Hello! RE intersectionality amongst vegan peer group

Vegans and non-vegans alike are welcome.
Post an intro here first to have your account authenticated by a mod, then you'll be able to post anywhere.
Even if you're here to lurk, please drop a short intro post here to let us know you're not a spammer so you aren't accidentally deleted.

Forum rules
Please read the full Forum Rules
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Hello! RE intersectionality amongst vegan peer group

Post by brimstoneSalad »

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?
It seemed you were coming to the defense of intersectionality and even identifying as intersectionalist.

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.
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?
In what way was it a misunderstanding? It's a racist talking point.

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.

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?
I see smoke, I think fire.
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.
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'm saying both of those things. They're two claims, not Mott and Bailey, I'd be happy to defend either or both.
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.
NonZeroSum wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2017 6:05 pm
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.
Never said any of that, you just came with pre-conceived notions.
I'm not saying you said that. That's what white nationalists say.
You're supporting intersectionality, though, which makes very similar claims about racial differences, the prescription is just different.
NonZeroSum wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2017 6:05 pm
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.
Nope I don't.
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 pm
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.
Never said that either,
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 pm said I don't think we need conservative groups, MRM, you confused that with men's rights,
MRM isn't simply a conservative group; they want change on a number of classical laws.
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
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.
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.

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.
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.
How about you own up to yours? You've been misunderstanding and misrepresenting me on this point.

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.



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'.
The rightness of "pride" is the entire point.

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.

NonZeroSum wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2017 6:05 pm
I understand that pride movements are a reaction to shaming. Psychologically, it makes sense.
Good that's all that's needed to understand the definition within the context of culture. Not it's prescriptions or rightness.
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.

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.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Hello! RE intersectionality amongst vegan peer group

Post by brimstoneSalad »

NonZeroSum wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2017 7:58 pm
brimstoneSalad wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2017 6:45 pm
This is just so amazing and revealing to me that you're willing to throw around the word racist and leave it out there without justification when we're discussing a model you don't like, because of perceived prescriptions that we're debating, that you have to know not everyone who finds merit it in it holds.

Have some self-respect and intellectual humility to admit when you made a mistake ffs, I've been beyond patient to your slander.
It's not slander. You have identified with a racist ideology, and said some things that sounded racist to me. It's a reasonable conclusion that I'm challenging you to argue against.

I'm calling it how I see it. I am perfectly happy to assume that you've fallen into this completely innocently. I think your character is good, which is why this is so shocking to me that you identify with something like this. It's like Cory McCarthy, I think he's ultimately a good guy too who is just very misinformed; he's vegan and he really cares about rescuing animals. It's entirely possible to still have a good character and hold racist views due to ignorance.

I can say that I'm sorry if this offends you so much, but it offends me too. I sincerely believe you are defending a racist ideology and that you hold some of those beliefs yourself, maybe without realizing it. I think that makes you racist. I also think you can change if you realize the error of those beliefs.
You'd appealed to historical narratives and social conventions, I think your arguments are falling apart. I'd like you to try to address the arguments so we can figure this out.
User avatar
NonZeroSum
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1159
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 6:30 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: North Wales, UK

Re: Hello! RE intersectionality amongst vegan peer group

Post by NonZeroSum »

You seem to be saying they shouldn't exist because of that, and yet you think feminism should? That's sexist
Didn't say exist, I said useful.

Done communicating with you until you apologize for your mistakes and slander. If that's too much of a stretch for your ego I'll just be reconsidering my commitment to the forum, just a statement of fact.

Okay listen out of respect for your claim to be genuinely interested in uncovering this together which I am very loathe to believe at this point, I will explain my point again for the nth time.

I don't believe in the need/usefulness for a movement/group of people dedicated to men's pride, white pride or straight pride. In my eyes that's a socialist talking point about power, for groups of an historically dominant class of people to come together and try to emulate the language and historically evolved oxford dictionary definitions of a social movement of oppressed peoples is a mistake. I made no comment on the legitimacy of anyone's identities or rights struggles.

Now I come at intersectionality much the same way ModVegan does from a soft consequentialism plus the necessity of social justice lens, that women wanting to call their feminism intersectional in support of the overlapping difficulties black women face is great, aligns with my using socialism as an academic tool to understand where we can most easily connect workers with the fruits of their labour. My feminism is multivariate analysis proof is more long winded than my feminism is intersectional (I know they are fundamentally different).

