Total posts: 5,890
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
For someone so fond of responding to entire paragraphs with on liners, constantly dismissing others view points as the mere product of ‘what they were told’, and acting like anyone who believes in the idea of government is guilty of some naïve unshakable trust in the elites… you sure have a problem with anything you see as empty rhetoric.
I gave you a whole two paragraph argument about how it’s not your place or anyone else’s to decide what qualifies any US citizen as sufficiently educated or motivated enough to vote, all you heard was that I used the word “keys”. But I’m the one focused on platitudes. It’s just plain stupid.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Aren’t you the one who blamed inflation on Biden citing QE even though it was even worse under Trump?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
It’s a global issue so it’s not Biden’s fault, but you’re right that he absolutely will get the blame for it. It’s the ultimate flaw in our political system; we act as though our presidents are kings so when the elections roll around every 4 years they have to promise the world in order to get elected, then once in office they can’t do a damn thing without congress. And even in the case like this where it’s beyond an national issue, the fact that they made these big bold promises will always come back to bite them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
This is why you are unserious to talk toThat, and not the part where this guy says voting is more harmful to America at large than gun violence? I guess spoiled for choice. :)
People say dumb things all the time, at least when one is being serious you can talk through it to the point where it gets clarified or corrected. GP is not interested in that. Look at his response to me in post 100. All he’s interested in are one liners and gotcha’s, and even then only one liners and gotcha’s that make sense to him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Just realized you are against the argument, didn’t read the thread fully. Why start a thread on it then?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
The ontological argumetn goes from "X is possible" to "some possible world contains X". The problem is that this specific imaginary world does not evidently exist.
Exactly, so how do you get from an imaginary world that does not evidently exist to the actual world? What is the bridge between these two things?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I value quality over quantity. Is that wrong? I'd rather have voters who care enough about voting to make an effort instead of excuses.
Yes, it’s very wrong, because voting is a constitutional right and essential to everything democracy is supposed to stand for. It’s not up to you or anyone else to decide what qualifies any US citizen to be able to cast a ballot. It’s not up to you or anyone else to decide what hoops are appropriate to make someone jump through in order to show you that they’re worthy of that privilege.
I understand the irritation. Imagine how irritated I feel every time I see a Trump supporter talking about how they’re going to stop the dems and their child sex trafficking ring out of their local pizzeria. It’s maddening, but the solution is not to hand someone the keys to deciding who’s ignorance they are going to target, the solution is to drown out people like that by letting everyone have their say. And if that doesn’t work then like I said, we get the government we deserve.
Here is where we part ways. To continue to believe the lies DC says about the faults of the public can only end in civil war, and I would rather that happen after I am dead.
This is why you are unserious to talk to. I just made a point about where the fault lies and instead of addressing it you just dismiss it as me “believing the lies DC says”. That’s just plain stupid. The implication here of course being that I’m not thinking for myself but yet you apparently are. Well if that’s the case then come back with an actual response instead of your usual projection.
Our politicians are a reflection of us, and what we care about they will focus on. It’s not DC that needs fixing, it’s us.100 million people disagree.
First of all so what of they do? This is a debate site, perhaps as someone who thinks for himself you have some actual thoughts to share?
But more to the point, this has nothing to do with what I just said. Unless you are going to claim that the person who gets the most votes doesn’t actually take office, the politicians are the very people that we sent there to represent us. That’s a fact, would you like to address it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Cool! I would also add Glenn Loury and Coleman Hughes. They have all discussed these issues with each other, too, I believe…
Don’t know who Glenn is off the top of my head but I like Coleman Hughes as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Personally I think “racial essentialism” is the better term to use but I’m not up in arms about it. I don’t think you disagree with the terminology so much as you believe that the concepts people are objecting to should be taught. Why not just say that instead of going for the easy dunk
I go for the easy dunk because that’s what they’re giving me to work with. It’s not my job to make it harder on myself to make my point.
If we changed to debate from CRT to racial essentialism it would highlight how absurd this is as a political issue, because what we’re talking about now is a mindset not a curriculum or anything else that can actually be legislated. No governor can ban it, and if you’re that intolerant of other people having different view points on race that you have to run out and vote for a governor over it that says something about you.
