I was going to say leftists of more federally liberals but settled on post modernism since it’s taken up by those groups.

Post modernists say there is no truth and that everything comes down to power structures and control. That everything is made up anyways so feel free to throw away all grand narratives and indulge in whatever decadence you want. Because truth doesn’t exist and is a function of power structures.

I think modern liberals are against science and rationality just as much as conservatives. They’re just think they aren’t. Liberals tend to be smart and conservatives tend to be wise.

Exactly, just like when conservatives espouse "family values" and get busted for infidelity, or when they espouse anti-gay views and then solicit sex from police officers, or when they espouse free market values and then solicit money from the government to prop up some privatized service.

That's the least throw-away-all-grand-narratives-and-indulge-in-whatever-decadence-you-want behaviour I've ever seen, yessir. Reminds me of foot-soldier culture warriors posting pictures of depression-era breadlines and suggesting that that's where sOcIaLiSm is taking us. Wisdom indeed. At least liberals seem occasionally active in trying to keep the status quo from degenerating, rather than profit from its acceleration.

I've known many people who lean conservative to one extent or another.

I think many of them have demonstrated a good deal of wisdom, often by not trusting too much in the conclusions of their all-too-fallible intellects.

I can't say that any of those conservatives I've admired have been politicians or megachurch pastors, which given your descriptions seems to be who you're looking at as "conservatives".

I don't think post-modernism is actually popular in any significant population - it's only popular among some small segment of academia, one that has some influence on literature.

But the vast majority of people, either on the left or right, and even of academics in general, find it pretentious and fallacious. The vast majority of people are decidedly not relativists and instead believe in certain absolutes - truth, right and wrong, etc.

Identity politics, which is about as mainstream as you can get is based entirely from post modern principals.

Anything “normal” is only thought of that way due to the discourses of established power (white, heterosexual men and their paternal nuclear family structures) and not only can be replaced (everything is equally arbitrary) but *should* be dismantled and replaced because it’s oppressive.

That’s literally our society today and it’s 100% postmodern.

Well, no. You're torturing definitions to fit established right-wing talking points. You affirm the consequent by suggesting that "white, heterosexual men and their paternal nuclear family structures" represent "normal"; you state that They believe "everything is equally arbitrary", but a breath later you suggest that post-modernism makes a value judgement toward an instrumental end, and results in a "*should*". How can both of those concepts be correct?

I think "post-modern", as used here, is a code word for something else that I don't understand. I think one of us must be genuinely misunderstanding something. As your definition seems to rely on the activity of "post modern principals", I think that the next step in the journey of understanding might be returning to school.

You can't be in favor of relativism without thinking that relativism is true and it's opposite is false, or can you?

If you trully are in favour of relativism then you believe that relativism itself is relative.

There are viewpoints from which something is absolute, other viewpoints from which the same thing is a discrete spectrum with a number of options, and other viewpoints from which it is a continuous spectrum.

Most are tools for thought and they are merely the maps not the territory.