> I'm quite confused by your intentions, as you seem to be ranting against the article,

I'm not "ranting" against the article as much as I'm pointing out how vacuous it is.

>but only provided 1 instance on your position about Postmodernism, which is what my entire post is about?

Who cares about my position on postmodernism? What I'm really suggesting is that both you and the author of the article aren't informed enough on what postmodernism even is to adequately critique it.

> Im guessing you downvoted this also because you don't like the source? >

I don't up/downvote on reddit in general, so no.

> I encourage you to look at the beliefs of postmodernism, especially on Britannica, as they number the beliefs and explain them.

Why would I look at a generalist encyclopedia, or even worse, a wholly unrelated evolutionary biology blog that relies on unserious polemics against "postmodernism" like Sokal and Bricmont's work or the output of a known grifter like Helen Pluckrose?

If I really wanted to deep-dive into postmodernism (something I'd have to do before critiquing it), I'd start with the SEP article on it. Or some threads on /r/askphilosophy. Or selected chapters from Garry Gutting's French Philosophy in the Twentieth Century, or Lyotard's The Postmodern Condition, or Cuck Philosophy's Postmodernism FAQ.

>I also would like to know your position on Postmodernism.

Postmodernism is a vacuous term that serves more as a bogey man for reactionary pundits than as a meaningful umbrella term for philosophical positions. Instead, why don't you pick out a "postmodern" philosopher -- either someone who embraced the term like Lyotard or, to a lesser degree, Richard Rorty) or one of those that get regularly accused of being postmodernists, like Derrida or Foucault -- and work through their output?

>And I also do not have any comment on Karl Marx, the Enlightenment period, how Postmodernism began, World War 2 technology, or anything other than Does Postmodernism make sense? Provide your explanation" I have already posted my answer, twice.

Why do you think it is wise to divorce a supposed set of assumptions and conclusions from the historical context out of which they arose?