So yes I agree with you, and that’s exactly my point. The terminology is used to muddy the issue because the arguments cannot stand on their own merit. It’s disingenuous.
That’s always been taught in schools though… The modern day impact of racism is a more controversial issue and I wouldn’t blame parents for objecting to a certain theory of it being taught as fact.
You’re saying two opposite things at the same time. The former is not CRT, the latter is. And I don’t object to it either. CRT is not a K-12 subject, which is why it’s not part of the curriculum.
Also isn’t it fucked up how “whiteness” is a term of invective among these woke academics? Imagine if I were criticizing the high rate of single motherhood in black communities and called that “blackness”….talk about dehumanizing racial essentialism
Agreed, which is why I have a problem with the term as well. But dehumanizing black people is nothing new in America, so spare a thought what it is like for a black person to look around at what is going on right now as they watch the national freak out over the fact that white people are suddenly being called names too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
What exactly is your issue with my use of the phrase "Critical Pedagogy"?
I just explained it. Try reading what I said again.
Are you going to ignore those questions again?
Yes, because I already explained to you why I asked the question and you ignored every single word of it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I actually agree with you 100 percent. CRT isn't taught in schools. It is Implemented. It's a noticeable difference.
Please explain how it is implemented. I’ll wait.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I already said Critical Pedagogy was an example of how one could practice CRT within the school system.
And I ignored it because the sentence makes no sense. Pedagogy is defined as “the method and practice of teaching”, so one could practice CRT by teaching? What are you trying to say?
I actually enjoy reading quite a lot. But I did read both your question and the paragraph explaining why you asked it. Here was your question:"Can you show me a K-12 school anywhere that teaches CRT?"
Ok I take it back, you love to read, you just also love having a conversation with yourself.
There was actual context to the conversation you were chiming in on. And I explained that context, so in your next post instead of ignoring my explanation how about you break that down to? To recap…
The OP made an implicit claim that CRT was an issue we should be concerned about. So I challenged him to support that claim *in the form of a question*.
The implication there is “show me what it is that *you* are so concerned about so I can understand *your* position”. And by “your” I’m talking about the OP, I’m not talking to you.
So when you turn around and answer the question, that is completely meaningless to me because I am not interested in your answer to that question. Now if you’d like to assert that same claim, then I am now interested in you showing me the schools that are teaching it so I can evaluate what it is that has you so concerned, but what did you provide instead? A deduction that they must be taught somewhere. And where did you get that from? The link I provided.
That is pointless.
Do you now understand?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Linguistics Professor John McWhorter speaks very intelligently about this issue. Here is one of his shorter interviews (< 20 minutes) if you’re interested:
I like him and usually agree with most everything he has to say.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
All you’re doing is asserting republicans are making the issue up and there’s no problem.
No, I said that they’re hiding the problem they actually have behind CRT. Of course there’s a real issue, it would be absurd to claim there isn’t. But the issue is not CRT being taught in schools, which is why I have a problem with this whole thing. Say what you mean and have a honest debate. Instead they play these political games which is why we get no where.
That is not at all what the topic is about. The topic is about what’s being taught in schools.
The impact of racism on ethnic communities is essentially what CRT deals with, which is the professed thing the voters are against. That’s what I was pointing to, but we all know that’s not really what people are upset about.
But why should white people not have a say in what their kids are taught at school?
I never suggested nor implied that they shouldn’t. Where on earth did you get that from?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I agree with you.
Great. So if the legitimacy (measured by the people’s confidence in the alignment between who the majority of voters chose and who actually takes office), then how do you square that with a former president who to this day continues to spread his lie that the election was stolen and the republican party’s embrace of it? Isn’t the republican party then the anti democracy party?
So what’s the solution to this? Well, mail in ballots go a long way to minimizing the power of anger in our politicsIt would also go a long way to ensure a person's vote shouldn't be earned when it is worth less hassle than getting a 6 pack of beer. Lowering the expectations of politicians is a race to the bottom.
