Hello! RE intersectionality amongst vegan peer group

[brimstoneSalad]

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,

What? No. No single belief, good or bad, is on its own likely to make somebody an ethical or unethical person.
Even a racist can be a good person overall. People are the sum of their actions and beliefs. Intersectionality is just one of the bad ones that weighs the scale toward evil, but just because you're intersectionalist doesn't in itself make you a horrible person.

An Intersectionalist, like a White Nationalist, is not condemned to be a bad person for that belief alone. I spoke at length on Cory McCarthy. Watch some of his videos on his compassion for animals and you will see somebody who is a good person at heart; just ignorant on politics with some very unfortunate views, both descriptive and prescriptive, on race.

you claim I show signs of the public one,

You have indicated that you disagree with the call-out culture of the public view of intersectionality. I'm more concerned with your affiliations with the original, Critical Race Theory, and its correlates.

call that and me racist and declare yourself winner then ramble on for 2 days,

I made an argument that it's racist. If you don't rebut it, then I guess I do win. I never declared such, I'm still waiting for your rebuttal.

I don't take slander so lightly as to be something you can politely sling and then correct later.

Well, I explained what I meant by racism, and how intersectionality is a racist pseudoscience, and how what you said struck me as racist aside from your claimed affiliations with intersectionality.

Not sure what I can do here. I already apologized for offending you, and corrected one aspect of my criticism when I realized it was based on you misunderstanding my argument and talking about something unrelated which I interpreted as a sexist claim.

You seem to be asking for quite a bit here. I'm not arguing "You're racist therefore a bad person therefore you're factually wrong and I win".
If you interpreted it like that, I don't know what to say.

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.

Note how you did not apologize for your original offensive comment seemingly equating of the struggles involving race with those around biological sex.
You brought up a red herring about men's pride instead. But let's unpack the second claim you made a bit anyway:

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.

This still sounds racist/sexist to me. I'm not trying to be difficult, but what you said sounds terrible.
Yes, what you said in attempt to defend your original claim just adds more offense.

You don't apologize, and then you dig yourself in deeper.

I made no comment on the legitimacy of anyone's identities or rights struggles.

To the contrary, that all sounds VERY much like questioning the legitimacy of people's identities and rights struggles when you make blanket claims about them being useless or that we don't need them. That was a horrible thing to say.

Seriously, does anybody else see this, or am I taking crazy pills?

It's like you said, "I'm not racist, but black people are the worst".
This is what you sound like. You can't qualify an apparently racist statement with a disclaimer that seems to be clearly contradicted in the statement itself and expect that to fly.

I'm perfectly willing to accept the possibility that you have communicated very poorly and don't have a racist bone in your body, but until you explain (or somebody else does it) to me to my satisfaction how these statements are not racist I can not in good faith take back my criticism.

The thing is, instead of apologizing and thinking about what you said and how it was offensive, you doubled down and tried to justify such different treatment with historical claims. I already argued against this based on the ancient racism of the Old Testament.

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.

What?
I feel like I've been very generous given how offensive some of the things you've said are. I'm trying to make arguments and have a discussion about this. You're preoccupied with who offended whom, and don't seem to be trying to see the other side of this at all.

I understand you feel slandered, but there's only so much I can say about that. Your claims struck me as racist, and they still seem racist now that I read them again. I'm starting to wonder why I tentatively retracted the claims about sexism (I think you have admitted that a liberal men's rights organization could be good?). Maybe the sting had worn off, but the things you said don't look any better in the light of day.

Can you be open to the possibility that some of the things you said were worded poorly and in such a way that they were just as offensive to me as my words were to you?
Be open minded to other people's perspectives and feelings.

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,

I was never defending white pride, I've only said that all pride movements are a problem. If you defend one pride movement and criticize others, that's a problem. You have to be able to substantiate the difference. Saying things like what you said IS commenting on the legitimacy of identity and personal struggles; if they are legitimate then they have social utility. No legitimate struggle or identity can can be inherently without social utility (it may just have a low utility, and have to be put on the back burner until we have more resources to address it; certainly not the case when we're addressing serious concerns of rights of half the population).

just a perfectly legitimate comment on the usefulness of conservative movements

No, it was a comment on white and male movements. If you spoke of conservative movements, I might have agreed (like saying poor people commit more crime and have lower IQs, as opposed to saying that of black people; the latter seems racist, the former is more unbiased).

