Intersectional veganism (Unnatural vegan video)

[NonZeroSum]

As someone who subscribed to UV to watch her take down lifestylists living in an irrational utopian bubble, I see most of the comments on her video and facebook as people being genuinely perplexed that this one was so muddled and fallacious. A privileged vegan gave the most articulate critique of these mistakes so will leave to her since that video form is the most likely thing to get UV to respond to. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0gS2kMAbLI)

From a viewer’s perspective, I just wish it could have been so much better, to my mind the video should have been split into three parts; part 1 - why I'm a single issue advocate, part 2 - why I'm an independent and part 3 – why I’m not an socialist.

Her argument as it appears to me is that her job is public speaking which is changing people's beliefs and engaging in a war of ideas, she can better do that leaving all political organization theory behind and engaging people with the evidence and how compassion is useful in 'the moral landscape'. So saying that not all people have access to a vegan diet because of food deserts and finance is good activism, but stopping short of expressing an opinion on why there are food deserts and wage disparity in the country is about not margilizing people with other politcs and about good logical clarity, makes perfect sense, doesn’t negate how some people feel about new social movements increasing civil engagement and being a benefit to each other and democracy.

The second part is I think she confuses independent free thinker for centrist. It is clear she believes in a revolution of scientific rationality changing the shape of our world and that is where her focus is, most people just subscribe to a political theory that they think will get us there faster.

The third part is the most interesting and yet so muddled in this video, what she set out to do was critique those social justice vegans who don’t reward incremental steps towards veganism because their head is in so many political struggles that they can’t help reminding you every time you say something politically incorrect which make you feel like shit and not want to bother.

There are so many interesting things to be said here, essays to quote about giving up these purist activists subcultural expressions, identity policing, seed of resentment politics and slave morality among the underclass of society. All things the left have written about extensively, in an effort to create more critical movements, but instead UV chose to make absurd reductions out of intersectional political theory in general, which just turned off everyone who subscribes to the sociology of institutional oppression.

Saying all that it would be funny to rip UV’s script from ‘why are vegetarians annoying’ video response to hank green; and change it to convince UV that 'even though only believing in single issue advocacy is comfortable, you’ll find more rational friends who are upfront about their left libertarian leanings, and though you may suffer a bit more social alienation at first, you will ultimately be on a stronger debating platform because having concrete ideas about how to organize a future society that doesn’t breed animals for slaughter looks like is appealing in many a myriad of ways.

“serve justice so as not to add to the injustice of the human condition, to insist on plain language so as not to increase the universal falsehood, and to wager, in spite of human misery, for happiness.” - Camus

". . . The essential element of historical materialism as applied to ethical and social matters was (and actually still is) this: it demonstrated how much unhappiness and injustice and irrationality was man-made. Once the fog of supposedly god-given conditions had been dispelled, the decision to tolerate such conditions was exactly that—a decision. “The West,” at least, has happily never recovered from this discovery; you would be astounded if you looked up the books and commentaries of only a century ago and saw what was taken for granted before the Marxist irruption. Fatalism and piety were the least of it; this was cynicism allied to utilitarianism. Don’t let yourself forget it, but try and profit also from the hard experience of those who contested the old conditions and, in a word or phrase, don’t allow your thinking to be done for you by any party or faction, however high-minded.
. . . The life of a radical is not dissimilar; barricades and Bastilles are not everyday occurrences. It’s important to be able to recognise and seize crux moments when they do appear, but much of the time one is faced with quotidien tasks and routines. There’s an art and a science to these things; the art consists in trying to improvise more inventive means of breaking a silence, and the science consists in trying to make the periods of silence bearable.
. . .Do not worry too much about who your friends are, or what company you may be keeping. Any cause worth fighting for will attract a plethora of people: I have spoken on platforms with Communists about South Africa and with “Cold Warriors” about Czechoslovakia; in the case of Bosnia I spoke with Muslims who disagreed with me about Salman Rushdie and Jews who suspected me because I have always supported statehood for the Palestinians. Nor did we agree to bury these disagreements, though we sometimes moved them to a higher plane. (I remember Susan Sontag very bravely, in front of a pro-Bosnian audience that was heavily Turkish, insisting on the parallel with Armenia.)" – Letters to a Young Contrarian by Christopher Hitchens

[miniboes]

Welcome to the forum, NonZeroSum! Consider making an introduction post. I'll let someone else respond to this one, since I know little about intersectionalism.