Can you accept that my contact with the intersectional tradition has been within already deeply socialist forms of activism, and that I have used what tools already correspond with my philosophy of helping people to help themselves. That I'm here willing to uncover the public meaning of the term, the academic, the model, the various levels of prescription according to how extreme you view its tenants, before I can tell you whether the intersectionality in your head applies to me? And before you tell me whether you think that makes me a racist? Sexist? Etc?
Unofficial librarian of vegan and socialist movement media.
PhiloVegan Wiki: https://tinyurl.com/y7jc6kh6
Vegan Video Library: https://tinyurl.com/yb3udm8x
Ishkah YouTube: https://youtube.com/Ishkah
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Hello! RE intersectionality amongst vegan peer group

Post by brimstoneSalad »

NonZeroSum wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2017 8:36 pm Didn't say exist, I said useful.
What does that mean, and how is that different?
If something is not useful, and has no potential to be useful due to reform, why should it exist?
NonZeroSum wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2017 8:36 pm I don't believe in the need/usefulness for a movement/group of people dedicated to men's pride, white pride or straight pride.
It's not men's pride, it's men's rights. That's very different. To the extent any movement is dedicated to "pride" it's probably harmful.
Do you not understand the difference between a pride movement and one dedicated to civil rights?

Yes, members can muddy the water by trying to conflate them, or using the echo chamber these movements can create to re-inflate their egos. That does not mean they don't have real utility at the core of what they're trying to do, even if currently poorly directed.

My point was only that we need advocates for men's rights, it has utility. Not talking about men's pride.
A men's rights organization, even if off track in the current climate, can be course corrected back to its stated goals.

We do not need intersectionalists; the fundamental belief at the core of intersectionalism is not something with positive utility, it's the racist pseudoscience of critical race theory.
Fixing such a movement to give it positive social utility would involve divorcing it entirely from its origins and devoting it to something completely unrelated. That would be like turning Catholicism around to be an organization promoting civil rights and science in the public interest. That's nice, but what's that have to do with the Bible?
There is a point that you must realize such a radical change is both futile and confusing; you can't identify as a Catholic and say that means you're just for science and civil rights. It means something very different. And you can't be offended when somebody doesn't agree with your radical misinterpretation of the movement.
NonZeroSum wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2017 8:36 pmDone communicating with you until you apologize for your mistakes and slander. If that's too much of a stretch for your ego I'll just be reconsidering my commitment to the forum, just a statement of fact.
Can you clarify which statements you think I need to apologize for?

If I said something inaccurate I'll correct it, but bear in mind that an apology indicates culpability. I can not apologize for inaccurate statements that I believe were reasonable based on the information I had at hand, I can only correct them based on new information.

Imagine that Cory McCarthy came here angry that I called him a racist for identifying as a white nationalist, and further clarified that "white nationalism" to him meant "white" in a metaphorical sense as the combination of all colors, which means for him a global nation where everybody is equal and we have no nationalistic identities or racial divisions.
Bizarre definition? Yes. I could correct my statement that he's a racist, but the fault would lie on him for using words extremely poorly and giving the impression that he subscribed to something very different from what "white nationalism" means to 99.99999% of people.

It's possible that we have a similar situation here, where your interpretation of what intersectionality means is extremely different from what it actually means (in terms of its origin and usage in politics).

I may have reacted in a way to your offensive statements that offended you more than was productive; I can and have apologized for that. But for the arguments I made I can not apologize, only how they were worded if you found them excessively offensive.

It was deeply shocking, offensive, and even felt like a betrayal to me that you would align with and defend the racist core of the intersectional doctrines.
Some of the things you said were severely offensive. And still are: In the last post you equated men's rights to men's pride, which is a deeply offensive sexist claim that really seems like a deliberate mischaracterization. I'll assume again that this is just a misunderstanding on your part.

However, while I have no problem apologizing for offending you, I'm also still waiting for you to apologize for the statements you made that were deeply offensive to me.

I'm also waiting for you to make an argument responding to my key points, which you still seem to not be following.

NonZeroSum wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2017 8:36 pmIn my eyes that's a socialist talking point about power, for groups of an historically dominant class of people to come together and try to emulate the language and historically evolved oxford dictionary definitions of a social movement of oppressed peoples is a mistake.
This sounds to me like a "sins of the father" kind of thing; like Old Testament multi-generational bigotry.
Historical context is irrelevant to the actions and intention of the people alive now. It doesn't matter who was historically dominant, or which tribe fought with which tribe a hundred years ago; that doesn't justify modern sexism or racism against the descendants of those who we perceive to have done wrong. Every generation must be a blank slate, judged by their own actions irrespective of history or other factors they have no personal hand in; to do otherwise is a cornerstone of bigotry.

