The next step beyond the Modernism cycle is holding up evil as good and good as evil. We're starting to see it and constantly discuss such people on the farms. Pomo Idpol reductionists think ugliness is beauty, victimhood is power, free speech is oppression, responsibility is slavery, etc.
First time I've seen 'pomo' before, stealing that. As with all schools of thought, it's easy to cherry-pick the "they were right about this but wrong about this" after the fact then it is at the time the movement was relevant.
I would argue that describing pomo as turning good to evil is a post-post-modernist thought in itself - the pomo movement is about individualism at a granular level, accepting all thoughts as valid no matter the source as only oneself can know their truth. While both modernists and post-modernists delve deeply into examining the self, modernists believe they can find the answers while pomo believes there is no answer beyond one's own beliefs. The extension of this being that there is no true good or evil outside of preventing someone from living/experiencing/exploring their beliefs.
Seeing this as "turning good to evil" is the post-post-modernist perspective; while both agree there is no universal truth and trying to formulate one is futile, the post-postmodernist movement is centered around tempering someone's truth as it rejects the notion that all thoughts are valid. As such, the post-postmodernist/metamodernist will see the pomo movement as corruptive, as they exhaustively promote all ideals as valid while the post-postmodernist (popomo?) question if validity is even a thing.
Turning victimhood to power, for example, is only seen through the lens of a post-post-modernist. A modernist would argue that victimhood is a self-inflicted curse, as your emotional state and thoughts are what's leading to your downfall; learn more and get those in order, and you can surmount this, placing the power in the hands of the individual.
A post-modernist would argue that victimhood is defined only by the victim and that nobody outside of the inflicted individual can define their victimhood. The way to surmount this is through changing society, as while individual struggle can be treated, the root of the problem exists within society itself for not validating the truths of others.
A post-post-modernist sees victimhood as a self-inflicted curse, much like the modernist. However, the way to surmount this isn't through self-reflection or by changing society, both of which are futile, but instead embracing chaos and owning it. In a way, this also rehashes the pomo idea of relishing in your weakness, but instead of trying to portray one's truth to the world and forcing them to accept it, the importance is placed on the individual applying pragmatic thought to those emotions, learning to accept what is valid and understanding what isn't. Dismissing someone's truth (i.e. fat people are as beautiful as skinny people) is that pragmatic idealism at play.
Post-Modernists aren't turning good to evil as much as they are saying there is no good or evil, only one's truth. Defining or categorizing someone's thoughts as good or evil goes against the whole purpose of post-modernism, going by its core definition and not how the media portrays it. So while the consequence of post-modernism is this flipping of right-to-wrong and vice-versa, I wouldn't say Pomo Idpol reductionists do this intentionally as much as it is the follow-up to exploring and validating the thoughts of all parties, except those who wish to impede on the thoughts of others.
The post-post-modernist re-compartmentalizes these thoughts into good or evil, applying pragmatic idealism to one's truth. So, in a way, I think the next step isn't the flipping of Good or Evil as much as it will be a movement centered around accepting that good can be evil and evil can be good, with good and evil existing as universal truths that can be defined instead of contextual conceptualizations from individuals. This is the natural reaction to modernists opening the flood gate of idpol, post-modernists diving in headfirst, and post-post-modernists looking at a bunch of people who are soaking wet and cold without anything to show for it. While a post-postmodernist will agree with the Post-modernist, that there isn't any universal truth, they work towards finding and establishing one; a postmodernist would say "accept all truths or else" and the post-postmodernist says "or else what?"
If you read this far, I appreciate the eyes on this 800+ word essay. All of this is up for debate; schools of thought aren't as defined as the media would like you to think and you can find post-modern examples that seem incredibly modernist and modernist poems that reek of post-modernity. Post-postmodernity is currently happening, and defining a movement at the time of its inception falls short of encapsulating all of its viewpoints. In short, think of the evolution of modernity as a lineage of family members instead of 3 different people in a seminar. The grandparent being conservative, their son rebelling and then, in turn, their grandson rebelling the thoughts of their father. They may all feud, but they are all family at the end of the day with "who's idea was what" only getting more blurred as they continue to reproduce offspring that continues to rebel.