[NonZeroSum]

Welcome to the forum, NonZeroSum! Consider making an introduction post. I'll let someone else respond to this one, since I know little about intersectionalism.

Thanks miniboes, will get on that, below is a great insightful comment on the video about intersectionaility. I think UV's arguement can be summated as - 'although bigots hold positions of power within our institutions and their policies reflects our current political reality, I'm a pragmatist about reducing suffering and think social justice people are wasting their time and making us look bad.' Her 'eye for an eye will make the whole world blind' comments likely come in the wake of black block shut down of milo yuanopalis talk, but it's falacious to conclude that the left are more down with violent punishment (the reality is the opposite [1]) or infatuated with guns like the right, just that a segment are more attracted to violent protest tactics to achieve specific aims when the political situation deteriorates like during Vietnam war or under Trump. Here's hoping that UV's next video = 'Turns out I am a utilitarian intersectionalist, I just personally care more about my single issue vegan advocacy, because it's my life, it's my job and that's ok.' (aha)

"From my understanding intersectionality seeks to point out that issues don't exist in a vacuum. For example:
factory farming exists due to speciesism but it also exists due to capitalism. Consumption of meat by males in America is pushed by cultural notions of masculinity. Lack of access to fresh produce over fast food in the US is tied to zoning which has been influenced by racist/classist development initiatives of the 1950's. Speciesism is the root of the problem but it is assisted by other systems. It is thus important to approach the idea of ending animal exploitation with an understanding of what other ideologies or policies sustain it. Fighting against food desserts may not turn the world vegan but it will make veganism more accessible." - MIA (youtube.com/channel/UCYcybvAxYbFdRIe0vxWnMlg)

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/25/shooting-milo-yiannopoulos-speech-seattle-charges

[brimstoneSalad]

Welcome nonzerosum! You should definitely post an intro.

Is it OK with you if I split these posts off into a new thread? I'll try to address it a bit soon.
For now, I'll say I think UV IS a socialist and supports Welfare, LGBT rights, etc. she just doesn't agree with the intersectional approach because she thinks it's alienating.

I think most of us are in a similar place, and question the value intersectionality has to consequentialism and pragmatic activism.
Vincent may also have some comments on this topic.

[NonZeroSum]

Of course if you so wish brimstoneSalad, sounds good. Intro is hot off the press - http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2941

[NonZeroSum]

Woo UV is going to post 3 follow up videos and has promoted this site as a great place to conduct the discussion which will feed into her future scripts. So time to decide now how you'd like to split the 3 topics of conversation into different threads to include pre-debates, post-video reflections because hopefully people be a coming.

Video 1. The philosophy of justice and morality [1]
Video 2. Alienation and the importance of focused activism [2]
Video 3. Social science vs. hard science. [3]

It seems UV's first video was just a primer and dealt with why she personaly doesn't find the label useful or promote there being solutions to other causes on her channel because that's not the objective of the channel and would marginalize more people. So "it's not something I will be addressing in the upcoming videos because I think intersectionality in general is problematic not just intersectional veganism...".

Challenge Accepted

Btw I did notice the level of toxicity ramp up on that first video the more new comments came in as I guess word got around the web that a battle was brewing between homogeneous and heterogeneous visions of society, so expect that could flow over onto here on both sides I saw people with swastika profile photos and on the left the expected calling Suazy a racist.

Preview to larger challenge coming up:
1. https://youtu.be/tXKhJ1TQwL8?t=5m48s - Problem #3: Mutual incompatibility
2. https://youtu.be/tXKhJ1TQwL8?t=4m21s - Problem #2: Alienation
3. https://youtu.be/tXKhJ1TQwL8?t=2m31s - Problem #1 :Victims are sacred

[brimstoneSalad]

My guess is we'll get like three (active) people. She promoted the forum before and there weren't that many new members. It's a substantial barrier to a lot of people to enter a URL and register, which is what makes the quality of discussion here higher too (so, it's good and bad).

