It seemed you were coming to the defense of intersectionality and even identifying as intersectionalist.NonZeroSum wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2017 6:05 pm Have I done that? To the best of my ability described my existentialist/ evolutionary ethics and libertarian socialist politics, tentatively discussing different models merits according to my subscription to those philosophies and politics?
If you do not identify as intersectionalist and you are not defending intersectionalism, then your replies in this thread are very confusing.
If somebody comes here identifying as a white nationalist and defending nazism, even lacking a single racist claim, I think it's pretty reasonable to make those connections and conclude the person is racist. I'm saying the same of intersectionalists. It's founded on some very racist ideology.
Maybe they don't realize it's racist; there are some white nationalists (like Cory McCarthy) who insist until they're out of breath that they aren't racist. People like Ask Yourself agree with them, based on a bizarre definition of racism that requires it be motivated by hate (motivation based rather than the practical policies). I do not agree with such definitions.
In what way was it a misunderstanding? It's a racist talking point.NonZeroSum wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2017 6:05 pm Can you accept that your original call to racist was based on a misunderstanding, when I was talking about subjective power relations?
It's like when people say "Black people commit more crimes and have lower IQs"; yes, it's factually true, because POOR people commit more crimes and have lower IQs (lead exposure, poor prenatal nutrition, and many other factors), and demographically more black people are poor. It's deceptive rhetoric, though, which is easily misused. It's a choice to frame it as "black" rather than "poor" (which is more informative), and where there's smoke there's usually fire.
Talking about these "subjective power relations" sounds very intersectional, and you're basically billowing smoke. I think it's a reasonable thing to assume there's racism going on there, particularly given the context of this thread and the greater ideological context in intersectionality.
If you will disavow intersectionality and stick to libertarian socialism, I will agree that there's no reason to believe you're racist.
I'm not going to agree that somebody who identifies as an intersectionalist or a nazi isn't ultimately racist. I might agree that such people don't necessarily know that they're racists. Cory McCarthy doesn't believe he's a racist, and your underlying racist beliefs may not be known to you; I'm happy to assume it's perfectly innocent and based on ignorance of the ideology you've accidentally aligned with.
But:
Nazi = racist.
Intersectionalist = racist.
This is induction, maybe it's only right 99.9% of the time, but it's reasonable.
I can't apologize for making reasonable conclusions based on the evidence I have available, because that implies that I did something wrong or would try not to do it again. I accept the margin of error such induction comes with.
I can issue a correction if corrected, but I'm not yet convinced if you still identify as an intersectionalist and defend intersectionality. It is a substantial burden of proof to convince me that any given nazi or intersectionalist is an exception to the rule.
I see smoke, I think fire.NonZeroSum wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2017 6:05 pm I don't disagree, that wasn't my point, am I still a racist based on your misunderstanding?
If it's actually steam coming from a hotspring instead of smoke from a forest fire, that's great, but that's not my default assumption.
As long as you identify as intersectionalist, that's my assumption, and I think it's reasonable based on the core of the ideology.
I'm saying both of those things. They're two claims, not Mott and Bailey, I'd be happy to defend either or both.NonZeroSum wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2017 6:05 pm Mott - From my perspective you have said some very racist things,
Bailey - and you're supporting a fundamentally racist ideology.
I think you got them mixed up, though. The Bailey is supposed to be hard to defend and the Mott is supposed to be easy.
That intersectionalism is fundamentally racist is much easier for me to defend than my digging back through your comments and explaining my perspective on them. The claims of intersectionality are what I'm trying to talk about here. People using Motte and Bailey don't attempt to steer conversation into the Bailey.
I'm not saying you said that. That's what white nationalists say.NonZeroSum wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2017 6:05 pmNever said any of that, you just came with pre-conceived notions.You sounds like white nationalists trying to argue on a technicality that they aren't racists because they don't think one race is superior in every way (just that they're all different, and they all do better when they keep to their own). That requires a very narrow and idiosyncratic definition of racism.
You're supporting intersectionality, though, which makes very similar claims about racial differences, the prescription is just different.
Then you have no business identifying as an intersectionalist. Racial identity is a crucial part of intersectionality. It's one of the two primary and original axes.NonZeroSum wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2017 6:05 pmNope I don't.If you believe there are "races", that these have fundamental or historical qualities and differences which aren't solidly substantiated by biology in the modern world (like vitamin D production, or risk of sickle cell anemia), and that racial identity should in itself inform our policies or behavior to people in any way, then you're a racist.
You kind of did when you defended racial differences in pride movements and rights movements based on history.NonZeroSum wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2017 6:05 pmNever said that either,The oldest racism is based on history; the idea of inherited sin or guilt, or curses, through many generations. That was long before we even had a concept of genetics. Look into old testament racism.
We can talk about that if you want, but when you're promoting this historical basis for treating people differently based on race (rather than real things like socioeconomic status) you're promoting racism.
MRM isn't simply a conservative group; they want change on a number of classical laws.NonZeroSum wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2017 6:05 pm said I don't think we need conservative groups, MRM, you confused that with men's rights,
You think I'm confusing the Men's Rights Movement with a movement that advocates for men's rights?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_rights_movement
That sounds like they're a group that focuses on men's rights. Most of those issues are not conservative at all. Making compulsory military service not men-only is a very progressive position. Regarding fathers as important as mothers, likewise, very progressive; this is not a "women take care of babies" conservative value.The men's rights movement (MRM) is a part of the larger men's movement. It branched off from the men's liberation movement in the early 1970s. The men's rights movement is made up of a variety of groups and individuals who focus on numerous social issues (including family law, parenting, reproduction, domestic violence) and government services (including education, compulsory military service, social safety nets, and health policies), which men's rights advocates say discriminate against men.
