To Daffy Duck and Runner.

It's surprising that Donald Trump is a topic with just as much interest and split over hating or supporting in Australia, as he is in the US. The claims of why to hate and why to support are almost the exact same narrative. Except in Australia Trump is either the boggy man of the world leaders and can be the butt of all criticism and all jokes, or he is the envied leader that one hopes to have in your own country who will stand up against the evils and corruption that are drowning the countries of the world.

There is no in between opinion of him it seems, which I'm not surprised in US politics and culture. But why he has become this much of a villain or a hero in the opinions of other nations? That is something to surprise me and to worry me. Because it sounds like Trump is an excuse to turn away from the topics at hand. Either to dismiss the issues in OLO as helpless without someone like Trump to stand up against those issues as well, or to dismiss the topics in OLO using Trump as the ultimate example of a negative leader or negative person; thus by using Trump in that way the topic is dismissed by saying either "at least we're not that bad," or "let's not get that bad."

This forum is largely political in it's opinions, so world leaders would be a topic on their own. But don't bring the topic of Donald Trump into the mix of a different topic unless it actually matters in the topic. Otherwise it'll just be a distraction of the topic given or even dismiss the previous topic in the arguments that follow Trump being brought up.

These are just my thoughts and observations, so take from it what you want, but also know that this topic is a perfect example of what I mean of distracting away from what was originally being discussed.

(Continued)

(Continued)

To Daffy Duck.

What does Trump have to do with postmodernism or with either fighting that philosophical position or defending postmodernism? If Trump has an relevance outside of a distraction to the topic, then I retract my reply. If not though, then do consider what I've said. The point of the topic of postmodernism might be worth while enough to discuss on it's own instead of being sidelined and dismissed by the ongoing subject of support or anger towards Donald Trump. Either way, I'm going to try to move on to the topics brought up in the article.

Don't you know that according to the left whingers, only fascists want free speech!!

Not_Now.Soon,
>What does Trump have to do with postmodernism
His disregard for truth in the pursuit of power.
Hicks tries to paint it as a feature of the Left, but he's ignoring the elephant in the Oval Office!

To Aiden.

I didn't see in the article anything about the left or the right. But it was about identifying postmodern positions and a critism on them. If Trump fits the discription of post modernism then so be it, talk about it if that is your wish. However it's been my observation that when Trump is brought up in any discussion it pretty much says that the previous topic is over. For that reason alone, I'd recommend letting at least a few replies come through to make their points befor derailing a topic to be another pro-Trump, anti-Trump conversation.

To Stephen Hicks

Looking for solutions to Postmodernism.

Here are a few to consider. They are suggestions for when someone wrongs you, but because postmodernism is about cynicism and critism without much in solutions, these suggestions can be applied just the same.

•When they say something or do something that is wrong. Tell it to them. Privetely if you have the chance. That will lessen the criticism to be between you and them instead of public embarrassment to fight against. If they don't listen let it go, or if it is bad enough bring two other people to hear it out between you and the postmodern person. If the two others agree with you, other person might see their errors. If the two others disagree let it go; you might be in the wrong at that point. Lastly if it really was that bad, and the postmodern person does not see their wrong even with two others hearing both sides and saying the postmodern is wrong then bring this up to the community. Again, let their decision justify or correct your position. If it supports you and the post modern doesn't change, then let them go and have nothing more to do with them. All of this would be to help the postmodern person or face what they did, in order to change. If they don't, ultimately the answer is to have nothing to do with them.

•The second thing to do is if they have a complaint about you (not about society or your place in it, but about you) then consider the complaint honestly and if it is justified, do something about it. Right the wrong if you are able, or just avoid doing the same in the future if it can't be made right.

In this way the battle over the correct philosophy won't be about endless arguing, because in that case postmodern cynicism wins by placing doubt on the other person and ignoring criticism of themselves. Instead it will be about actions and behavior justifying your philosophy, instead of endless bickering.