What is your opinion of post-modernism?
I think post-modernism is a bunch of nonsense created by pathetic losers who liked to make everyone more or less equally pathetic and loserific as them. They have declared there is no absolute morality, no God, no hope, and no objective truth among other things.
I don’t believe in God or in absolute morality, but I don’t want to be a pathetic loser who’s loserific, so yeah: post-modernism sucks!
PS: Maybe this needs to be moved to the Pit.
Can you offer up a definition of post-modernism and a set of examples that aren’t culled from the wikipedia page?
I think that you don’t have a clue what postmodernism is.
Moe: Y’know, weird for the sake of weird.
I like to think of them as Proto-Futurists. Humanity was so laissez-faire in those halcyon days…
Oh man, burn. Take that, Jean Baudrillard!
Actually, all this time, I thought “Curtis LeMay” was actually a piece of performance art. Kind of a pastiche of the great conservative bugbears of late capitalism. I was particularly looking forward to the inevitable “Curtis LeMay presents the War on Christmas” this winter. But I guess I was wrong. Alas.
Don’t think like that. Think of postmodernism as an attempt to critically locate ideology within the absurd culture of modernism.
Or something.
No, that would be nihilism. Postmodernism is a bit more complicated. It does not simply deny or negate or reject, it deconstructs.
[hijack]
More important question: What comes next? What are we going to call it when we’ve used up “postmodern”? “Postpostmodern” is just too too.
I propose “cyberzoic”! It’s scientific-sounding, it’s open to open-ended interpretation, and it’s got “cyber-” in it! 
[/hijack]
I’ve always found both Modern and Postmodern to be rather arrogant titles…or really pessimistic ones. You know, either saying they are the be all end all, or simply closing in on the end.
Your cite includes both political and social theory, but does anyone ever use “postmodern” to talk about anything but the arts?
Yes. Whole social worlds are described as postmodern. If you accept postmodernism then you are accepting certain ways of thinking about knowledge and truth. That pretty much covers everything.
I like to wind up the turtleneck-and-latte set at university by pointing out to them that anything which comes after the Modern era is, realistically, The Future (or, for bonus points, The World Of Tomorrow!).
Therefore, rather than describing something as “Post-modern” (ie, "after the modern or current era/fashion), they really should be calling it “Futurist”.
Except Futurism involves cyborgs and interstellar travel and laser weapons. Unless it’s Retro-Futurism, in which case it’s Robot Butlers, Flying Cars, lots of perspex domes, Atomic Science being the answer to everything, and girders with holes in them for some reason.
But in this instance the “modern” era is specifically intended to run from roughly the Renaissance to the 1960s.
Are you sure you’re really winding them up or are they just drinking too many lattes? 
Actually, futurism died out in the 1940s.
I’m not surprised. There’s a complete lack of rayguns, jetpacks, people in space suits with goldfish helmets, and space-rockets that look suspiciously like bigger versions of V-2s with hatches and airlocks there. 
My favorite quote about postmodernism was from Don Patterson, who was talking about how in order to read good literature, readers have to meet authors halfway in the effort to understand the text. He then went on to say that readers have to meet postmodern authors at the train station with wheelchairs.
As for the OP, have you actually read any Baudrillard or Derrida?
Post modern art certainly disappears up its own ass at times, but there’s nothing wrong with commenting on the assumptions and conventions of society, art, style and similar things. And I have to second the “OP doesn’t know what postmodernism is” vote.