You cannot argue that the lack of voter participation is a bad thing while advocating against making voting easier. You either value voter participation or you don’t. Pick one.
Which has everything to do about shifting blame from the government to the people and nothing to do with preserving Democracy. When the people refuse to hold DC accountable, it's a testament to how weak our Democracy already is.What would you change to hold DC accountable?
It’s not about shifting blame, the people are to blame. That’s the whole point of democracy, it’s success depends on the people and right now the people are getting the government they deserve.
Just look at how far we’ve come since Trump took office. Once upon a time it used to matter when a politician lied, said stupid things, or conducted themselves in a childish and crass manor. Then Trump came along and showed DC that the people don’t care about any of that, so now more and more politicians lie, say stupid things like it’s for sport, and act like a complete ass because they know the voters will not hold them accountable. We have have guys like Jim Jordan who’s never written a bill in his life but is on Twitter and Fox News every day pretending he’s battling the evil libs. And what happens? He gets re-elected.
Our politicians are a reflection of us, and what we care about they will focus on. It’s not DC that needs fixing, it’s us.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If A Democracy hinges on the same convenience as waiting in line for food, then it's already doomed. One would think a vote should matter more than hopping in line to get a 6 pack of beer.
The problem isn’t that people think their vote doesn’t count because there is something wrong with the system, the problem is just math. There are millions of people in this country, the chances that any one person’s vote will decide an election are infinitesimally small, so most people just don’t consider it worth their time to cast a vote that won’t change anything. And because of that, the way to win elections is to get people angry, because for many that is what it takes to motivate them to make the effort. This is the problem. People don’t get angry when the government does its job, so politicians are incentivized to focus all their attention on dividing us and demonizing the other side as opposed to actually governing.
So what’s the solution to this? Well, mail in ballots go a long way to minimizing the power of anger in our politics, but of course when you’re a party who has nothing but anger to sell to your voters you will naturally fight tooth and nail to ensure vote by mail is minimized.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Not at all. Do you really believe people choosing to not vote makes for a strong democracy?
I believe that the more people who vote the better, it helps to ensure that the government’s values reflect the values of the people they govern.
That has nothing to do with my comment however. As long as everyone has the right and an equal opportunity to vote, the government has done all it can do there. What I was talking about was legitimacy, which comes from people believing that the election was fair and that the person who takes office is the person who actually received the most votes.
So do you disagree with my statement that in order for a democracy to thrive the people must see it’s election results as legitimate?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
A weird comment considering that ever since this controversy emerged conservative candidates have been winning in school board elections almost everywhere and, by your own admission, flipped the Virginia governors mansion. Perhaps the one who doesn’t know what they’re talking about here is you
It’s a weird argument to make - that the majority consensus gives the position credibility, when not only is the majority position the very thing being criticized, but also when the majority is overwhelmingly white and the topic is about how racism has impacted ethnic communities.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great exists in some possible world.
You can’t go straight from “X is possible” to “therefore X”
This argument doesn’t establish the existence of a maximally great being, it sneaks it in. The only way 2 works is if you regard the second half of the sentence as a logical statement rather than a factual statement. In other words, “exists” here is only being invoked as a logical possibility. Otherwise you’re just asserting the very thing you’re trying to prove.
But if 2 merely establishes a logical possibility, then 3 is a bare assertion of something that has not been established, which is again the very thing you’re trying to prove.
In other words, the argument sounds compelling because the usages of “exist” and “possible” change within the argument but does so in a way that initially difficult to spot, so we don’t even realize we’ve jumped from possible to actual until we’re already talking in terms of the actual.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The usual unserious response I’ve come to expect from you…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
The issue isn’t that they are using the wrong term, it’s that they’re hiding behind it. If the real issue is that they disagree with what their kids are being taught, well now they have to engage in the conversation and make their case as to why it is wrong but they have no interest in that because they know they don’t know what they’re talking about. So instead the go-to is to demonize it by slapping a face on it and attacking the face they just slapped on it. It’s remarkably effective, but ultimately useless when it comes to anything outside of pure politics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
He did that to himself by lying to Congress about gain of function, Fauci is a straight up politician that repeatedly ignores science that doesn't grant him power.