Please feel free to make new threads as the videos are released to discuss thoughts on them.
We can do any pre-debate here in this thread, probably.

Btw I did notice the level of toxicity ramp up on that first video the more new comments came in[...]

I think because the latter comments were not her subscriber base, so there wasn't the same relationship there. Maybe word got around and sent them there from others doing responses.

A privileged vegan gave the most articulate critique of these mistakes so will leave to her since that video form is the most likely thing to get UV to respond to. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0gS2kMAbLI)

I don't understand how you see that; I saw exactly the opposite.
Each time she addressed UV's arguments, she seemed to say things confirming them.

Like when she explained that the victim of oppression should be listened to over the oppressor. No, objective facts, not experience, is what matters. Anything else is he-said she said, and validating the testimony of the "victim" presupposes victim status which is circularly reinforced by the testimony of the person previously assumed to be the victim always carrying more weight. It's a problem of circular reasoning, and it creates a trap of confirmation, diminishing the experiences and opinions of those who disagree because it has already been decided whose testimony will be believed.

I could understand disagreeing with her definition of intersectionality, but it's spot on to the things APV is saying, and APV isn't self aware enough to realize how what she's saying sounds and is validating what UV has argued.

I suggest you watch APV's video again, paying attention to how what she's saying can be seen as reinforcing the view of intersectionality UV is criticizing.

So saying that not all people have access to a vegan diet because of food deserts and finance is good activism,

Yes, and I think many people are taking that to be something that's owned by intersectionality. That's a problem.
Intersectionalists do a good job of talking about these issues... but a bad job of talking about solutions to them because they don't appeal to evidence, they appeal to a political belief. It's hypothetical, and about as credible as the Christian belief that all problems can be solved through prayer or getting Jesus into more hearts and minds.

Lacking hard evidence, such speculation is tantamount to a religious belief. People asking UV to be intersectionalist might as well be asking her to convert to Christianity. The burden of proof, something people seem to have trouble with, is not on UV here when she says she doesn't accept that belief.

but stopping short of expressing an opinion on why there are food deserts and wage disparity in the country is about not margilizing people with other politcs and about good logical clarity, makes perfect sense,

The problem is that it's speculation, and speculation is very alienating (or can be). If there were facts at hand, I'm sure UV would be happy to address these matters, because her audience would be receptive to that.
The belief in intersectionality isn't needed to engage with evidence and look at solutions to help people go vegan.

doesn’t negate how some people feel about new social movements increasing civil engagement and being a benefit to each other and democracy.

OR how people feel about Jesus as a means to solve the world's problems as a benefit to everybody and theocracy.

I don't see the point in focusing on one minority ideology here. Yes, people will feel things about these issues, and have their own opinions/hypotheses/speculation.
Feelings about reality, no matter how strong, don't make facts of reality.

'even though only believing in single issue advocacy is comfortable, you’ll find more rational friends who are upfront about their left libertarian leanings,

I disagree.
I think you'll find a bubble; one containing a substantial amount of the hostile and counter-productive attitudes you admitted were a problem.
If intersectionalists cleaned house and changed their approach to not prioritize the experiences of people they assume to be victims over those who disagree, that might be less of an issue. Intersectionality might become something worth joining.

and though you may suffer a bit more social alienation at first, you will ultimately be on a stronger debating platform because having concrete ideas about how to organize a future society that doesn’t breed animals for slaughter looks like is appealing in many a myriad of ways.

I disagree. When those ideas are speculation, rather than founded on strong evidence, they mean no more than the concrete ideas of fundamentalist Christians on how to organize a kingdom of God on Earth. It does not put you on a stronger platform, it discredits you.

The honesty of agnosticism with respect to how to fix these problems is what puts you on a strong platform. We can have our own ideas and speculation about how to fix problems, but they must be tested by objective methods aimed at disproving them [as science does] not just confirmed by biased ones setting out to prove them without controls or consideration of confounding variables.

[NonZeroSum]

Ok first just want to get this out the way... my comments on the third of the video dealing with mutual incompatibility which UV plans to expand on in their next video on the subject of 'The philosophy of justice and morality'

It starts...

