Archtype wrote:
Oh, so it's just another buzz term - pretty much an adhominem - used to try and shut down someones argument without actually logically refuting it?
Right
Archtype wrote:Why is this so typically used by the extreme, or even moderate, SJW's?
Because they think it's valid and don't understand how their reasoning is flawed, or they understand it's flawed and use it anyway because they think it's effective.
Garreth is otherwise a great guy, but it's very unfortunate how he completely ignores the core of my logical arguments against intersectionality, for example, rather than thinking about or addressing them.
https://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewt ... 699#p15699
brimstoneSalad wrote:
The central premise behind intersectionalism is a shared interest in "justice" which is something I DO NOT HAVE. I don't care about arbitrarily notions of justice, it's a nonsense deontological idea with no relation to rational morality. [...]
1. Adversarial nature
There is no true equality in asymmetrical issues. Matters like reproductive rights are inherently asymmetrical, and obtaining something that seems fair is about compromise; that means an adversarial negotiation. That doesn't mean people have to be unfriendly, but that they're advancing different and inherently opposing interests in negotiating that compromise.
2. FAIR doesn't mean GOOD
This is something many people misunderstand, because intuitively fair feels good, and unfair feels wrong. This is deontological nonsense, and you need to understand that in order to substantiate the wrongness of something you have to provide some evidence for the ultimate and global consequences being harmful.
3. Parsimony
This is as important in charity and activism as it is in science. If asking people to "go vegan" makes people less likely to actually go vegan, we should avoid it and do something more effective. If looking like morons by being obsessively politically correct makes our outreach less effective to the majority with only minor gains from minorities, we shouldn't do it. Cost and benefit analysis is essential to any situation where we have limited resources, and both human effort and compassion are in very limited supply.
I've seen nothing but dogma out of the movement, and I have tried to find reason in it for some time. Nobody has presented anything resembling a rational argument for modern Social Justice as an intrinsic good, or evidence for it as an instrumental one, they just spew rhetoric and venom at anybody who disagrees and attack personal character to discredit their opponents.
To Garreth's credit, whenever I make a rational argument against his claims he just runs away rather than say mean things which is the standard response, but wouldn't it be nice if he would actually read and address them rather than pretend they don't exist like a Christian with his fingers in his ears? It won't happen, which to me is evidence that this is nothing more than another dogma.
Social Justice is a particularly vicious and closed minded dogma too, not unlike many religions. Its self righteousness gives people who subscribe to it the justification to do whatever they want in support of it (like throw intellectual honesty out the window, even commit assault), but it's deontological at core rather than consequentialist, so it really is even superficially incompatible with any kind of ethical framework.
It's an evil and divisive movement filled with probably well meaning but delusional and very angry followers. I would not have spoken so negatively about it years ago, but I've seen what it has done to atheism (with atheism plus), and what it is threatening to do to veganism is much more dangerous. It epitomizes "progressive" lunacy, and does for the credibility of legitimate progressive values what the Westboro Baptist Church did for Christianity. Our own worst enemies are within, unfortunately, and if we can't clean house and present a good and sensible face to the world, but instead let tumors like these grow and fester, this fledgling movement is doomed to fail.