So a career infectious disease expert is to you, all about power, and now all of a sudden you care about people lying to Congress.
Ok bro.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Whereas I don't view Trump's post election behavior as a serious threat at all. I think it's all but disqualifying and severely damages his legacy, but I don't see it as a fundamental threat to American democracy.
Do you disagree with the statement that in order for a democracy to thrive the people must believe it to be legitimate?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
or you can believe that maybe something sinister really was going on in the school curriculum there. Enough that a Republican got elected on the back of what is historically that parties biggest weakness.
I’m perfectly fine accepting that… as soon as someone can provide a coherent factual argument supporting it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Then you should be fully aware that when I say, "I would actually argue that engaging students in Critical Pedagogy should be considered 'teaching CRT,'" I am arguing that your definition is wrong.
Congratulations, you can make up your own words.
Do you disagree that praxis is a necessary component of CRT?
Yes. CRT is descriptive, not prescriptive. So until you can provide an actual example of how one could practice it within the school system I will continue to disagree.
And I provided proof that there is at least one example of it being taught somewhere. This was your question:"Can you show me a K-12 school anywhere that teaches CRT?"Assuming you meant it in the way the words you were using to construct that sentence are defined, showing evidence of a single K-12 school would satisfy your request no matter the context.
Wow, you really don’t like to read.
See my paragraph explaining why I asked the question and try again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
CRT is fundamentally racist in the worst way.
Right, because studying racism is the real racism. Typical right wing nonsense.
I find it deplorable that you continue to defend this junk science.
Find one thing I’ve said in defense of CRT, other than pointing out how the right wing obsession with it proves it’s central premise.
If you’ve actually bothered to read anything I’ve said you would realize that I couldn’t care less about defending it, my irritation is and has been all along the unwarranted hyper focus on this to which a man rode all the way to the VA governors mansion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The whole "CRT isn't taught in schools" is so ridiculous.
What ridiculous is the way the right uses the term CRT to hide behind what they’re really against; the acceptance of the idea that racism in our society as anything other than a relic of our past.
It’s a fallacious yet effective tactic; When you cannot defeat an idea on its merits just give it a face and demonize the face you gave it. It’s just like what the right is doing regarding the science of Covid by demonizing and attacking Dr. Fauci.
CRT is an actual course full of ideas that are meant to be controversial and make people think, so it’s easy to paint in a bad light. What CRT is not is a vague collection of definitions and basic principals regarding how we should think of racism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I don't recall explicitly agreeing that CRT is not being taught in schools. I would actually argue that engaging students in Critical Pedagogy should be considered "teaching CRT"
When I say “CRT is not being taught in schools” I mean it in the way the words I’m using to construct that sentence are defined. You’re talking about vague notions of principals being accepted by educators in ways that are just bound to come out at some point, somehow, while interacting with students.
This means that unless you reject the findings of the survey you referenced, you argued that 4% of teachers admitted CRT is being taught in their schools. This should be enough evidence to fulfill your request
My question was to the OP who was laying out a doomsday scenario of a kid being denied high school graduation for not passing a CRT course. That is an implicit claim that CRT being taught in schools is an issue we should be concerned about, so like any claim the burden is on him to prove it. This is why I asked for him to provide one example of it being taught anywhere. If he cannot, it goes to show that he is full of it and has no basis for him claim.
Context actually matters in these conversations. I wasn’t asking because I need proof for myself, I’m not the one electing a governor over this issue. I’ve made that clear to you repeatedly. You don’t care because all you care about is finding a “gotcha”, like this 4% thing you really think you’re onto something with. But the 4% thing only makes my point further. Setting aside the fact that if CRT was actually being taught in schools we would have more than 4% of teachers saying it is (they’re likely doing the same thing you are), if only 4% of schools are teaching it then that goes to show how absurd the national freak out over this is. Which again, is an has been my point all along. Not your semantic game of “find one school that’s teaching it and claim victory”.