A white pride movement will likely be correlated with conservativism, but is not necessarily. Such a movement could be progressive. I have a problem with any pride movement, because it's divisive. Men's rights is a very different thing, though (not men's pride) because there are real biological differences and males need advocates. Again, those issues are not inherently conservative.

Suggesting men's issues are inherently conservative and thus bad IS sexist, whether you couch that in the current cultural climate or not. Saying white issues are inherently conservative thus bad IS racist, whether you couch that in the current cultural climate or not.
This is the message I'm receiving from you.

A men's rights organization could easily be progressive and cut ties with harmful influences.

I agree we don't need white advocacy, but that's because I see no biological difference that justifies unique advocates for "races", and I'd say the same for any racial advocacy -- which is why I'm not racist, because I'm consistent in disagreeing with racial polarization. We need advocates for the poor, for men, for women, for real social or biological differences with evidence. For racial issues, we only need to forget race was ever invented and appeal to human rights.

I did my best to explain why what you're saying is racist. If I am mistaken about your views here, then I apologize for my inability to understand what you're trying to say. After multiple good faith attempts at deciphering anything different, all I can see is claims that appear to me to be racist in nature.

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.

I don't know what you just said. My argument was very specific, and it needed a response to the specific claims; speaking of the uniqueness of biological sex with respect to rights struggles. Drifting from that is liable to result in miscommunication.

There are two possibilities:

A. You are in fact not racist, and I don't understand what you're trying to talk about, you may or may not understand anything I'm saying.
B. I understand what you're saying, you misunderstand me, and you are in fact racist but do not realize it (innocently or accidentally racist, if you like).

Either way, I don't know how to bridge this communication gap. Perhaps you know another intersectionalist who can explain it in a very different way that I might have a better chance of following.
Or maybe somebody reading can identify the communication breakdown here.

I would like to believe that you are not racist, option A., and yet if you don't answer my arguments option B is all I can decipher, because obviously from my perspective I think I understand what you're saying.
I can not apologize for thinking I understand your key points and that I understand these to be racist beliefs any more than I can apologize for only seeing in three colors and thus perceiving the sky to be blue.

I have apologized for offending you. I don't think you will ever apologize for offending me.
We should probably just agree to disagree.

[NonZeroSum]

I don't know what you just said.

Then fucking ask me:

I don't think the men's rights movement is useful in its current incarnation, for the same reason I would argue against white rights movement or traditional marriage movement, too much supremacy fronting as pride!

This is not controversial you have said as much the same this about gutting it! I would say the same about tumble feminism, I would say the same about black nationalism, get off your fucking high horse!

I was never defending white pride

I never said you did, accept this is one massive misunderstanding and correct your slander of racist/sexist

The very original statement I was replying to that kicked off this whole mess was:

... hard to replace it with a better term/movement.

It's so fucking trivial it's beyond belief, I believe in groups addressing power disparities in a socialist context of reclaiming the fruits of their labour, and sharing equally according to need, mens rightists and womens rightests can be as offensive and adversarial as they like, I just reserve the right to judge how effective they're being by the time they spend addressing bringing into line power disparities, if the movement is primarily focused on holding onto an unfair power balance, I reserve the right to call that movement not needed/useful until it is reformed.

. . . whether someone who takes the precepts of intersectionality theory to heart whether original or public conception would be an ethical person,

Intersectionality is just one of the bad ones that weighs the scale toward evil, but just because you're intersectionalist doesn't in itself make you a horrible person.

Do you really think I didn't know that? Obviously it would interact with a number of other beliefs that would effect how they act, Hitler can be good to his dog, stop being pedantic and when you feel triggered by things you've already read, take a deep breath and understand why I've ordered quotes so you can read each statement of mine as I clarify it with more information:

... hard to replace it with a better term/movement

I read you saying the men's rights movement are the best advocates for men's right because they are hard to replace, I disagreed I think other humanist/socialist groups do a better job of advocating for men until the public image of MRM can get their act together. So I said:

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.

I don't think the men's rights movement is useful in its current incarnation, for the same reason I would argue against white rights movement or traditional marriage movement, too much supremacy fronting as pride!

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 read you thinking I was legitimising identities and oppressed socially constructed identity rights struggles, I didn't. So I said:

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.

Talking about conservative pride groups, not legitimising historically oppressed pride groups either, just literally being able to point at the evolved definitions of words out of disenfranchisement to counter the toxic part of rights groups concerned with pride.

Well, then you misunderstood my argument, which was about that.

I accept you wanted to talk about the legitimate niche based on physiology, I accept that, I don't accept that the movement can't be replaced with a short-term humanist spokesperson where it is thoroughly toxic for the pride element. So I said:

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.

Good, I hope with my abundant clarifications you will retract your claim to racism too, and think in future the usefulness of jumping the gun with labels however latent and harmless your definition.

[brimstoneSalad]

I don't think the men's rights movement is useful in its current incarnation, for the same reason I would argue against white rights movement or traditional marriage movement, too much supremacy fronting as pride!

To the extent it's about pride (which is harmful no matter what it's about) it's not about rights. Rights do not equal pride.

Again, you can not equate men's rights to white rights: "whiteness" is a made up thing, being male is not.
You should NOT argue against them in the same way, because they're very different.
Again, comparing them like this is offensive. Men's Rights has a valid purpose at its core, and the other is TOTALLY baseless and harmful.

You still don't seem to understand my argument about the distinction.

A movement is not just a movement like any other; there are foundational philosophies that can be valid or invalid regardless of the effects of the movement in practice.

MRAs talking about male pride are doing it wrong; it's probably a reaction against feminists shaming them (not that that's an excuse, but they share the blame for the backlash). That's not the foundation of the MRM.

You're making an unfair generalization, men's rights is huge and diverse, just as is feminism. There are very reasonable men's rights advocates mixed in with the assholes.
When it comes to men's rights, you seem happy to group the whole in together and say they're not needed or useful, but when it comes to feminism you go in with a scalpel and slice away only the bad. It's a double standard.
Men's pride is probably harmful (I think all pride is), the only use being making some people feel good while being divisive (ultimately causing more hurt and being counter productive even to the people who found it useful); I don't think we "need" any part of it. That is not men's rights.

In terms of men's rights, there's good in there, and there's certainly use. There's also some harm coming from some of them, but that's on account of their conservative beliefs, not on account of legitimate men's rights advocacy.
This isn't a no-true-Scotsman, if people are on about male pride, that has nothing to do with men's rights.

Are you trying to argue that, taken as a whole, men's rights activists do some good but do more harm than good?
Maybe that's true, and if you had said that it would have been less offensive (because at least you didn't imply it has no good use).
However, we could arbitrarily generalize the same about "black people" based on the crime rates. Again, it depends on how you slice things and what you blame.
Is it not racist to want to get rid of "black people" because of a generalization like that? How are you not doing the same thing, but to men's rights?

It needs reform, that doesn't mean there's not something good or important in there worth saving. You can't say it's all bad or useless or not needed. Just because some aspects are bad doesn't mean we don't "need" it or anything IN it. We very much need the primary principle of the movement; concern for men's legal interests in asymmetrical situations.

Your problem is with conservatism, so name the problem and criticize it and stop generalizing about men's rights when you don't want people doing the same to all of feminism.
Just as the social problem of crime is with poverty, poor education, malnutrition, etc. NOT black people. Blackness has nothing to do with it. There's no reason to name "blacks" as the cause unless you're a racist. It's not helpful. Just as there's no reason to fixate on men's rights as the problem.
We need to cut the cancers of conservatism and poverty out of the men's rights movement and out of the black community.
Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. My point is there there's value there, and not just value, but something basically irreplaceable.

The fact that you're generalizing and naming men's rights as the problem is at issue. I would take the same issue with people specifically calling out blacks rather than naming the true problem in poverty. You should be focusing on the actual problem, which is conservatism. There are probably a dozen ways men's rights goes against conservative values.

Off the top of my head I can name six:

1. The draft
2. Parenting rights
3. Abortion rights
4. Sexual liberation
5. Crime and punishment
6. Healthcare/insurance for dangerous jobs

This is not controversial you have said as much the same this about gutting it! I would say the same about tumble feminism, I would say the same about black nationalism, get off your fucking high horse!

