Sign into an existing account

If morality is relative, then why is "racism" wrong? Would it not be the moral ideal for everyone to simply follow whatever moral interests they have chosen (such as a someone doing whatever he thinks is best for straight white men, without regard for any other group, or placing all others at a lower level of priority to straight white men)?

If history is written by the most powerful people, then why should we so much as believe our current historical understanding that white people have ever done anything wrong?

Is individuality not also the freedom to choose to join a collective, or form one?

Is tradition not the result of a darwinian process where ideas with poorer results were discarded and those with better ones preserved?

If all is deterministic and there is no free will, then why should white people be treated as if they were some exception whenever they did or thought something you consider to be bad?

On that note, if determinism is true, then the racist has as much choice in his attitude towards someone of another race, as that someone has in being the race that they are, so how then could racism be wrong on the basis that "people don't choose their race"?
<I mean, You've made it clear that judgment on other factors is acceptable, and under determinism, race is no more of a choice than any of those other things, you have an equal say in what you do as you do in what you are.>

These questions and more await.

Once you really look into postmodernism, you will find many parts to it that justify a far right conclusion.

Nationalism, Libertarianism, every "fascist" ideology can be justified here.

Even a fundamentalist Christian theocracy could be justified in postmodernist terms.

So I say, lean in, think critically and logically, study the whole of what is presented to you, and you will find a powerful philosophical weapon that utilizes the premises that Marxists often claim to accept to arrive at a conclusion that they oppose most vehemently.

-

The jews act as a moral authority while rejecting the basis upon which their ability to do so is built.

They reject that life has objective meaning or I portable, while at the same time asking us to sacrifice ourselves for some stranger they don't know and didn't care for until the media told them to.

They claim to love science, but reject the scientific method and many scientific discoveries, along with their implications, and they actively block scientific research when they suspect it will provide evidence contrary to their dogmatic political and philosophical beliefs about the nature of reality, especially as it applies to human beings.

Evolution gives us the criteria that our every property and triat was created to fulfill, yet they reject the claim that these criterion serve to give us morality and purpose.

They claim to live nature, yet they reject the very nature of nature, and its lessons. To live in an unnatural way, in accordance with some pinko hippie idea of what nature is, with grounding in fiction and superstition, not reality.

And so on.