If this is a socialist talking point, that talking point is bigoted and needs to be abandoned. If you feel like I'm misunderstanding it, then understand that it's deeply offensive to me as worded, and maybe the talking point needs to be changed into something less fundamentally offensive so it can be more easily understood.
NonZeroSum wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2017 8:36 pmI made no comment on the legitimacy of anyone's identities or rights struggles.
Well, then you misunderstood my argument, which was about that.
NonZeroSum wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2017 8:36 pm Now I come at intersectionality much the same way ModVegan does from a soft consequentialism plus the necessity of social justice lens, [...] My feminism is multivariate analysis proof is more long winded than my feminism is intersectional (I know they are fundamentally different).
None of this has anything meaningful to do with intersectionality; which is something I don't think ModVegan understands (she thinks it's a non-prescriptive academic tool of analysis, from what I can gather). Her argument seemed to boil down to "I don't want my head chopped off, so I'm going with it to hopefully prevent a violent rebellion".

You know the term is politically loaded and comes with a lot of baggage. Why would you choose to use a term which doesn't even properly apply and that is so "triggering" that it will (in my view) generate reasonable accusations of racism (just like using the term "white pride" or "White nationalism" does)?
Why not use one or two more words to avoid all of the baggage of racist pseudoscience and all of the other unpleasantness tied to intersectionality?
What does that term offer to communication beyond saving half a breath? Because it certainty seems to take much more away. The last few pages are evidence enough of that.
NonZeroSum wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2017 8:36 pm Can you accept that my contact with the intersectional tradition has been within already deeply socialist forms of activism, and that I have used what tools already correspond with my philosophy of helping people to help themselves.
In the same way I can accept that somebody who was born under a rock might use the term "white pride" innocently. I'm sure you are doing that here, I am happy to assume your usage was innocent. I'm telling you it's harmful to use such a term which is a poor description of what you believe if you're not a racist. Leave it in academics, once that term is used in the wild it is used prescriptively and it has serious political and epistemological implications that go against science and evidence based approaches to improving the human condition.
NonZeroSum wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2017 8:36 pm That I'm here willing to uncover the public meaning of the term, the academic, the model, the various levels of prescription according to how extreme you view its tenants, before I can tell you whether the intersectionality in your head applies to me? And before you tell me whether you think that makes me a racist? Sexist? Etc?
You just shouldn't use the term or identify with it if you're not trying to trigger and offend people.
If we want to get at what it means in detail, we need to look at its full use, not a narrow application of multivariate analysis (which already has a name).

Try to see this from my perspective: What if I came here talking about white nationalism, and you quite reasonably said that's racist, and I got angry about that and appealed to a very narrow and bizarre definition of the term as I discussed above? Whose fault is that?

When terms are so loaded, they must be used carefully or not at all, particularly when there are other less loaded terms that can be used for the limited applications, and the broader scope of the term is associated with something so evil and toxic (critical race theory) that it can find no future in a civil world.
User avatar
NonZeroSum
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1159
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 6:30 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: North Wales, UK

Re: Hello! RE intersectionality amongst vegan peer group

Post by NonZeroSum »

brimstoneSalad wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2017 5:44 am
This has been my experience of this discussion:

Cait wishes to know more about intersectionality and develop a deeper understanding of it, have it questioned or even dis-proven and if so methods to go about dissuading her peer group of the same.

I respond saying it's an interesting split in the vegan movement isn't it? That has been expanded on by UV, UV and some people on this forum wish to publicly alienate intersectionalists because they think intersectionalists are too alienating to have around veganism as the main thing people see. I say how it has been meaningful to me.

You respond for 10 paragraphs saying that my interpretation is out of line, and start '4 or 5 fires maybe' about the tenants and prescriptions of intersectionality.

I start trying to uncover those tenants, whether it is faith-based, useful niche, is it necessary to also believe in CRT.
Is the further than single issue argument valid when vegan consumer culture without any larger political goals can also be harmful.
Is the 4th step Scientology analogy fair when every movement has it's extremes like the pseudo-skeptics that you said you needed to dissociate with in the video you linked.

Faith-based goes into the productivity of socialist economics, useful niche goes into what it means to stand ground on valuable facts, expanded on why CRT is controversial, how I don't subscribe to deontology but other prominent universalists and existentialists have found merit in this one 'as if' contractarian model.
Line drawing at pseudo-skepticism and men's rights movement toxicity goes into me saying that I don't agree with the need/usefulness for any conservative movements of any kind because I think they become circle jerks for in-group identities holding onto power. Not that I don't believe in men's rights or that they can't have spirited antagonistic debates with feminists about the application of humanist equalist policies, just that I disagree with the 'pride' that often takes centre stage when so much time is dedicated to building a movement around what is ostensibly holding onto what social power they already hold. I've written about childhood and relationship abuse, making women adhere to consent, often visit the goodmenproject and read rad-dads.