A lot of the leaders and personalities in the movement are terrible. That doesn't mean we can do without dedicated advocacy for men's rights.
I have explained why feminism can not do this job; it can't just be replaced or subsumed by feminism. There are conflicts of interests there. I don't think equalism can do it either (I said maybe it could, but then it would be deceptive because it would have to favor men). It has to be fixed. We need men's rights organizations, by that name or by another name with the same core goal.

We need a Men's rights movement, whatever you want to call it. Call it XY Rights if you want instead.

When you say it is not useful or not needed, that's a judgement on the concept of men's rights. We do need the heart of the movement, it is useful at its core. It's essential. It's just a bit off track and needs course correction to be optimally effective.

If you had merely said something like:

"I think the current men's rights organizations do more harm than good, so they should be reformed or replaced with better men's rights organizations, but that we still need men's rights in a more pure form of advocacy minus the conservatism because the idea of men's rights is needed and useful."

Then I would have had no problem.
The problem was your framing, the generalizations, and your use of the words "need" and "useful" which come with weighty implications when you're generalizing like that.

I never said you did, accept this is one massive misunderstanding and correct your slander of racist/sexist

That's what I'm trying to do. But you need to confirm that you understand and agree with my criticism of what you originally said.

Do you agree that this represents your view, and that it would have been a better way to say what you were trying to say?

"I think the current men's rights organizations do more harm than good, so they should be reformed or replaced with better men's rights organizations, but that we still need men's rights in a more pure form of advocacy minus the conservatism because the idea of men's rights is needed and useful."

And do you agree that it's inappropriate to compare men's rights to white rights in this context, because the former has a legitimate purpose at its core if done properly, and the latter does not?

If so, then I can say that you are probably not sexist or racist as far as I can tell.

Except you just said this, and I'm very concerned about the implications:

I believe in groups addressing power disparities in a socialist context of reclaiming the fruits of their labour,

That's a problem. That means you may be OK with trampling the rights of groups who are otherwise "privileged" as long as it serves to equalize perceived discrepancies.

Observing that there are more rich white people and more poor black people, and thinking it's OK to violate people's rights in order to equalize that a bit (if that's what you believe), is racist.
There's nothing wrong with white people being rich and black people being poor. There's nothing wrong with black people being rich and white people being poor (in another world). What is wrong is that there are human beings who are poor.

If you see a mere shuffling of poverty that equalizes black and white poverty as an advance despite no decrease in the absolute ratio of poor to rich people, you are seeing the world in racial terms and you are probably being racist by promoting policies in an attempt to do this.

At the very best, you are being pragmatic because you're afraid of a rebellion if people observe these discrepancies, and so are supporting racist policies for non-racist reasons. This is my interpretation of ModVegan's position. I don't think she's racist, because she identifies preventing violent rebellion as one of her main reasons for being pro-intersectionalist.

I already argued against that; it's not the observation, but the rabble rousing and narrative of oppression that causes rebellions. Facts matter much less than compelling fictions. If anything is going to cause race riots, it's intersectionality; it does precisely the opposite of what ModVegan wants it to do.
So, I think she's wrong about that, but not racist.

So, if I understand you correctly, and if you support it for that reason (as ill informed as I think it is), I can say that lays my concerns to rest about you having racist beliefs (if you can confirm your agreement with my criticism in the prior section as well).

if the movement is primarily focused on holding onto an unfair power balance, I reserve the right to call that movement not needed/useful until it is reformed.

Really unfair generalization, and brings up all of the above concerns.

Assume the (not evidenced) gender wage gap is true: even if men did make more than women for "unfair" reasons, that doesn't justify not letting them see their children, and if you think it does, that's sexist, because you're faulting and punishing them for something unrelated to their performance as fathers.

Even people who are perceived to have more power overall (totally subjective, because this varies a lot based on what you value) can be wronged, and it doesn't nullify those wrongs or make them less tragic.
I don't disregard human rights just because animals have it worse. It may not be my focus, but I'm not calling it not needed or useless.

If you agree that having more power in some way doesn't make the other wrongs you suffer unimportant, and that this fixation on social power balance is inappropriate as a litmus test for whether somebody's rights matter, and that you are only concerned about this for fear of violent rebellion as I think ModVegan's argument was, then I would agree that this doesn't make you racist/sexist.