The very idea that social justice is founded on justice is incompatible with consequential ethics, I care about good outcomes, I care about reducing suffering i don't care about justice

I think it is very narrow minded thinking that everyone who wants to set an example by living a vegan lifestyle, or to put pressure on institutions through campaigning or government through the ballot box, necessarily has to subscribe primarily to this one materialist philosophy. It's a philosophy that cares a lot about resourse management theory and very little about engaging others with appeals to emotion and the human experience.

What we know from history is how the stories we tell about our social reality dictate the course we take as a society. In the past this has been embodied in divinely ordained royalty. When that fell away the man-made injustices of the world came under scrutiny, which in its place gave us scientific rationality, Marxist materialism [1] and ontological philosophies of radical freedom [2]. This had the effect of making people aware of the prejudiced narratives they still hold onto - intersectionality - and creating new narratives of civil engagement through social movements.

You may have heard the quote; 'an eye for an eye makes us both blind, or an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind'. It may be 'fair' and 'just' punishment to harm someone in the same way that they harm you; but how does that actually help us?

This comment likely comes in the wake of black block shut down of Milo Yuanopalis talk, but I think it's fallacious to compare violent protest tactics to achieve specific aims to a universal objective system of justice that punishes people with the effects of the same crime they committed. The reality is the opposite. Those social justice people believe in a radical form of reparative justice that opens up dialogue instead of punishment [3]. You can claim that violent means of protest produce violent societies; this is certainly true of Jewish terrorism and the foundation of the Israeli partition state. But one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist. The fatalist philosophy and resentment politics of anarchists attracts more followers when democratic institutions deteriorate like under Trump, or Nixon during the Vietnam War.

It is interesting that the utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer who UV borrows some of their ideas from, was someone who taught firebombing en masse. McAllister Groves who spent time studying an animal rights group that rejected emotional arguments for veganism argued that through a cold embrace of emotional neutrality they were more likely to legitimise violent forms of protest as a means to an end. [4]

If one man has nothing to eat, starving and another man has just enough food to sustain himself and you try to be just and fair by taking half of his food and give it to the starving man well now they're both starving, good job. A blind concern for ideological perfection and equality frequently failed to realize the greater harm done by consequence historically communism has been a good example of this sometimes justice and fairness works out well sometimes reality kicks in and it wasn't.

Historically there are many examples of dictatorships causing famines by taking food stocks by the barrel of a gun to feed the inner party, and empires doing the same by reaping all the resources of its colonies like the Irish and Burmese Famines. It is true that even people in gulags cried over the death of the great patriarch Stalin, just as some colonial subjects accepted the master's methods as natural.

Justice cannot be an end in itself and any movement that treats it that way under the dogmatic assumption that everything will magically work out once things are fair is making a terrible mistake. A mistake that undermines pragmatic and effective altruistic goals that have evidence of making things better.

This is not the kind of logic that we should be gambling our futures on. If you're into social justice please consider taking a step back and worrying less at the ideologically pure goal of justice and more about consequence look at ways that you can compromise and work with opponents to reach more productive ends that help more people.

And please don't fall into the trap of ignoring arguments with rhetoric like accusations of racism or victim-blaming.

So in summary no the patriarchy is not responsible for the dairy industry; people are perfectly capable of being terrible in many unrelated ways for many different reasons.

There is no evidence of any global conspiracy of oppression nor is there any evidence of one single cause of the world suffering as nice as that would be and there is no evidence to suggest that to me and one social ill you have to capital all of them simultaneously in fact history has taught us that struggle for social progress only realize results are remaining focused so that people can unite around single cause that they're passionate about rather than being divided due to disagreements on barely related or completely unrelated matters.

I think this last part is a great treatise against expanding the powers of the state, second wave legalist feminism and for a socialist intersectional platformist movement that is wary of authoritarianism wherever it rears its head. [5] [6]

Cut the last part short because low on time but will come back and edit, wanted to quote the full transcript for others to get a sense of the next video topic. What are your thoughts? I think 'Alienation and the importance of focused activism' will be the crux test of UV's argument where it will be hard to dismiss where liberationist movements achieved great ends.

