"Post-modernity" has become almost entirely a straw-man (for bizarre political reasons), as the debate between Zizek and JP illustrates nicely. I mean, JP tried hard, but why would a psychologist agree to participate in an online debate about a very complicated topic in philosophy about which he has read almost nothing in the first place?
Secondly I guess it's always a gamble to mention JP no matter in what light on HN since it is considered flame-bait. However IMHO it's impossible to separate the political element from the discussion about post-modernity (whether it's PM in art _or_ philosophy - though oddly those who don't grasp the philosophy also don't get the art).
c'est la vie :)
Also, we often see criticisms of social constructivism as "alt right" and the evidence for this are people who are on the right. But there are plenty of people on the Left as well who criticize applied postmodernism and it seems they get swept up unfairly in labels.
This is because of the constant efforts from conservative pseudo-philosopher's like Stephen Hicks[0] (who on his YT channel hasn't shied away from inviting neo-Nazis to talk about the subject) all the way to JP[1] who do not understand the topic yet enjoy discrediting and twist the ideas of post-modernity. The odd thing is that these ideas have not been traditionally linked to the left.
I find most people who have an opinion about the subject often have not studied them, nor have they read any (or very few) of the original thinkers, and rather form their minds by listening to condensed misrepresentations in tweet-storms, etc.
[0] https://crookedtimber.org/2020/03/04/rightwing-postmodernism...
[1] https://lachlanrdale.medium.com/analysing-jordan-petersons-v...