A Manifesto Against the Enemies of Modernity (2017) | Hacker News Reader

A Manifesto Against the Enemies of Modernity (2017)

areomagazine.com

11 pointsDowwie8 comments

Lumping leftist politics under postmodernism is kind of a stretch, and the characterization of leftist politics here is like what you get when you learn about it from David Brooks columns. There is a leftist politics out there that values objective truth, and also attempts to grapple with arrangements of power in the world (and within societies) that are heavily informed by imperialism, racism, patriarchy, and other forms of oppression. Often this means that historically repressed voices should and do get centered in the interest of seeking justice or attempting to right historic wrongs (and/or figuring out how they persist and have been systematized).

What it boils down to for me (a straight, white, cisgendered man who was born into an upper-middle class family in the US) is that the kneejerk "I guess I should just shut up" reaction to being called out as being problematic/racist/sexist/whatever is self-serving and it's too easy. You are allowed to have an opinion and voice it, but some amount of self-reflection is valuable when you often aren't experienced or knowledgable in particular forms of oppression.

The authors of the article basically agree with you.

This manifesto makes the same mistake as the partisan left/right political parties. It lumps a whole bunch of issues together and says, "if you don't believe all of these to be true, you're not one of us." Great, another exclusive ideology that basically asks its adherents to be stupid and unquestioning. No thanks. This is already a feature of current partisan politics. How about politics for people who prefer to think for themselves? That would truly be something to see--real progress. Because there are plenty of people who don't fall into the left/right parties or this modernity middle camp. Some of us realize that each issue should be evaluated independently. I know this is literally beyond comprehension for partisans like the author of this article and every political party I've ever read about, but it is reality.

Any politics that claims to be on the side of rational discussion without ideological zealotry needs a clause "Manifesto-writers see yourselves out." Despite this particular new crop popping up online, no, it doesn't count if your manifesto is about how bad people who reduce things to manifestos are. You don't get points when your unsubstantiated, simplistic essay is about how we should be on the team that substantiates arguments and isn't so simplistic. Practicing what you preach is hard, but man, at least make an effort.

You haven't been listening very carefully, have you. The postmodernists and the antimodernists are openly, explicitly opposed to reason. It is only the modernists who are for it. So if you are on the side of reason, you are a modernist, whether you want to admit it or not. And you state openly that you are for reason and think everyone who is for reason should act together politically, then you are a manifesto writer, again whether or not you like to think of yourself as one.

From the article:

Veer rightward instead, and you’ll be similarly disappointed. There, truth isn’t much different, although they wouldn’t call it “situated” (but it is). It is the kind of capital-T “Truth” that’s both “obvious” to everyone and too simplistic to be true,

Funny, but this whole article is just as "truthy" as what it complains about.

>Some of us realize that each issue should be evaluated independently.

When it comes to basic cultural eras, which is what is being argued here, you have to make a choice. For instance, with respect to religion and government, should the government outlaw religion, as the postmodernist left wants, should religion be supreme as most of the premodernists want, or should we have the tolerance of modernity.

And which choice you make on this issue is deeply tied with similar other issues like science, technology, economics, education, sex roles, and so on, in three whole bundles. If you think you can pick and choose and come up with a society that doesn't fall apart quite quickly, you are quite mistaken.

This is a great essay.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com