References
1. Chapter XIV - Letters to a young contrarian by Christopher Hitchens - ". . . The essential element of historical materialism as applied to ethical and social matters was (and actually still is) this: it demonstrated how much unhappiness and injustice and irrationality was man-made. Once the fog of supposedly god-given conditions had been dispelled, the decision to tolerate such conditions was exactly that—a decision. “The West,” at least, has happily never recovered from this discovery; you would be astounded if you looked up the books and commentaries of only a century ago and saw what was taken for granted before the Marxist irruption. Fatalism and piety were the least of it; this was cynicism allied to utilitarianism. Don’t let yourself forget it, but try and profit also from the hard experience of those who contested the old conditions and, in a word or phrase, don’t allow your thinking to be done for you by any party or faction, however high-minded."
2. The Politics of Post Anarchism by Saul Newman - "However, can we assume that the possibilities of human freedom lie rooted in the natural order, as a secret waiting to be discovered, as a flower waiting to blossom, to use Bookchin’s metaphor? Can we assume that there is a rational unfolding of possibilities, driven by a certain historical and social logic? This would seem to fall into the trap of essentialism, whereby there is a rational essence or being at the foundation of society whose truth we must perceive. There is an implicit positivism here, in which political and social phenomena are seen as conditioned by natural principles and scientifically observable conditions. Here I think one should reject this view of a social order founded on deep rational principles. In the words of Stirner, ‘The essence of the world, so attractive and splendid, is for him who looks to the bottom of it – emptiness.’ In other words, rather than there being a rational objectivity at the foundation of society, an immanent wholeness embodying the potential for human freedom, there is a certain void or emptiness, one that produces radical contingency and indeterminacy rather than scientific objectivity. This idea has been elaborated by Laclau and Mouffe, who eschew the idea of society as a rationally intelligible totality, and instead see it as a field of antagonisms which function as its discursive limit. In other words, what gives society its definitional limit at the same time subverts it as a coherent, whole identity. Therefore, they argue, ‘Society never manages fully to be society, because everything in it is penetrated by its limits, which prevent it from constituting itself as an objective reality.’ Antagonism should not be thought of here in the sense of the Hobbesian state of nature, as a war of everyman against everyman, but rather as a kind of rupturing or displacement of social identities that prevents the closure of society as a coherent identity."
3. theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/25/shooting-milo-yiannopoulos-speech-seattle-charges
4. Animal Rights and the Politics of Emotion: Folk Constructions of Emotion in the Animal Rights Movement by Julian McAllister Groves
5. Letters to a Young Contrarian by Christopher Hitchens ". . .Do not worry too much about who your friends are, or what company you may be keeping. Any cause worth fighting for will attract a plethora of people: I have spoken on platforms with Communists about South Africa and with “Cold Warriors” about Czechoslovakia; in the case of Bosnia I spoke with Muslims who disagreed with me about Salman Rushdie and Jews who suspected me because I have always supported statehood for the Palestinians. Nor did we agree to bury these disagreements, though we sometimes moved them to a higher plane. (I remember Susan Sontag very bravely, in front of a pro-Bosnian audience that was heavily Turkish, insisting on the parallel with Armenia.)"
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platformism

[NonZeroSum]

Like when she explained that the victim of oppression should be listened to over the oppressor. No, objective facts, not experience, is what matters. Anything else is he-said she said, and validating the testimony of the "victim" presupposes victim status which is circularly reinforced by the testimony of the person previously assumed to be the victim always carrying more weight. It's a problem of circular reasoning, and it creates a trap of confirmation, diminishing the experiences and opinions of those who disagree because it has already been decided whose testimony will be believed.

Yeah obviously dont see it that way at all, because I didnt hear absolutist statement, I heard her explaining in the context of intersectional theory, putting the appropriate precautions in place encase the first hand testemony of the victim is true, to believe them in principle until it can be proven diffinetively or disproved. Intersectional theory is necessarily critical of absolute victimhood because of the interconnected nature of oppression, it also includes critiques of counter culture going to the furtherst opposite of social norms like sex-positive polyamorous etc as reactionairy. See 'sex critical' theory.

I liked her critique of militant veganism and thought she was perfectly humble citing her sources over the importance of a truly intersectional movement.

