I know your post is rhetorical but post modernist philosophy is purely deconstructionism. There are never any solutions proposed, nothing is created, no new ideas tested. Creating or improving isn't part of the plan. It's an idealogical swarm of locusts.

It is not entirely rhetorical. Yes it has those elements for the ones who think they can (or won't) do it.

It is more a rally point for the people that will tear down craftsmen's work (whether those statues agree with someones sensibilities, indoctrination; or not).

But the challenge remains: If 'they' can tear down hard wraught maticulous artistic forms... then surely the ones whom destroyed them can build a new ideal that is better and stands the test of time.

So yes, it is rhetorical to a degree, yet at the same time it is a dialectic challenge of causation vs. personal action

Dialectic in this stage has little affect on the digital immersion of a social algoryli lbthm. It is more for inter-pees

A dialectic and rhetoric position in logic and familial begs the question of why 'people are needing to affect change through destruction with no solution or legacy' we should gmmake way for/give credence to or beseech others to give us a new alternative.

But we cannot scream that our issues are everyones fault - while hurting others that were never a part of it.
That is kind of like being incensed about abortion and not only punching the Doctor ... but then cutting a baby out of his pregnant wife and while you are holding the infant body, somebody asks you why you killed an infant, you smash the baby's body to the ground. Shoot the greaving