Created:
Posted in:
You seem to be moving quickly away from what was a very strong statement. As I have shown, your claim went from, "Except that critical race theory isn’t being taught in one single school anywhere in the state," to, "I don't know of anywhere in the state of Virginia where Critical Race Theory is being taught."
It’s not a movement away from my claim, it’s a translation from basic English to a more carefully crafted statement to ensure people do not twist my words into something I’m not saying.
As I already pointed out… I’m not omniscient and I’m not proclaiming to be. I’m sorry that had to be clarified for you. So congratulations on your “gotcha” that I cannot prove a negative to you, a negative that you yourself explicitly accept. Is that better? Is that clearer?
Here is a link from the Virginia Department of Education about anti-racism:
Link not found. I assume there was something there before, I missed the reply originally. Why don’t you tell me what it said and I’ll take your word for it…
Created:
Posted in:
You've already been shown evidence of this.
No, I haven’t. Because we both agreed explicitly that CRT is not being taught in schools. You went on to argue that this is a dishonest talking point because the ‘elements’ of CRT are prevalent within education but that’s not only an absurd thing for a governor to ride to the governorship being that it has nothing to do with actual policy (which was and has been my entire point), but more importantly here… read the OP. He’s not talking about some vague notion of kids being taught about racism. He’s talking specifically about students refusing to take the course in order to graduate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Can you show me a K-12 school anywhere that teaches CRT?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Ok, let me try asking like this… what form of government would take power of US democracy falls?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
The report is from International IDEA
Why does that really matter though, do you deny that US democracy is in serious trouble?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
That sounds noble and all, but what you call accountability, many would call partisan political axe-grinding.
I’m sure they would. But I don’t care what they call it, I care what it is. There is no reasonable case to be made that either of his impeachments for example were not warranted, if he were any other president he would have been removed from office. But Trump is graded on a curve, and he’s figured out that all he has to do is disregard the very idea that we should respect our institutions and vilify any individual that stands in his way and he can then get away with anything he wants.
The largely fabricated Steele Dossier and the ensuing actions based upon it are an egregious example of accountability
Why is the political right so obsessed with the Steele Dossier? It was just one of many documents the justice department used as a predicate for their investigations, and it was only taken seriously because it corroborated intelligence were already had.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Envisage
I’m talking about the same backsliding you are, just now we have crossed a line where we are recognized among the worlds critical states. It’s kind of like the difference with someone who is sick - meaning they have the sniffles, vs someone who is sick… with cancer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Can we at least agree Democracy and Authoritarianism are not mutually exclusive?
Of course.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
I was well aware our democracy was sliding when our government with help from its de facto propaganda wing spent 4 solid years trying to unseat a duly elected president. Then he finally was unseated via democratic means. It’s as if our own government doesn’t trust our own democratic process.
By “trying to unseat a duly elected president” you mean hold the president accountable for blatant and obvious violations of his oath of office that the founding fathers would have abhorred and literally wrote the constitution to protect against.
But whatever feels good for you to believe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Let me know when you are ready to discuss why democracies without a constitution to protect the people from the government is bad.
I’m ready to discuss it when you are ready to stop being so evasive and disingenuous.
Are you seriously now against the constitution, or are you just trying to bait me into wasting my breath explaining very basic things to you that you already understand full well and accept?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
do you seriously deny that the death of democracy will only be replaced by authoritarianism?Of course i do.
Then please explain what you believe will actually happen if we were to actually lose our democracy. And in so doing, please explain why every democracy in the world that has slid back has been replaced by authoritarianism. Why is America so different?
Created:
-->
@thett3
So what happens when you get people who are DEEPLY committed to this equality. Say we're both men, but you're much more masculine than I am. You're bigger and taller, have a deeper voice and a square jaw, enjoy hunting and fishing as opposed to posting online etc. We are unequal in "manness." Nothing can possibly be done to ameliorate this fact, so if one wants equality they have to chip away at the importance of this distinction. This leads to stuff like attacking gender roles, questioning the gender binary, etc.