There are bad apples in the group. Nasty people like Stefan Molyneux. Just as there are nasty people in Feminism like Big Red.
Adversarial politics can attract some pretty nasty personalities. That doesn't mean they make up the bulk of the movement; they're vocal minorities on both sides.
You seem to be saying they shouldn't exist because of that, and yet you think feminism should? That's sexist. You're holding a double standard here.
Just because they tend to have some neo-conservative leanings in their demographics doesn't disqualify them from having valid points when it comes to their core issues any more than Feminists having liberal leanings disqualifies them.
My point was that feminism and MRM have legitimate causes they're advocating, even if they go off track sometimes; they have real purpose that isn't addressed by other players.
Intersectionality doesn't, its foundations are in racist pseudoscience, and they do nothing but harm with seemingly no potential and no real niche to occupy for legitimate social good.
There are movements that can be fixed or gutted and replaced because they advocate for something important (at least in theory), and there are those that are completely unnecessary.
It'd be great to have a more liberal men's rights organization that didn't get sidetracked in other political issues at all; it'd also be great to rid feminism of regressive positions and alliance with radical Islam (that's not progressive, you can even find so called feminists defending rape in Islamic countries).
Most of these movements could use some cleaning of house and recommitment to their core issues.
How about you own up to yours? You've been misunderstanding and misrepresenting me on this point.NonZeroSum wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2017 6:05 pm you can own up to your mistake so we can have a proper conversation or you can keep poisoning the well.
1. Intersectionality is fundamentally racist and based on dogmatic pseudoscience. Can it be fixed? Maybe, but there's no point because:
2. Intersectionality has no valuable niche it could occupy once its problems are solved; it's not needed. It's better just to be rid of it.
3. MRM has serious problems, but the core issues of Men's Rights are valuable. Same with Feminism. These are groups we need, because we NEED adversarial politics in such negotiations of rights in light of asymmetrical biology. The same does NOT apply to race; that's needless conflict.
This isn't complicated. Race is nothing like biological sex. We do not need Black Rights and White Rights, we just need human rights. We DO need Men's Rights and Women's Rights, because a generalized human rights can not address biological differences.
Because Intersectionality is rife with problems (which I think you recognize) and it has no valid purpose, it should be eliminated not clung to in an attempt to reform it. The same applies to most religion; we don't need it. Why would we go out of our way to become Catholic in order to reform the church when we can just let religion die and be better off?
Your argument for intersectionality seems like the argument many carnists make, that we should support "happy meat" instead of going vegan to reform the animal agriculture industry. Why? It has no purpose. There's no reason we should keep it and change it when we can just do away with it, we do not need meat.
The rightness of "pride" is the entire point.NonZeroSum wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2017 6:05 pm No it's a rebuttal against stormfront racism who's white pride worldwide slogan has made international waves for being insideous and the softer face behind the supremacism, explaining the correct definitions of words, not even commenting on the rightness of 'pride'.
Yes, where there's smoke there's probably fire. Somebody who says "white pride" is probably a racist. Not for sure, and not necessarily, but probably. But if you accept that, then you should not have any problem with me assuming you're a racist based on your allegiance with intersectionality.
Can you see the logical knots you're tying yourself in here?
Like intersectionality, we don't need white pride. We don't need any racial or nationalistic pride. We should be rid of them forever.
Men's rights is different, though, there is a core philosophy of advocacy for men's interests where there are physical differences that make perfect equality impossible: this has utility. MRM is something to reform, or replace, not something to be gotten rid of entirely.
Gut it, or replace it with another similar term (if you can find an equally descriptive name). But it's something that's needed (not the conservative part, but the advocacy without conflict of interest -- feminism can NOT provide that). There is an argument for being an MRM and trying to reform the movement. There is no such argument for being a reform minded intersectionalist, or a reform minded Nazi even; those movements serve no purpose and are only destructive.
The prescriptions and rightness of them is the only thing that's relevant. Understanding the historical context is meaningless. Movements change, they evolve, they can become legitimate or lose legitimacy in the eyes of the public. The question is the core utility of what they're trying to do, minus all of the missteps and bad vocal personalities.NonZeroSum wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2017 6:05 pmGood that's all that's needed to understand the definition within the context of culture. Not it's prescriptions or rightness.I understand that pride movements are a reaction to shaming. Psychologically, it makes sense.
Intersectionalism and nazism are rotten down to their cores; there's nothing to conserve there at all. They don't compare to Men's Rights or Feminism in that respect. I'm not saying that we should reform MRM instead of replacing it (I don't know if that's worth the effort), but the point is that a person could make a legitimate argument for being a part of it (MRM) on those grounds that doesn't make that person a misogynist. A person can not make a legitimate argument for being part of intersectionality or nazism on the grounds of reform, because there's nothing legitimate for those movements to become; the only reasonable conclusion is that an intersectionalist/nazi is a racist, because he or she has joined a racist ideology with nowhere to go. MRM can in theory be fixed and be useful to the world, a hypothetical reformed intersectionality/nazism has no such niche.