But go back to forapurpose's post (parallel to vixen99's). If people genuinely believe that truth isn't the point, would you not see the behavior that forapurpose describes?
But the way that plays out in politics is like this: If I don't have truth, I can't persuade others that their position is wrong. So I have to try to persuade them that their position is less useful. But in the world of politics, that itself is a truth claim.
So I'm reduced to "what's useful for advancing my team". And it turns out that fake news, outright lies, and constant propaganda are useful for that. (Postmodernism doesn't recognize the possibility of real truth. Does it recognize that some things are still lies?)
In practice, therefore, postmodernism turns out to be rather destructive in its effect on the political system. One might even say that, in this area, postmodernism is not useful, at least in terms of the system as a whole.
You either convince or you don't. Whether that is good or bad is purely based on the context it's judged within.
Postmodernism is just a way to analyze "the claimed" and yes it destroys (deconstructs any claim) but a decision will be made, something will win over something else.