Can you please explain this a bit further? Do you believe the discussion about gender roles and gender binaries are a result of some men feeling less than others with regards to masculinity?
Created:
-->
@cristo71
Imagine my complete and utter shock at your highly unexpected response…
Imagine my shock at your sarcastic expression of shock while ignoring the entire post…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Uh I think I do. Depression, Anxiety, Alcoholism, and Drug Use have gone up during the pandemic. All of those are mental health related issues.But hey more lockdowns are on the table right?
I’m talking about as a way to stop mass shootings, but you know that. Of course the right will care about drug use when people in rural America are dying from opioids.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
They are not mutually exclusive as Hitler and Maduro know all to well.
Let me know when you want to have an actual conversation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
It’s sad. Mental health is a big problem in the United States, especially after the pandemic.
I love how concerned the political right gets about mental health in the aftermath of every mass shooting. If only they cared about it at any other time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
death of democracy will only be replaced by authoritarianism?People already voted a huge measure of authoritarianism through Democracy, Centrally planned and managed all the way up in DC. which is why Democracy fails.Founding fathers tried to avoid it with the Constitution, but it's just another sheet of paper to the public.
What are you talking about?
The question was: Do you deny that the death of democracy will only result in it being replaced by authoritarianism? And is that what you would prefer?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
As far as the "backsliding" democracy, if anything you stated were true, I'd say "good riddance" to democracy.
We have our obvious disagreements on what our system of governance should be, but do you seriously deny that the death of democracy will only be replaced by authoritarianism? Do you think that is better?
Created:
Posted in:
For the first time in its history the United States has been listed as a backsliding democracy. The main catalyst here is clearly Donald Trumps war on the reality that he lost the election, but far more concerning is the GOP’s embrace of his assault on the idea of neutral forces to run elections and count the vote.
I’m just curious what my Trump supporting friends on this site think about this. Why anyone who might call themselves a patriot would support a man who is almost singlehandedly destroying the American experiment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Except God’s ACTUAL will doesn’t match the will of your incoherent hypothetical (hence why you thought of it), it’s coherent and objective. It’s pathetic how you bring up hypothetical nonsense and try to use it as an argument for reality thinking it suits you. What ifs isn’t what is dude.
Hypothetical examples are are a basic test of logic. Anyone who understands logic understands that, so when you attack my point because it’s hypothetical that says way more about you than it does about me.
Whatever God’s will is is completely irrelevant to the question of whether morality is objective. If God is real, and his will lines up with what is necessarily moral, all that does is hide the source of morality. It could be God, or not God, there’s no way to tell the difference. The hypothetical exposes the source, which is why it’s like pulling teeth to get you to actually think about it and why you shut down the moment you realize you don’t want to see what’s there.
Once again, morality is either subjective or God is not the source of morality. Those are your only two options, I’ve already explained why. Let me know if you have any actual thoughts on that.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
See? You’re not even trying to correlate the contents of the article I linked— just for you— with what I have been saying.
It was your OP that describes what you were talking about. And in your OP you explicitly pointed to postmodernism as a rejection of objective truth itself. You then claimed that this ideology has gotten into all western institutions with no examples of any institution it has penetrated. I’m more than willing to try to understand what you’re saying, but you need to present a coherent argument first.
And yes, I read the part of the article you quoted. It is worthless because the actual description of what postmodernism is according to the article does not line up with what it’s pointing to. There is nothing about identity politics itself that rests on a foundation of truth itself being subjective. And neither do any of the examples you listed. All this is is a bunch of “look at these crazy liberals” issues, but disagreeing with someone’s point of view doesn’t mean they embrace the idea of truth itself being subjective. And half of your examples are strawman arguments anyway.
If you want an actual example of this in our society id point to the “fake news” movement - a naked attempt to brand any fact one doesn’t like as a product of “the other side”. I’d point to anyone who claims Donald Trump “tells it like it is” because he is candid with his emotions even when everything he expresses is a factual lie. I’d point to those who argue that scientific findings are all just the elites telling you what to do. Those are actual, real examples of the ideology you describe and are far more entrenched in our society than anything you seem to take issue with.
Created: