Hello! RE intersectionality amongst vegan peer group

[NonZeroSum]

Why would I accept it is a faith based position when it makes no supernatural metaphysical claims and simply factoring in different numbers into the consequentialist equation about what is necessary to get us to those good ends.

It's a matter of how you came to those numbers, and the degree of confidence in them which exceeds that which is warranted based on the evidence.

Neo-marxist or communist beliefs are ultimately faith based, because we don't have good examples of these systems working, or evidence based theory behind them; it's modeling based on speculation.

I'm not a neo-marxist, the libertarian socialist tradition pre-dates Marx and there are much better modern thinkers today, the dictatorship of the proletariat stuff never interested me. I'm more interested in the vast potential that was unleashed every time the playing field was nearly equaled out on healthcare, education, worker rights, civil rights etc.

Wanting a European style socialism is much less so, since we have examples of this, but we have to take into account the effect of that on commerce using mainstream economic theory (considering the economic problems Europe is suffering from).
Supporting basic income is not faith based, since there's broad and growing support for that among economists and growing evidence for its social utility.

There are sensible positions to hold moving in that direction, but the end goal of taking down capitalism is over-reaching.

As I showed with the definitions of democratic socialist and social democrat, the most prosperous European style socialism is the dismantling of capitalism's profit motive in favor of direct national and union control of the economy. That is what I fight for along with social attitudes to change which can happen dramatically quickly and make for more cohesive communities.

Agreed, it's entirely possible that some tumblr feminists or other has turned intersectionality into a dead dogma too toxic to associate with.

Do you agree it's better to err on the side of avoiding unnecessary labels when this may be the case?

Veganism has substantial cultural capital, but I don't fault Matt Ball for disagreeing about that. That's a tough call and I might have to defend my usage of the word to him if challenged.

It's not a tough call for me at all, living an authentic life, not in bad faith to my core philosophy is something that people can warm too, I don't believe in always pandering to the position nearest the centre, if we have some valuable piece of information to relay, it is a matter of trust that I stand my ground on all that encompasses.

Unfortunately Men's rights has utility, a meaningful niche, and it's hard to replace it with a better term/movement.

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.

The only reason to be an intersectionalist today is if you're into the whole "science must fall" racist pseudoscience.

Sensationalism galore aha.

Assume what I said of CRT is true and accurate: is that not something we should not only reject but also fight against?

Yes, but I don't assume it without evidence. Scientology is easily debunked because of it's supernatural claims without evidence of a sci-fi writer, from what I've read of CRT the controversy is over some misguided attempts to introduce deontological narratives to the court room, and maybe college campuses. The contractarian view of sub-conciously signing up for oppression doesn't sound without merit - http://www.mit.edu/~shaslang/papers/MillsAPA2.html#fnB2
https://coriwong.com/2013/09/15/thinking-the-unknown/

...we cannot assume that an account of what causes or sustains domination will at the same time provide us with a model of what is morally relevant (or morally repugnant) in dominance systems. In principle, dominance could be caused and sustained by accidents of nature and history; a dominance society might be something like a stick caught on a rock. What the dominance/exclusivist model does, however, is show us how--regardless of how we got or remain there--being stuck there is a gross violation of the ideal norms we aspire to live by. The dominance/exclusivist contract--understood as an "as if" story--does not give us a causal explanation of domination; but neither do causal accounts provide a description that engages our normative framework. There are two "descriptive" jobs to be done. And the dominance/exclusivist contract is impressive in accomplishing one of them.

...for the racial contract things are necessarily more complicated, the requirements of "objective" cognition, factual and moral, in a racial polity are in a sense more demanding in that officially sanctioned reality is divergent from actual reality. So here, it could be said, one has an agreement to misinterpret the world wrongly, but with the assurance that this set of mistaken perceptions will be validated by white epistemic authority, whether religious or secular.

Thus in effect, on matters related to race, the Racial Contract prescribes for its signatories an inverted epistemology, an epistemology of ignorance, a perticular pattern of localized and global cognitive dysfuntions (which are psychologically and socially functional), producting the ironic outcome that whites will in general be unable to understand the world they themselves have made. Part of what it means to be constructed as "white" (the metamorphosis of the sociopolitical contract), part of what it requires to achieve Whiteness. . . is a cognitive model that precludes self-transparency and genuine understanding of social realities. To a significant extent then, white signatories will live in an invented delusional world, a racial fantasyland, a "consensual hallucination," to quote William Gibson's famous characterization of cyberspace, though this particular hallucination is located in real space. [12] There will be white mythologies, invented Orients, invented Africas, invented Americas, with a correspondingly fabricated population, countries that never were, inhabited by people who never were-Calibans and Tontos, Man Fridays and Sambos-but who attain a virtual reality through their existence in travelers' tales, folk myth, popular and highbrow fiction, colonial reports, scholarly theory, Hollywood cinema, living in the white imagination and determinedly imposed on their alarmed real-life counterparts. [13] One could say then, as a general rule, that white misunderstanding, misrepresentation, evasion, and self-deception on matters related to race are among the most pervasive mental phenomena of the past few hundred years, a cognitive and moral economy psychically required for conquest, colonization, and enslavement. And these phenomena are in no way accidental, but prescribed by the terms of the Racial Contract, which requires a certain schedule of structured blindnesses and opacities in order to establish and maintain the white polity.

