What do we call this type of language /pol/?

File: firecrotch.webm (3MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x1080px

>>127997544
wasn't that just a nigger who was trying to sound smart?

>>127997544
I thought this must be a troll (there was a very similar one a few years ago), but it looks like it might be real.

>>127997750
Yes, here's the original, it was called "The Sokal Affair" at the time:

http://www.physics.nyu.edu/sokal/transgress_v2/transgress_v2_singlefile.html

>>127997544
This one is tough, but here are a few stand-ins for technobabble in the style of "mansplaining":
>Lamegitimizing
>Leftsplaining
>Shwanking
>NIR - Neo-Intellectual Retardation

>>127997544
"Intersectional quantum physics" could become a meme in itself.

Postmodern Language (Newspeak). It's just obfuscation.

> With new understandings of physics come new understandings of feminism and its place in the world.

That sentence holds exact same message as your OP picture.

But it's far easier to deconstruct and thus formulate counter arguments to my example than that one, also completely out of the reach of any non-'intellectual' laymen. Postmodernists couch their arguments in dozens of little snare traps so that if you try to disagree with them, you're some form of ideological enemy whom disagrees with the core goals of the original argument.

It's also hilariously easy to do yourself if you have the time to waste.

> The post modern leftist zeitgeist, characterized and encapsulated within a pretextual, self selecting and wholly ideologically driven dialogue, creates a platform for disenfranchised and disempowered victims of the ideologically heterogeneous landscape of the western political sphere through a shift in intertextual vocalities. Such removal of the patriarchal lens through which discourse has been warped allows for a decolonization of the headspace of individuals entreating a postcolonial dialogue for the enrichment of identitarian advancement.

>>127998797
Hmm maybe we could apply principles of quantum mechanics to feminism. Like the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, though instead of location and momentum, the two variables would be precision of definition and sense. The more precisely defined a feminist concept is the less sense it makes, and the more sense a feminist concept makes the less precisely defined it must be.

For example, "I believe in equality between the sexes." Not very precisely defined but will make sense to a broad number of people. But when a feminist tries to more precisely define their concept by perhaps saying, "I believe in equality between the sexes, which therefore means any and all discrepancies in population distributions between the sexes in various socio-economic variables must be attributable to hierarchical structure imposed on society to favor men over women, called the patriarchy which creates an oppressive state on women, minorities, and members of the LGBT community, many of which face oppression from multiple different vectors, but all of which are still rooted in the patriarchy." This more precisely defines their concept but makes almost no sense to anyone.

>>127999543
isn't that kind of the same problem in general with philosophy?

although the post modernist strain seems to be peak obfuscation

>>127997544
I like your idea OP. I've noticed that too.

Stefan Molyneux has referred to that phenomenon a few times by calling it "alphabet soup" or something along that line if I remember right.

>>127997544

Word salad. It's called word salad. When you talked a lot and said nothing of value

>>128000322

I think the difference boils down to intent. Great Philosophers sought to enrich and uplift their society, and while their rhetoric may have been difficult to understand, they often engaged with or tried to disseminate their views to the laymans level, to foster intellectualism and understanding.

Whereas postmodernists seek only to deconstruct, they believe they're doing it to uplift society, but their ideological superiority complex leads them aforementioned obfuscation, even entry level postmodern discourse is nigh impenetrable for a layman, and postmodernists don't seek the laymans understanding, they seek their obedience.