You have some things to clear up. I hope you'll be able to agree with my criticism so I can say definitively that you aren't racist/sexist. I hope you can understand my concerns more clearly either way.

[brimstoneSalad]

You edited your post since I started writing, haven't read the update yet... I'll try to respond to it later if needed. Although I hope I've clarified some things above.

[NonZeroSum]

I don't disregard human rights just because animals have it worse. It may not be my focus, but I'm not calling it not needed or useless.

So thy eyes doth not offend thee, I have happened upon an exquisite piece of literature that should be just to your taste:

"I think the current men's rights organizations do more harm than good, so they should be reformed or replaced with better men's rights organizations, but that we still need men's rights in a more pure form of advocacy minus the conservatism because the idea of men's rights is needed and useful."

If you agree that having more power in some way doesn't make the other wrongs you suffer unimportant, and that this fixation on social power balance is inappropriate as a litmus test for whether somebody's rights matter, and that you are only concerned about this for fear of violent rebellion as I think ModVegan's argument was, then I would agree that this doesn't make you racist/sexist.

Yes, only that's a massive reduction of the merits of changing the system to get rid of the fear and desire for violence.

You have some things to clear up. I hope you'll be able to agree with my criticism so I can say definitively that you aren't racist/sexist. I hope you can understand my concerns more clearly either way.

I'm sorry to say how much my respect for your intellectual character has dropped during this discussion.

I don't think the men's rights movement is useful in its current incarnation, for the same reason I would argue against white rights movement or traditional marriage movement, too much supremacy fronting as pride!

To the extent it's about pride (which is harmful no matter what it's about) it's not about rights. Rights do not equal pride.

Obviously.

Are you trying to argue that, taken as a whole, men's rights activists do some good but do more harm than good?
Maybe that's true, and if you had said that it would have been less offensive (because at least you didn't imply it has no good use).
However, we could arbitrarily generalize the same about "black people" based on the crime rates. Again, it depends on how you slice things and what you blame.
Is it not racist to want to get rid of "black people" because of a generalization like that? How are you not doing the same thing, but to men's rights?

It doesn't have a good use at the moment that's why don't need it in its current incarnation, disagreeing with the men's rights movement doesn't equal disagreeing with men's rights or letting them or black people go to genocide, how do I have to spell this out for you?

It needs reform, that doesn't mean there's not something good or important in there worth saving. You can't say it's all bad or useless or not needed. Just because some aspects are bad doesn't mean we don't "need" it or anything IN it. We very much need the primary principle of the movement; concern for men's legal interests in asymmetrical situations.

People calling themselves part of the men's rights movement hurt their cause more than they help it at the moment, they need to dissociate and wait for it to eat itself then join again as a distinct second wave aha, men's rights organisations within a humanist/socialist umbrella would always work for me.

The fact that you're generalizing and naming men's rights as the problem is at issue. I would take the same issue with people specifically calling out blacks rather than naming the true problem in poverty. You should be focusing on the actual problem, which is conservatism.

I said conservativism a bijillion times. Conservatives proclaiming themselves to be doing despicable things in the name of men's rights (when its really supremacy) is a big problem for genuine men's rights advocates.

and that it would have been a better way to say what you were trying to say?

I'm sorry but you're a piece of work.

If you see a mere shuffling of poverty that equalizes black and white poverty as an advance despite no decrease in the absolute ratio of poor to rich people, you are seeing the world in racial terms and you are probably being racist by promoting policies in an attempt to do this.

No, no universal shuffling as I explained before here:

Intersectional veganism (Unnatural vegan video)
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2944&start=20

[brimstoneSalad]

So thy eyes doth not offend thee, I have happened upon an exquisite piece of literature that should be just to your taste:

"I think the current men's rights organizations do more harm than good, so they should be reformed or replaced with better men's rights organizations, but that we still need men's rights in a more pure form of advocacy minus the conservatism because the idea of men's rights is needed and useful."

Excellent.

If you agree that having more power in some way doesn't make the other wrongs you suffer unimportant, and that this fixation on social power balance is inappropriate as a litmus test for whether somebody's rights matter, and that you are only concerned about this for fear of violent rebellion as I think ModVegan's argument was, then I would agree that this doesn't make you racist/sexist.