I don't agree with any of the conspiracy theories you attach to intersectionality and never have, for me with it's interest in the spectacle of social relations it is so clearly an existential study, one that can be achieved on the micro-level just by asking for more decent communication that is compassionate to the place that the person you're speaking to is coming from, and on the macro-level hopes to overturn all unfair biases in structures of governance to the market, consequentialists say that isn't a workable short-term goal, I'll go on promoting it as an ethical nihilist consciousness raising exercise, and carry on voting for reforms.

[brimstoneSalad]

As I showed with the definitions of democratic socialist and social democrat, the most prosperous European style socialism is the dismantling of capitalism's profit motive in favor of direct national and union control of the economy.

Can you show me how this is consensus among economists?

That is what I fight for along with social attitudes to change which can happen dramatically quickly and make for more cohesive communities.

I'm concerned with economic ruin from untested speculation, which destroys communities, lives, and civilizations.
I don't want another ill fated "great leap forward".

I don't believe in always pandering to the position nearest the centre,

It's not pandering, it's pragmatism, and following the evidence where there's evidence and refraining from making radical assertions where there isn't.
I don't follow any political ideology, I'm interested in what works.

if we have some valuable piece of information to relay, it is a matter of trust that I stand my ground on all that encompasses.

Trust, in other words: faith.
You assume this is the right course of action. Even, you assume this is valuable information at all. It could be based on bad evidence and be harmful.

Unfortunately Men's rights has utility, a meaningful niche, and it's hard to replace it with a better term/movement.

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.

It's relevant here, because it's at the foundation of this racist pseudoscience of intersectionalism.

We don't need any "pride", we need people to have as equal rights as physiologically possible.
Women and men are physiologically different in a way "different races" are not. One carries children, one does not.

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.

There aren't meaningful physiological differences between sexualities either. Only sex.
We do need gays and straights to have rights, but they don't need to be their own classes of rights because we're not dealing with differences in anatomy that need special consideration.

If gays can marry, so should straight people be able to. If straight people can marry, so should gay people be able to. But they don't need to be different: we can just call them human rights and say anybody can marry anybody they want to (of age).

We can not make the same equal determinations for things like abortion rights, because the situation is fundamentally unequal on the basis of biology.

This is why Women's rights and Men's rights have to be different things. Not in all domains of social function, but in those where there are meaningful physiological differences. The two sides need to come to compromises and results that, while they can't be equal in fact, are as close to that as possible and generally regarded as fair.


I can't believe I have to explain how sexes are difference but races are not.
This is a big problem with this racist intersectional pseudoscience; it brainwashes people into thinking "race" is just as real and meaningful as true physiological differences in sex. It isn't. Race is made up. Sex is a real difference with real social implications for human rights that have to be approached completely differently. Race can just be ignored in a colorblind society and we can wait for the racists to die out and socially discourage the practice of racism. Sex isn't going anywhere until we sterilize everybody at birth and use artificial wombs (to get started).

The only reason to be an intersectionalist today is if you're into the whole "science must fall" racist pseudoscience.

Sensationalism galore aha.

It's not sensationalist, from my perspective you just confirmed your adherence to it with your racist claims above, by equating physiological sex differences to differences in "race".

You owe the world an apology for ever buying into that racist pseudoscience and believing that sex and race were both equally real differences.
One is physiology, one is a social construct. They can not and must not be compared or equated in any socially meaningful way.

I can not put into words how offensive what you said is.

We can not end racism without ending the wicked ideologies of pseudoscience that support it like intersectionality and nazism.
I would argue against a nazi with the same fervor, and I see intersectionalists and nazis as two sides of the same racist coin.

I'm asking you to abandon intersectionality in order to abandon racism.

Yes, but I don't assume it without evidence.

Your own claims just provided evidence of the hidden racist ideology you may not even know you hold. To compare real physiological differences in sex to differences in race is horrible pseudoscience.

Scientology is easily debunked because of it's supernatural claims without evidence of a sci-fi writer,

They don't necessarily believe the claims are "supernatural", they think these are real parts of the physical world. That's just an intellectually dishonest way to wave them off. So is poisoning the well and engaging in ad hominem against the founder.
Intersectionality's claims are equally without credible evidence, and they stem from a similarly uncredible source.

...for the racial contract things are necessarily more complicated, the requirements of "objective" cognition, factual and moral, in a racial polity are in a sense more demanding in that officially sanctioned reality is divergent from actual reality. So here, it could be said, one has an agreement to misinterpret the world wrongly, but with the assurance that this set of mistaken perceptions will be validated by white epistemic authority, whether religious or secular.