The next 2 pages I've literally just been rebuffing everything you've claimed to know about how I think, waiting patiently for you to run out of steam so you can retract your slander of racist and sexist. I hoped by explaining my limited contact with pro-intersectional politics like Caits would allow you to walk back your cries of racist and sexist but I'm still waiting. Maybe after we can get back to uncovering intersectionality's perceived prescriptions.
If I said something inaccurate I'll correct it, but bear in mind that an apology indicates culpability. I can not apologize for inaccurate statements that I believe were reasonable based on the information I had at hand, I can only correct them based on new information.
Good I hope you'll apologize or correct yourself for saying that I'm a racist or sexist based on the ample new clarifying information I've provided to your misunderstandings.

I didn't think that much of the men's rights movement in its current toxic form is needed/useful because it's supremacy fronting as pride, just as white pride and straight pride has tried to be smuggled into the mainstream. Specific men's rights advocate organisations can hold merit.
It was deeply shocking, offensive, and even felt like a betrayal to me that you would align with and defend the racist core of the intersectional doctrines.
Some of the things you said were severely offensive. And still are: In the last post you equated men's rights to men's pride, which is a deeply offensive sexist claim that really seems like a deliberate mischaracterization. I'll assume again that this is just a misunderstanding on your part.
I did no such thing, we haven't even got to uncovering a consensus on what the core intersectional doctrines are. We can both agree that this conversation hasn't endeared us to one another, I've got tough skin but I can only handle so much slander, flaming and rambling hostility.
Her argument seemed to boil down to "I don't want my head chopped off, so I'm going with it to hopefully prevent a violent rebellion".
:lol: I hope she will respond to that brazen reductionist jab.
Unofficial librarian of vegan and socialist movement media.
PhiloVegan Wiki: https://tinyurl.com/y7jc6kh6
Vegan Video Library: https://tinyurl.com/yb3udm8x
Ishkah YouTube: https://youtube.com/Ishkah
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Hello! RE intersectionality amongst vegan peer group

Post by brimstoneSalad »

NonZeroSum wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2017 6:34 am
Her argument seemed to boil down to "I don't want my head chopped off, so I'm going with it to hopefully prevent a violent rebellion".
:lol: I hope she will respond to that brazen reductionist jab.
She has mentioned this on the forum as well.

It's the most reasonable argument I've seen, but my retort was that it was in no way sure such a revolution would happen, and because these social issues have other causes and are only agitated as a race issue by talking about them and reinforcing their validity by agreeing with them you may be dealing with a self-fulfilling prophecy. By being afraid of it and supporting it because of that you're fueling the fire which may have just gone out on its own if nobody fed it. We need to be post-racial, and this isn't helping.

Minorities are harmed most by the idea of this imaginary oppressive system; it's the idea that they can't get ahead which can prevent them from trying to. See the Golem effect. Of course convincing them of this is harmful; either psychologically oppressive, or in terms of stirring a rebellion for no reason which will only cause more harm.

I didn't mention this, but also don't think being "pro-intersectionalist" protects white people in the middle of race riots. Nobody's slowing down to ask for credentials, that's not how revolutions happen.

So I don't think her argument is a good one, it's just the most reasonable one I've heard.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Hello! RE intersectionality amongst vegan peer group

Post by brimstoneSalad »

NonZeroSum wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2017 6:34 am You respond for 10 paragraphs saying that my interpretation is out of line, and start '4 or 5 fires maybe' about the tenants and prescriptions of intersectionality.
Which were arguments I'd like you to respond to if you're in support of intersectionality.
NonZeroSum wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2017 6:34 am I start trying to uncover those tenants, whether it is faith-based, useful niche, is it necessary to also believe in CRT.
Yes, it's faith based. No, it's not a useful niche. Yes, it's necessary to believe in CRT if you're following the original definition which derived from those premises.

Like a Christian who says "Christianity just means believing in love", this is either a case of deceptive Motte-Bailey technique, or you are using an aberrant definition.

If you are departing from all of the philosophically relevant foundations of Intersectionality and ONLY using it as multivariate analysis (without assertions about race or a conspiracy of a prevailing white colonialism etc.), then you need to stop using such a loaded word and just talk about multivariate analysis (which is not racist or sexist in itself).

