sound really sophisticated and worldly when you do.

Well, 10 years ago when I finished my high school post-modern was considered current art movement. But then again, my high school art history teacher wasn't very bright.

Well, I'm also interested in how kholrak will define it, because I have "Déformation professionnelle" when modern political discourse comes into play, especially if ontology is considered.

Why not let the people themselves define it?

I'm low on time at the moment, so i'll keep it short. It's application of critical theory (questioning everything that isn't spawned from certain assumptions made by critical theory while rejecting empiricism), with special emphasis on questioning objective reality (empiricism), moral universality (the christian concept that morality applies to everyone, regardless race, religion, etc), and objective truth (the philosophical application of empiricism).

--Well, looks like something got canceled, so i have more time.

It really just boils down to, most identifiably, everyone focusing on their own worldviews while rejecting the notion that their own worldviews could be wrong, while accepting that other worldviews may also be right, since there is no objective reality. Mysticism, essentially: "I believe that the world is a certain way, and the more i believe that, the more that it's true. People who disagree with me are trying to destroy my reality and, in it's place, install their own." Notice the idea that the world can be a certain way (worldview), and that that certain way is automatically assumed to be true, even other ideas that could be in conflict.

This is why we saw huge amounts of cults and public acceptance of cults in the 80s and 90s with people like Osho (aka Rajneesh), Shoko Asahara, Branch Davidians (to be fair, what happened to them totally asn't their fault), Jonestown and their famous cool-aide, and everyone's favorite whipping boy. Notice how everyone was proud that "God is dead" and yet all these cults (and many, many more) suddenly were cool and hip? This is why some smart atheists are questioning if simply getting rid of mainstream religion was the right thing: anything acceptable in post-modernism (basically any hipster religion or cult, but not anything mainstream) is A-OK and now totally the right thing that we're not allowed to criticize.

And all this is totlaly ignoring the effects of the wonderful hedonism-nihilism combo seen in my generation (millenials). But, hey, we got a hell of alot more scientific, objective, and unbiased, haven't we?

And, while I am religious, myself, i'm not arguing pascal's gambit, or anything similar, but just trying to put the practical application of all these ideas into perspective, since my religion doesn't reject science, despite what people may say of it.