So saying that not all people have access to a vegan diet because of food deserts and finance is good activism,

Yes, and I think many people are taking that to be something that's owned by intersectionality. That's a problem.
Intersectionalists do a good job of talking about these issues... but a bad job of talking about solutions to them because they don't appeal to evidence, they appeal to a political belief. It's hypothetical, and about as credible as the Christian belief that all problems can be solved through prayer or getting Jesus into more hearts and minds.

It's a form of poltical organisation that people engage with because they find it useful, it exists on a political spectrum that some politicians pay lip service to and is relatively new so it is yet to be tested as the dominant political reality, but draws inspiration from radically egalitarian direct democracies like the anarchist syndicalist run Catalonia and Free Territories of Ukraine.

doesn’t negate how some people feel about new social movements increasing civil engagement and being a benefit to each other and democracy.

OR how people feel about Jesus as a means to solve the world's problems as a benefit to everybody and theocracy.

OK I deserved that by using the word 'feel' but it was a pretty self explanatory statment; social movement wins give us at least a facade of civil engagement outside the ballot box that if it wasnt there would put into question representative democracy, and leave the door wide open to militancy.

[brimstoneSalad]

The very idea that social justice is founded on justice is incompatible with consequential ethics, I care about good outcomes, I care about reducing suffering i don't care about justice

I think it is very narrow minded thinking that everyone who wants to set an example by living a vegan lifestyle, or to put pressure on institutions through campaigning or government through the ballot box, necessarily has to subscribe primarily to this one materialist philosophy.

You do realize the title of the video is "Why I'm not an intersectional/social justice vegan", right?

Do you have an argument that intersectionality/social justice are compatible with consequentialism?
If you're just critical of consequentialism, that's another matter entirely. I don't think she addressed that in her video, since it wasn't the point of the video.

It is interesting that the utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer who UV borrows some of their ideas from, was someone who taught firebombing en masse. McAllister Groves who spent time studying an animal rights group that rejected emotional arguments for veganism argued that through a cold embrace of emotional neutrality they were more likely to legitimise violent forms of protest as a means to an end. [4]

I don't know where you're getting that. You may be mixing up Peter Singer and Steven Best, or something.
Can you provide a link?
Singer argues strongly that non-violent means like exposing information are the most effective.

Here's one example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Liberation_Front

Philosopher Peter Singer of Princeton University has argued that ALF direct action can only be regarded as a just cause if it is non-violent, and that the ALF is at its most effective when uncovering evidence of animal abuse that other tactics could not expose. He cites 1984's "Unnecessary Fuss" campaign, when ALF raided the University of Pennsylvania's head-injury research clinic and removed footage showing researchers laughing at the brain damage of conscious baboons, as an example. The university responded that the treatment of the animals conformed to National Institutes of Health (NIH) guidelines, but as a result of the publicity, the lab was closed down, the chief veterinarian fired, and the university placed on probation. Barbara Orlans, a former animal researcher with the NIH, now with the Kennedy Institute of Ethics, writes that the case stunned the biomedical community, and is today considered one of the most significant cases in the ethics of using animals in research.[29] Singer argues that if the ALF would focus on this kind of direct action, instead of sabotage, it would appeal to the minds of reasonable people. Against this, Steven Best writes that industries and governments have too much institutional and financial bias for reason to prevail.[30]

If one man has nothing to eat, starving and another man has just enough food to sustain himself and you try to be just and fair by taking half of his food and give it to the starving man well now they're both starving, good job. A blind concern for ideological perfection and equality frequently failed to realize the greater harm done by consequence historically communism has been a good example of this sometimes justice and fairness works out well sometimes reality kicks in and it wasn't.

Historically there are many examples of dictatorships causing famines by taking food stocks by the barrel of a gun to feed the inner party, and empires doing the same by reaping all the resources of its colonies like the Irish and Burmese Famines. It is true that even people in gulags cried over the death of the great patriarch Stalin, just as some colonial subjects accepted the master's methods as natural.

I don't know how that's relevant to the quote.
Can you address the thought experiment directly?

The point was to show that there are examples of "justice" that would have negative outcomes.
Do you disagree?