Multivariate analysis is not faith based, it is a useful niche (which is already occupied, intersectionality has no business appropriating that), and it has nothing to do with CRT.

If somebody makes the choice to use the term "intersectionalist" or "intersectional" to refer to themselves or their beliefs (instead of talking about the neutral multivariate analysis), I hold that it is a reasonable assumption to believe that person is racist/sexist/etc.

In the same way it's reasonable to assume that Christians are anti-homosexuality given the content of the Bible and the claims of Christianity. It is the burden of a Christian to show that this is not the case for him or her.

If you choose to use the term intersectional or intersectionalist, you adopt a heavy burden of proof to show that you are an exception to the rule.

If you don't want that, my advice is to abandon the unnecessary term and its baggage.

I could make a statement that I no longer believe you are racist or sexist, but I can not apologize for making a reasonable assumption. You'd need to make an argument for why that assumption was not reasonable based on the context.
If you can convince me the assumption was not reasonable -- either that intersectionality is not racist/sexist etc. or that you made it clear enough that you weren't aligned with those aspects and were using an aberrant definition (a definition you didn't provide, at least clearly, from my perspective) -- then I could apologize for the assumption.

However, it wasn't just intersectionality in theory which was a red flag. You made a number of statements that struck me as racist and sexist. Those need to be answered, and you haven't really done that. I've challenged those statements with little to no response.
I can see you have misunderstood my point about men's rights (I'll get to that in a minute) so I'll tentatively take back the sexist claim.
The issue of historical relevance is the most outstanding (and may apply to any number of -isms).

NonZeroSum wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2017 6:34 am Is the further than single issue argument valid when vegan consumer culture without any larger political goals can also be harmful.
That's not really relevant to the point. Intersectionality doesn't have a monopoly on multiple issue campaigns.
It can make a lot of sense to combine, for example, Christianity and Veganism to appeal to Christians, or even possibly Feminism and Veganism to appeal to Feminists; but this in itself is not intersectional proper ("intersectional" sounds like it might be that, but that doesn't really have anything to do with the meaning, the name itself can be deceptive).

NonZeroSum wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2017 6:34 am Is the 4th step Scientology analogy fair when every movement has it's extremes like the pseudo-skeptics that you said you needed to dissociate with in the video you linked.
These are two issues.

1. Disassociating with a movement due to toxicity (which can be anybody's prerogative)
2. Core and hidden "truths" advocated by the inner levels of a movement that are garbage.

As to the first, I don't think Scientology is that toxic anymore (it's potentially very harmful to some members, helpful to others, and I think it's more socially benign).
The online skeptic movement or MRM would be a good example of movements that one may choose to distance from due to toxicity. Or one might choose to try to fix them. My point was only that there is a point where something is too far gone and needs to be gutted or replaced IF it has some core utility worth preserving. That's aside from the core issue itself. Replacing it usually means finding a new term to avoid the baggage of the original. I have no problem with the idea of replacing MRM and finding another term that's usefully descriptive.

As to the second, this isn't about extremism, it's about the fundamentals and core of the belief. This is why intersectionality isn't worth reforming OR replacing. It's not just superficially rotten and in need of renovation, the very principles it's based on are rotten to the very core. There's nothing there to save that isn't already done far better by other movements.
NonZeroSum wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2017 6:34 am Faith-based goes into the productivity of socialist economics,
No, it goes into all of the garbage at the foundation of intersectionality, not socialism.
If you just want to believe in socialism, go for it; your perspectives on that may not be strictly evidence based but they are more or less reasonable, and socialists arguably have utility in the world as a counterpoint to capitalists; we need that kind of ideological diversity (from the reasonable contingent, at least; the extremists like APV are probably just harmful).
Multiple political parties and perspectives are needed to argue against each other in the current system, since none of them are reliably evidence based.

It would be better to get rid of all of them and move on to science based politics, but I don't expect to see that any time soon.
NonZeroSum wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2017 6:34 am useful niche goes into what it means to stand ground on valuable facts,
I already covered this. You didn't really respond to my argument, you made a red herring about men's pride instead.
NonZeroSum wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2017 6:34 am expanded on why CRT is controversial,
No, you addressed something I'm not even talking about right now, which is the tip of the iceberg. I covered the deontological issue and how it's the least of my present concerns with intersectionality.
NonZeroSum wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2017 6:34 am Line drawing at pseudo-skepticism and men's rights movement toxicity goes into me saying that I don't agree with the need/usefulness for any conservative movements of any kind because I think they become circle jerks for in-group identities holding onto power.
That's not relevant to my point about the core of the belief system.

