
Postmodernism Generator - 3131s
http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/
======
mistersquid
Postmodernism and postmodernity describe very complex intellectual and
artistic practices. The periodic belittling of these cultural formations by
people who do not well understand them is unbecoming and tiresome.

The Sokal affair gets mentioned in threads such as this. But anyone who has
studied the Sokal hoax knows very well that _Social Text_'s editors were
bullied into relaxing their peer-reviewed standards at Sokal's insistence.

It puzzles and saddens me that so many intelligent scientists and empiricists
repeatedly point to such instances of "postmodernity" as proof that the
postmodern emperor has no clothes because such a broad statement is simply
untrue. The work of many of late Twentieth Century philosophy by figures such
as Jacques Derrida, Luce Irigary, Julia Kristeva, Jean Baudrillard, and many
many more deserve serious studied contemplation. Their work is not easy to
understand and, yes, they can be interpreted in many different ways.

They are not randomized strings of insider shibboleths.

Occasionally propagating "postmodern" meme generators is a childish form of
territorial demarcation and we would all--humanists, scientists, and
intellectuals of all kinds--be better off and richer if they stopped serving
as propaganda that postmodernity has no cultural or intellectual value.

EDIT: grammar, readability, spelling. Added penultimate, single-sentence
paragraph.

~~~
elliotec
Gotta say, this comment itself reads like it was written by the postmodern
generator

~~~
foldr
No it doesn't. Come on, that's not a constructive response to a perfectly
articulate comment.

~~~
azeirah
To people who don't know anything about postmodernism (i.e. me), it certainly
does.

~~~
foldr
The comment doesn't say anything about the content of postmodernist thought,
so I can't see why you would say that. It's completely intelligible, and it's
a bit childish to pretend otherwise.

------
FabHK
Pertinent Twitter account:

@RealPeerReview posts papers published in peer-reviewed journals of
questionable scientific merit.

[https://twitter.com/RealPeerReview](https://twitter.com/RealPeerReview)

------
adpoe
Yes. I studied literature in school, and I was very guilty of writing papers
like these, once upon a time. If someone gave me this and told me it was real,
I would believe. Hits the mark.

------
JonnieCache
I wonder what people with literary theory degrees make of RFCs. Much the same
I imagine.

~~~
kazagistar
RFCs are templates for tangible products. They don't exist for their own sake,
and can be judged by their artifacts.

What does postmodernism accomplish?

~~~
JonnieCache
It attempts to describe certain aspects of human cultural interaction, broadly
defined.

I'm not defending it, I share the opinions of many of it's detractors, my
point is only that to describe a technical subject you don't understand as
incomprehensible nonsense is silly.

------
lacampbell
Automation putting more people out of jobs.

------
setra
Generated:

If one examines textual theory, one is faced with a choice: either reject
Marxism or conclude that the raison d’etre of the reader is deconstruction. It
could be said that the subject is interpolated into a postsemantic nationalism
that includes language as a paradox. Lyotard uses the term ‘Marxism’ to denote
the failure of neoconceptualist class.

~~~
Erik816
Pretty sure you could get at least a passing grade from an average humanities
course by just copying and pasting sentences like this, depending on the
school. I say that as a philosophy/political science grad.

~~~
andrepd
People often say that sort of thing, but I wonder if those claims were ever
rigorously tested. Did someone ever try to test what kind of grades they got
at humanities courses with made up gibberish answers like this?

~~~
mcphilip
Depends on the skill level of the grader, I suppose, but phrases like
"postsemantic nationalism" are a red flag to me as an armchair philosopher
with some knowledge of the history of postmodernist thought.

~~~
CalChris
I just love that phrase _postsemantic nationalism_.

So I Googled it and found one _legit_ hit and I can't really tell if it's
legit.

[http://blacky2poe.w.interiowo.pl/realismandneost/theabsurdit...](http://blacky2poe.w.interiowo.pl/realismandneost/theabsurdityofn.html)

But it reminds me of what in chess is called a _computer move_ , something
which is contrary to the way even super-gm's think but nevertheless a good
move.

------
qz_
I'm not the best at English, tried understanding this for a good 5 minutes
before I remembered what "generator" means. Oh, well.

~~~
freditup
Your comment mirrors an observation of mine (although I am a native English
speaker):

Trying to read the generated article gave me a very similar feeling compared
to the feeling I get when trying to read an article that's much too difficult
for me. I read a sentence or two and try to grasp at the meaning of the
sentences and how they relate to each other. I reread these words a few times,
and eventually draw out a little bit of understanding and move on to the next
sentences.

In this case with the generated text though, eventually my mind concludes that
it's all nonsense and gives up on finding any meaning. With a real text,
hopefully, I'd derive more meaning little by little as I struggled on.

What's interesting to me here is that a nonsensical text can produce the same
"in over my head" feeling as a highly intellectual and difficult text. It
seems to imply that we could be fooling ourselves when reading difficult texts
- perhaps a text is all nonsense, or perhaps it's brilliant, but we have
little way to tell.

------
twelvechairs
From 1996

For details

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism_Generator](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism_Generator)

------
sprobertson
Tangential, but can anyone eli5 this field of philosophy (the non generated
form)? I recognize names like Lacan and Zizek but can't get far enough through
the verbal cruft to interpret anything.

~~~
JonnieCache
As I understand it, you could sum it up as: categorizations and abstractions
are primarily instruments of power and control, rather than tools to further
understanding. The true purpose of categories or classifications is to place
people or concepts outside of them, and thus to denigrate and dominate them.
Categories or labels have no "real" meaning except to serve this malign
purpose.

Part of the reason why these people originally wrote in such a strange way was
because they wanted to try and write without applying the traditional
categories and modes of thought we've all been raised with.

Disclaimer: I'm not qualified to tell you this and you shouldn't listen to me.
I'd welcome correction from someone who actually knows what they're talking
about.

~~~
sprobertson
I listened anyway... if that's in any way accurate it's the best explanation
I've heard yet!

------
everyone
I love this. Someone please try and get one published!!

also...
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair)

------
andrenth
Related reading: "Fools, frauds and firebrands: Thinkers of the New Left".

------
eugeneionesco
This is hilarious!

