Link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41877307
Rejection of narratives is a narrative in itself
Western liberalism may have flaws (like committing livestreamed genocide) but it has offered more practical policymaking (like committing livestreamed genocide)
At least it is not as bad as fascism and its little brother communism
Fuck these people
How can you agree with someone confidently quoting Deleuze (badly), and then turn around and say "western liberalism is the best system we have". This is some end of history constructivism shit.
Makes my skin crawl when techbros refer to people as "humans"
Edit:
EXPLAIN DELEUZE TO ME OR I'LL FUCKING KILL YOU! DON'T DUMB IT DOWN INTO SOME VAGUE SHIT! EXPLAIN DELEUZE TO ME RIGHT NOW OR I'LL LITERALLY FUCKING KILL YOu! WHAT THE FUCK IS A BODY WITHOUT ORGANS? WHAT THE FUCK ARE RHIZOMES? DON'T DUMB IT DOWN OR I'LL FUCKING KILL YOU
the whole "humans need a story" thing reeks of lobsterposting
not lobste.rsposting (the slightly cooler version of orange website) but jordan peterson shit
Awful website, although it is fun to visit sometimes to watch the nerds argue smugly about the most esoteric computer-toucher shit imaginable, I go to lwn.net comment sections for same reason lol, although those are generally much better. I actually like that site
I saw someone use "uwu" in an lwn.net comment section the other day, gave me some kind of mental whiplash for a bit
I don't know shit about philosophy nor who Deleuze was or wrote. That said, is the first comment by keiferski as stupid as the reply? I mean, I think I get keiferski point? Pls explain
I think the whole "rejecting narratives is a narrative in itself" isn't all that dumb, even if it sounds like a half-baked or cliff notes version of post structuralist philosophy (whose main claim to fame is the hyperlocalization of perspectives, and the application of literary critical theory to most realms of human existence). It's not that weird in that context, but if your claim is as broad and final as "not-A is the same as A, therefore it doesn't matter" , you should spend some more time developing it, not just say "it is like that coz it does" and call it a day.
The whole Deleuze thing feels again like a very simplified version of some very complicated philosophy, particularly the dichotomy "map vs territory" which cannot be distilled to just "map is when no narratives and modernity, territory is when narratives". As for who Deleuze was, he was one half of a very influential philosopher team along with Guattari, both were active members of the French Communist party (which is why it's so silly to claim to agree with them while saying liberalism is the best we have), and they are considered as some of the most influential leftist philosophers of the second half of the XX century.
It's not as stupid. The article they are talking about pertains to how the dominant viewpoint for understanding reality and the things that happen in it is narrative-based. It tries to explain its flaws and suggests alternatives. It doesn't really ask you to "reject narratives" altogether as much as to have more than one tool in your arsenal to model reality.
As for his point about modernity rejecting stories, I am not sure about that. I think he is half right that liberalism promotes decontextualising world history. But I think that linear narrative based way of understanding is very common when talking about events that happen over shorter time frames.
Marxism is Modernist you dumb fuck. It's one of the main pillars of Modernist philosophy and Post-Modernism explicitly disagrees with Marxism.
I am once again asking STEMlords to read actual books and not get all their info from internet memes.