Whatever else they do, MRM has a valid point and purpose which can be distilled and potentially returned to with reform.
A member of MRM can argue that he or she is aligned with that primary purpose of men's rights and wants to see the movement return to that, ending the misogynistic circle-jerk and pride nonsense. There's still something there of value once all of that is shed, and it's an issue there's not another better group legitimately pursuing (a conflict of interests means Feminists can't legitimately do so).
NonZeroSum wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2017 6:34 am Not that I don't believe in men's rights or that they can't have spirited antagonistic debates with feminists about the application of humanist equalist policies,
That's something with positive social utility that could potentially be arrived at through reform.
A member of MRM has that to argue for.

A member of intersectionality has no such argument: sure there's a lot of bad behavior from intersectionalists that may not be necessary, but the core is racist pseudoscience so there's nothing to reform it into.
If you want to call it a tool of multivariate analysis, again, we already have that. Intersectionality has no business appropriating that niche in its hypothetical reformed version.

If there was another prominent group (preferably with a descriptive name) devoted to advocacy of men's rights specifically without all of the nonsense MRM can get engaged in (not one with conflicts of interest), then you could say "MRM" specifically has no use and should simply be abolished in the way most religion or intersectionality should be.
There might be, and if you can point to one then that's a good argument against being involved in MRM.

NonZeroSum wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2017 6:34 am just that I disagree with the 'pride' that often takes centre stage when so much time is dedicated to building a movement around what is ostensibly holding onto what social power they already hold.
Some of it may be that, but they also want rights traditionally denied to men.
It may be an uphill battle to reform men's rights movements, but there is something of value there too. The same is not true of intersectionality which offers no unique point of value.

NonZeroSum wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2017 6:34 am I didn't think that much of the men's rights movement in its current toxic form is needed/useful because it's supremacy fronting as pride, just as white pride and straight pride has tried to be smuggled into the mainstream. Specific men's rights advocate organisations can hold merit.
It doesn't have to be much, it only has to be a tiny bit at its core to justify reform. Intersectionality doesn't have that.

NonZeroSum wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2017 6:34 am Maybe after we can get back to uncovering intersectionality's perceived prescriptions.
Intersectionality's prescriptions are relevant to how reasonable accusations of racism and sexism are.

If you expect an apology, rather than me just saying you aren't using the word correctly so it's an error of communication on your part which led me to believe (reasonably) that you were advocating racism and sexism, you'll have to show how I am incorrect about the prescriptions of intersectionality.

All I can do is apologize for offending you, not for the claims themselves which I believe are reasonable based on the definition of the ideology you were associating with and defending.
User avatar
NonZeroSum
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1159
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 6:30 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: North Wales, UK

Re: Hello! RE intersectionality amongst vegan peer group

Post by NonZeroSum »

brimstoneSalad wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2017 3:53 pm
Fuckin hell debating with cliff notes as if they were mathematical formula, you really do love reading yourself ramble on. I've told you multiple times I'm not debating with someone who poisons the well before we have even established definitions about each participants wedding to a theory and agreed about all its prescriptions. Your tying it to science must fall racism is the only extreme claim and I won't have a leasurly discussion with someone who throws slander around like its nobodies business because other people who have a reasonable conception of what racism is and who don't read the whole thread might mistake your mudslinging and think I did something terrible and my name forever tarnished before the discussion can get going. If you go back and read your original claims to racism and sexism you can see they're on intirely bogus ground, now you've got onto what you perceive is safer ground by saying my attachment to your idea of intersectionality, it's all bullshit ego aggrandising and I don't intend to be part of it anymore, I should never have got in the way of your first superego rant.