Yes,

Good.

only that's a massive reduction of the merits of changing the system to get rid of the fear and desire for violence.

Well, we disagree on that, but that doesn't make either of us racist or sexist.

It would have been nice if you had just clarified that your only allegiance to intersectionality and justice as such basically boiled down to ModVegan's consequential concerns for rebellion/violence.
You dismissed my explanation of her views as poor or something, so I didn't think you subscribed to that.

You have some things to clear up. I hope you'll be able to agree with my criticism so I can say definitively that you aren't racist/sexist. I hope you can understand my concerns more clearly either way.

I'm sorry to say how much my respect for your intellectual character has dropped during this discussion.

Well, I knew you were kind of impatient already. It would have been nice if you would have just addressed the original arguments from the start so we could have avoided all of this.

It doesn't have a good use at the moment that's why don't need it in its current incarnation,

Again, you're generalizing. It has good and bad effects.
The belief that the bad outweighs the good may be reasonable. The belief that there is no good is not, and it comes off very prejudicial.

People calling themselves part of the men's rights movement hurt their cause more than they help it at the moment, they need to dissociate and wait for it to eat itself then join again as a distinct second wave aha, men's rights organisations within a humanist/socialist umbrella would always work for me.

OK, why didn't you say that before?

Like a Freelee of veganism. I agree. However, I wouldn't say Freelee has done no good; just the good has probably been outweighed by bad.

Conservatives proclaiming themselves to be doing despicable things in the name of men's rights (when its really supremacy) is a big problem for genuine men's rights advocates.

Agreed. But there's also clearly some attempt at legitimate men's rights in there. I don't know how much you've talked to some of the more reasonable advocates.

and that it would have been a better way to say what you were trying to say?

I'm sorry

Apology accepted.

but you're a piece of work.

We all are. Why else would we be arguing on the internet?

If you see a mere shuffling of poverty that equalizes black and white poverty as an advance despite no decrease in the absolute ratio of poor to rich people, you are seeing the world in racial terms and you are probably being racist by promoting policies in an attempt to do this.

No, no universal shuffling as I explained before here:

Intersectional veganism (Unnatural vegan video)
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2944&start=20

I'm not sure what part you're referring to. Please elaborate.

I'm reasonably convinced you aren't a racist/sexist, I just wish you'd try to avoid such triggering language, particularly in light of your chosen associations with a racist/sexist ideology. I understand you are promoting it for very different (misguided pragmatic) reasons from most people, so that doesn't make you a racist/sexist. But you have to realize that it looks bad, and if you're going to vocally ally with that, you need to step very carefully to avoid being seen as a racist or sexist, and choose your words wisely when you're critical of things like men's rights, white pride, or any of the other hot button subjects we've touched on. It's very easy to be mistaken as a racist and a sexist if you do not adequately qualify your statements.

The same way, vegans need to be extra careful to qualify comparisons with animals and humans so we are not seen as misanthropic. It's our fault if we fail to adequately convey this to non-vegans, because we know that's expected due to the associations with other vegans they may have met or heard from.
Of course, this is even more the case with intersectionality, because veganism is not misanthropic by definition, while intersectionality is racist/sexist by definition. You have your work cut out for you to adequately qualify statements and basically walk on egg shells to avoid accusations of racism. And I would suggest growing a thicker skin to such accusations, because it's definitely not productive to react as you did with all of the cussing and personal insults.

[NonZeroSum]

you're a piece of work.

We all are. Why else would we be arguing on the internet?

Ghastly insight into your phi-life-sophy. Is Zzzzzzzzzzzzz your alter ego? I feel like LatentRacist would be a good troll account, to slander anyone you disagree with and waste 2 days rambling at them, making them crawl through fire to prove to you their philosophy isn't racist.

I'm reasonably convinced you aren't a racist/sexist,

I don't think I ever want engage with you as a serious discussion partner again, if me ignoring your posts is going to be a problem for the forum I should probably just grab my coat, let me know ay.

[brimstoneSalad]

you're a piece of work.

We all are. Why else would we be arguing on the internet?

