>>1344Most of what I read was not in English so I don't really know what to recommend. I read some leftists trying to co-opt the philosophy into another cool, hip, and new leftist movement disguised under some vague 2deep4u bullshit, which is why I didn't bother with English sources, but I guess you can try reading the guys Robin Van den Akker and Timotheus Vermeulen who are supposedly the "main thinkers" of meta-modernism, but I haven't read them myself so I don't really know what they talk about. You can also check out the interviews of David Foster Wallace or even his book Infinite Jest if you have the time for it, he died shortly before meta-modernism became a thing, but his books kinda started post-irony and meta-modernism:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2doZROwdte4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CrOL-ydFMI
>Also, how do meta-irony and post-irony relate to postmodernism and metamodernism, respectively, and why not the other way around?Because meta-irony and post-modernism is primarily about the deconstruction of concepts, while post-irony and meta-modernism is primarily about reconstruction of concepts. Post-irony reconstructs the things deconstructed by post-modernism, this is why post-modernism has no use for post-irony, post-modern people cringe at sincerity and try hard to be cynical and distanced from sincere beliefs, and post-irony is not only cringy for them but also really frustrating because they don't have a clever way to attack it and mock it, they are forced to argue sincerely against it. I don't think meta-modernism has a use for meta-irony either unless you're willing to admit that you don't really believe in anything and aren't idealistic, in which case you wouldn't be meta-modernist.
When modernists are arguing about some opposing ideals that they have, it's like a shitflinging contest where everyone tries to get as much shit onto each other while staying as clean as possible themselves, but the post-modernist, being the loser that he is and already covered head to toe in shit, would say: "if I can't win anyway, then I will make sure everyone else will lose with me" so he dives into the most toxic cesspool he can find, and then proceeds to run towards everyone and smear them in his filth, happily accepting all the shit they throw at him instead of trying to dodge it. This is what's called "meta-irony", it's impossible to insult meta-ironists because they already made a mockery of themselves and everyone else as well. They don't believe in anything, and they don't allow anyone to believe in anything. You can't insult them by calling them weak, ugly, disgusting, contemptible, etc... because they already became these things on purpose in order to make a mockery of your strength, beauty, virtue, truth and whatever else you hold sacred. Just think about your typical hipster, bull dyke, antifa retard, or anyone being "counter culture".
Post-irony on the other hand is an end to irony and a return to sincerity. Post-irony allows for idealism again, and for you to talk about something constructively instead of just attacking things with irony or meta-irony. Post-irony is when you speak about what you believe in such an absurd fashion that people can't tell if you're being ironic or not, and they go along with it anyway thinking you were joking when you were actually totally serious. It's a very effective tool for escaping censorship and SJW thought police and it can even allow you to support socially-suicidal things like fascism in public: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkLAgLDjogY
Cultural Marxism and the rampant degeneracy we have today is only possible because of post-modernism, and it's useful for libertarians to know this, because trying to explain culture via economic concepts will not give quite a satisfactory answer, you can't explain everything wrong with society with just time preference alone. If you want to know about post-modernism and its relationship with Marxism, you can check out this great lecture by based Stephen Hicks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BGbHG63x8w