I asked for an apology or a correction, however you'd like to dress it up, the fact that you'd leave slander out there for what 2 days already based on misunderstandings speaks volumes about your character. Also using my non responsiveness while I wait patiently for an apology to your slander for 2 longass pages to rant on an on about your philosophy knowing I don't intend to give a rebuttal is narsasistic to the extreme, you should be aware of the fandom echo-chamber you're building when you do that.
Saul Newman wrote:The question of ethics and its relation to radical politics today becomes especially important in the face of what might superficially appear as two contradictory phenomena. On the one hand, there has been a delegitimising of universal moral categories, which can be found today in the plurality of moral positions, religious beliefs, ethical sensibilities and ways of life. On the other hand, we see the hysterical desire to reinvent moral absolutes: something that can be observed, for instance, in the construction of ethics – based on liberal notions of human rights – as a global ideology; or in the uncanny return of the worst kinds of religious dogmatism and conservatism. This is the paradoxical situation that confronts ethics under the conditions of postmodernity. While one can affirm, with Lyotard, the eclipse of metanarratives – including the Kantian universal moral imperative – the implications of this are often ambiguous. Rather than producing a liberation, it can at times lead to the imposition of a ferocious moral superego. Moral and religious fundamentalisms are in this sense symptomatic of the ‘postmodern condition’. The decline of the traditional authority of moral law and universal injunctions is supplemented today with ‘ethics committees’ and New Age spiritualism in a desperate attempt to reinvent the place of authority, to cover over the lack in the symbolic order. The liberation promised with the decline of traditional moral and symbolic authority now ends up in a new series of constraints and prohibitions. In the words of Lacan, who reversed the maxim of Dostoyevsky, ‘if God is dead, now nothing is permitted’.
- The Ethics of Post-Anarchism by Saul Newman
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=3190
Unofficial librarian of vegan and socialist movement media.
PhiloVegan Wiki: https://tinyurl.com/y7jc6kh6
Vegan Video Library: https://tinyurl.com/yb3udm8x
Ishkah YouTube: https://youtube.com/Ishkah
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Hello! RE intersectionality amongst vegan peer group

Post by brimstoneSalad »

NonZeroSum wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2017 5:02 pm Fuckin hell debating with cliff notes as if they were mathematical formula, you really do love reading yourself ramble on.
There's no need for rudeness and profanity.

Because you asked I apologized for offending you, and I've asked for the same in return but you are not required to give it.

The rest comes down to argument, a difference in perspective. I can not apologize for the good faith content of arguments that have not yet been debunked, only the way they were delivered if it was exceedingly offensive to you.
NonZeroSum wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2017 5:02 pmYour tying it to science must fall racism is the only extreme claim
It's not an extreme claim, just like it's not an extreme claim to say Christianity is against homosexuality. That's at the root of what intersectionality is (even more so than it is with Christianity and anti-homosexuality).
NonZeroSum wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2017 5:02 pmbecause other people who have a reasonable conception of what racism is and who don't read the whole thread might mistake your mudslinging and think I did something terrible and my name forever tarnished before the discussion can get going.
Do you think I'm following an unreasonably broad definition of racism?

Cory McCarthy insists he is not a racist based on a very narrow definition that requires it be motivated by hatred. I don't agree with this definition; racism can be very easily founded in ignorance and have nothing to do with hate. The white nationalism he advocates, as he says, is for everybody's benefit not out of hatred, but because he thinks races don't mix well and they should all stick to their own. That whites are good in their own ways, and blacks are good in their own ways, and they're both best isolated from each other in their own countries.

I find such a definition too narrow, even a Richard Spencer could squeeze his way out of it by claiming he has good intentions.

The definition of racism itself is an important conversation to have.
I have tried and failed to get you to engage on that point.
You haven't really engaged much on any of the points, you seem too offended by what you perceive to be slander. Maybe consider how I define and evaluate racism first?

Would you like me to clarify that I'm talking about a subtle and usually latent (and often unknown) racist ideology, and not the overt racism of groups like the KKK that are driven by hatred?

Being racist doesn't make you a horrible and irredeemable human being; it often stems from ignorance. I'm sure Cory McCarthy is a good guy, minus his mistaken views. Yes, he's a racist, but he cares about animals and apparently humans too -- even those of other "races" despite his racist ideologies.

It's also possible that you are not racist or sexist in any way, and that this has all been a big miscommunication. I would love for that to be the conclusion here.
NonZeroSum wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2017 5:02 pmIf you go back and read your original claims to racism and sexism you can see they're on intirely bogus ground,
If that is the case, then I apologize. I don't really have time to go back through the conversation now. I asked you to cite precisely what you took issue with, because I would only be guessing.
I was typing that after having been deeply offended by what I perceived as racism in your post, so who knows, maybe I did slip and say something wrong. I try to be accurate even when I'm offended.
I already apologized for offending to that extent you, though.
NonZeroSum wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2017 5:02 pmnow you've got onto what you perceive is safer ground by saying my attachment to your idea of intersectionality,
There have always been two issues; your affiliation with that, and the things you said that I interpreted as racist. It's not a Motte and Bailey, it's two distinct points.
I already clarified this.
NonZeroSum wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2017 5:02 pmthe fact that you'd leave slander out there for what 2 days already based on misunderstandings speaks volumes about your character.
The statements you made were profoundly offensive and to my eye looked racist. You have yet to apologize for them as I asked.