Gastly insight into your philifesophy. Is Zzzzzzzzzzzzz your alter ego? I feel like LatentRacist would be a good troll account, to slander anyone you disagree with and waste 2 days rambling at them, making them crawl through fire to prove to you their philosophy isn't racist.

Now you're just being an asshole.

I apologized for offending you, despite your lack of apology for the same.
You've cussed at me numerous times, thrown a number of personal attacks unrelated to the topic at hand (I have only challenged your beliefs as racist/sexist and explained clearly what I meant).
Once you finally engaged enough to clarify the nature of your association with intersectionality and your position on those contentious topics (which was like pulling teeth to get you to do), I issued a correction. I even did so, to benefit you, before clearly establishing the facts because I saw how you misunderstood my argument.

I've done everything you've asked, and have been exceptionally tolerant. This immature behavior on your part does not make you look good.
Take a day or two to cool down, or at least sleep on it.

I don't think I ever want engage with you as a serious discussion partner again, if me ignoring your posts is going to be a problem for the forum I should probably just grab my coat, let me know ay.

We barely engaged in any discussion. You refused to respond to my arguments, and held hostage the conversation demanding an apology for my good faith interpretation of your beliefs (recall I was the one first offended here, which makes this all the more absurd).
The moment I could confirm we had miscommunicated and you did not in fact hold such racist/sexist views, I did just that. I can't apologize for misunderstanding something that was not presented clearly, but again I did apologize for offending you and I quickly cleared up the misinterpretation.

I wasn't the one cussing at and insulting you; I was challenging your belief system, the implications of which as you conveyed it at the time (to my understanding) were deeply offensive.

If you just avoid discussion on intersectionality you should be fine. This is all so silly. Take some time to cool off, then you might decide to apologize for losing your temper.

You're always welcome here. I am sorry we could not have a particularly productive discussion on this topic, but I should have guessed it would go down the drain (I had a feeling).

[NonZeroSum]

. . .the implications of which as you conveyed it at the time (to my understanding) were deeply offensive.

If you just avoid discussion on intersectionality you should be fine.

To you're misunderstanding, which I did everything to clarify, despite your long essays assuming what I believed even after admitting you didn't understand what you were replying too.

I want to know that it's okay to ignore your comments, and you wont take it as breaking the rules of the forum, if it is I'd like to know so I don't waste my time starting new threads and I'll just leave.

[brimstoneSalad]

To you're misunderstanding, which I did everything to clarify,

You didn't engage with the argument, which would have helped me understand much more quickly. You also could have apologized for offending me, as I did for you, and tried to clarify the issue by asking pointed questions to understand my concerns about racism/sexism better.

From my perspective you did very little beyond becoming angry and communicating increasingly poorly on the issue.

despite your long essays assuming what I believed even after admitting you didn't understand what you were replying too.

I said I didn't know what you meant by one of the last parts. I didn't assume because it was unclear.

We can argue about arguing, if you want. The bottom line is that there was a failure to communicate that neither of us knew how to bridge.

You may blame me for that failure, as you say I was making assumptions. I blame you for that failure because you were not engaging with the arguments I was making (many of them even conditional); had you done so it would have been immediately clear that certain assumptions I was making were not applicable here. I also blame you for saying things that rung racist without apologizing and then adequately clarifying the statements.
As I said, a similar burden applied to vegans saying things that may ring misanthropic; statements such as that must be padded with substantial and overwhelmingly clear qualifications (sometimes to the point of absurdity).

I don't think we're going to work out who was responsible for the miscommunication here, but your request for an apology for my good faith interpretation of your beliefs would presume it was my fault, something I don't agree with. I can only apologize for offending you, and I have done so.

I got offended at what you said, and my response was probably too harsh, and that offended you overly much. I apologize again. I probably should have taken more time to cool down after what you said. Anything that looks at all like racism kind of pisses me off. If I saw red and then was rude and offended you, that was my fault. I can only apologize for the way my argument was delivered, though.

Accept it or don't, that speaks only to your character, not mine.

I want to know that it's okay to ignore your comments, and you wont take it as breaking the rules of the forum, if it is I'd like to know so I don't waste my time starting new threads and I'll just leave.

Well, that would be very silly and immature.
Do whatever you want, man. In the odd chance you did get banned (I doubt it will happen), why would you care if you were going to leave anyway?
Like I said, though, you're always welcome here.