OK, this isnt exactly current events, although I do think it is political and historical rather than philosophical per se, if its in the wrong place by all means move it.
I've always rejected post-modernism and its attendent idea systems, predecessors and descendents, its something I've known in my gut is not correct, whether its main opposition is to enlightenment era knowledge or predates that the idea that it can be difficult to find correct knowledge does not mean that all knowledge is created equally valid or no knowledge is valid.
There are some things which, in its beginnings in literary or cultural criticism, about how the meta-narrative or constructing or following meta-narratives can be a betrayal of life or whatever, I think were useful but what its become now isnt.
Recently I found a source on an academic scandal relating to post-modernism applied to so called hard sciences, now I dont really accept the division between hard and soft sciences, I think that I still have some sympathy for Comte's positivism, even if its a striving which may not be practically realised. Anyway, here's a link to the article:-
I'd like to discuss both this affair and the wider topic.
I've always been a believer in standards, universality, the perrenial, truth, even if its disputed, dialogue can take the place of dispute but I believe only in so far as removing acrimony as a possible obsticle to understanding and ultimate truth.
I hate the whole bespoke, relative, diversity and disparity reigns idea which I believe exists in contrast to what I just described.