Courtesy goes two ways. We offended each other, and I did my part in apologizing for the offense.
NonZeroSum wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2017 5:02 pmAlso using my non responsiveness while I wait patiently for an apology to your slander for 2 longass pages to rant on an on about your philosophy knowing I don't intend to give a rebuttal is narsasistic to the extreme, you should be aware of the fandom echo-chamber you're building when you do that.
This site is about making arguments and giving rebuttals. The fact that you're not providing an argument is the issue. If you provided an argument, then I could completely recant my statements.
Instead you are complaining about what you perceive to be an unwarranted slight, which was in my view at worst an overreaction to something very offensive you said. I offended you in response to something you said that was offensive to me. I apologized for my part already. If you will do the same we can move on. Or you can not apologize, and we can move on too.

I'm not going to hold hostage reasoned argument to wait for an apology for the offense if you don't feel one is owed.

If you want to discuss this, we can discuss this, but it can not be contingent on an apology I am not yet convinced that I owe. My only fault here from my perspective was being offended at what you said and reacting quickly and saying what I said in a way that was probably more offensive than it needed to be to get the point across. I already apologized for that.

If you want retraction of the substance of my argument, I can only do that if convinced it is wrong. I already tentatively retracted the sexism claim because you indicated that you didn't understand my argument about men's rights, and in that context it's clearer you probably weren't saying anything sexist against men.

Only discussion (not threats) will convince me something I said was wrong. I'm not that hard to convince. Regarding sexism, you didn't even understand my argument enough to offer a rebuttal, and I figured out at last what you probably meant on my own and tentatively took it back. I'm not trying to believe that you're racist/sexist/etc. and I hope that it turns out that you are none of those and I can affirm that clearly after we resolve the misunderstanding.
User avatar
NonZeroSum
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1159
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 6:30 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: North Wales, UK

Re: Hello! RE intersectionality amongst vegan peer group

Post by NonZeroSum »

Of course I'm holding you verbally hostage because you're displaying incredibly poor debating skills, we're trying to establish whether someone who takes the precepts of intersectionality theory to heart whether original or public conception would be an ethical person, you claim I show signs of the public one, call that and me racist and declare yourself winner then ramble on for 2 days, I don't take slander so lightly as to be something you can politely sling and then correct later.
I disagree for the same reason we don't need white pride or straight pride, but I'll leave that for another thread, another time.
To equate race to sex differences is to grant the fundamental assumptions of racism and fuel racial conflict. To even make that analogy, I interpret what you just said as very racist, and I'm offended by your comparison.
I don't believe in the need/usefulness for a movement/group of people dedicated to men's pride, white pride or straight pride. In my eyes that's a socialist talking point about power, for groups of an historically dominant class of people to come together and try to emulate the language and historically evolved oxford dictionary definitions of a social movement of oppressed peoples is a mistake. I made no comment on the legitimacy of anyone's identities or rights struggles.
>>> Quote continues >>>
Well, then you misunderstood my argument, which was about that.
I don't agree with the need/usefulness for any conservative movements of any kind because I think they become circle jerks for in-group identities holding onto power. Not that I don't believe in men's rights or that they can't have spirited antagonistic debates with feminists about the application of humanist equalist policies, just that I disagree with the 'pride' that often takes centre stage when so much time is dedicated to building a movement around what is ostensibly holding onto what social power they already hold. I've written about childhood and relationship abuse, making women adhere to consent, often visit the goodmenproject and read rad-dads.
...
the fact that you'd leave slander out there for what 2 days already based on misunderstandings speaks volumes about your character.
I already tentatively retracted the sexism claim because you indicated that you didn't understand my argument about men's rights, and in that context it's clearer you probably weren't saying anything sexist against men.
Okay you've walked back sexist to bigoted, a label just as bad but dressed up in a nondescript way that shows you don't have a leg to stand on. Now if you'd just walk back racist for the same reason as I used white pride devoid of commenting on the legitimacy of anyone's identity or rights struggles, just a perfectly legitimate comment on the usefulness of conservative movements that needent have answered exactly the spirit of your statement it was replying to. Because at the time we were discussing whether the 'as if' contractarian model could hold descriptive capability for consequentialist interested in the memetics of racism and you conflated the two.
Unofficial librarian of vegan and socialist movement media.
PhiloVegan Wiki: https://tinyurl.com/y7jc6kh6
Vegan Video Library: https://tinyurl.com/yb3udm8x
Ishkah YouTube: https://youtube.com/Ishkah
Post Reply