Do you not see that this is just a more eloquent statement of "Science Must Fall!"?
The emperor has no clothes. Read this stuff more critically.
This kind of nonsense would be expected from Blackwell and AMP.
If all else fails, deny our capacity to experience objective reality and claim a grand delusion.

I don't agree with any of the conspiracy theories you attach to intersectionality and never have,

Then abandon intersectionality, stick with libertarian socialism, and stop promoting racist nutcases like APV.
When you adopt and promote a label like that you carry a great burden of defending its sins and pseudosciences.

one that can be achieved on the micro-level just by asking for more decent communication that is compassionate to the place that the person you're speaking to is coming from,

That's just effective activism.
You don't need intersectionality for that, it's an anchor that drags you down into the muck of racist pseudoscience from which it was born.

and on the macro-level hopes to overturn all unfair biases in structures of governance to the market,

We already aim for a colorblind system; you'll just need to show evidence of biases and we can find ways to fix them.
But intersectionality is against that, they don't think a colorblind system is enough. That's the problem.

consequentialists say that isn't a workable short-term goal,

A colorblind system is a great goal. What isn't workable is the racist pseudoscience of intersectionalists who want to overturn a system because of their conspiracy theories, tearing down science and government alike, and establish a world of racial quotas and traditional knowledge based in superstition rather than reality.

[NonZeroSum]

I'm not finding this productive again, you spent 10 paragraphs full of buzzwords responding to one sentence of mine, a faithful interpretation of our last conversation on the subject:

It's alright to alienate fringe groups to better appeal to the mainstream and intellectuals.

And all you do is light a 101 fires about what it means to be an intersectionalist that I can't possibly put out without going down a 101 rabbit holes about your definitions and its prescriptive implications.

Now your spending another over 10 paragraphs calling me a racist and saying I need to apologize to the world based on a wrong assumption.

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.

It's not sensationalist, from my perspective you just confirmed your adherence to it with your racist claims above, by equating physiological sex differences to differences in "race".

You owe the world an apology for ever buying into that racist pseudoscience and believing that sex and race were both equally real differences.
One is physiology, one is a social construct. They can not and must not be compared or equated in any socially meaningful way.

Historically meaningful, that's all, it's so mainstream I don't know how you missed what I was saying e.g. born into a country where abortions are illegal, colored skin people don't have equal civil rights, and those legacies today. ". . .hard to replace it with a better term /movement." I disagreed that the anti-feminist men's rights movement that sprung up in the west is useful. Not that men's rights don't need to be addressed, not that they aren't based on legitimate physiology or comparable to illegitimate racial differences or any of that.

So is poisoning the well and engaging in ad hominem against the founder.

Oh ffs, his science fiction writing is relevant to the discussion as his early fictional works filtered into his later metaphysical religious claims, as his mental state deteriorated, ask me what I mean before jumping to call fallacy.

Do you not see that this is just a more eloquent statement of "Science Must Fall!"?

No I think that is a really short sighted critique based on preconceived notions, I gave you the end of a summarised review of his philosophy to help if you didn't have time to read the quote in context.

[brimstoneSalad]

So is poisoning the well and engaging in ad hominem against the founder.

Oh ffs, his science fiction writing is relevant to the discussion as his early fictional works filtered into his later metaphysical religious claims, as his mental state deteriorated, ask me what I mean before jumping to call fallacy.

His fiction was inspired by deep knowledge intuited through his thetans. Obviously this is entirely consistent. We would expect a young prophet to question his intuitions and interpret them as artistic or fictional inspiration before later coming to terms with the ultimate reality they were revealing.

I can fill a page with a bullshit esoteric explanation too, just as easily as any Scientologist or Intersectionalist. It's all unfalsifiable bullshit of the same order of credibility.

Only Scientology is mostly harmless. Intersectionality is not.

You can't hold a double standard and criticize Scientology like that without holding up a mirror to your own dogmas.

I'm not finding this productive again, you spent 10 paragraphs full of buzzwords responding to one sentence of mine, a faithful interpretation of our last conversation on the subject:

It's alright to alienate fringe groups to better appeal to the mainstream and intellectuals.

That doesn't mean pandering, it means it's OK to NOT pander to the intersectionalists. The consequence of a fringe of a fringe being offended because we didn't yield to their irrational demands is acceptable. Let's instead be honest, intellectually consistent, and follow the science: this is what will reach those who matter most.

That said, I think we should make sure we have messages for Christians -- not fundamentalists, but moderates -- who make up a majority of the Western world. Despite the factual inaccuracies at the core of their beliefs, there's utility in that.

And all you do is light a 101 fires about what it means to be an intersectionalist that I can't possibly put out without going down a 101 rabbit holes about your definitions and its prescriptive implications.

Now your spending another over 10 paragraphs calling me a racist and saying I need to apologize to the world based on a wrong assumption.

This thread was started about intersectionality, what it is, its implications, and the arguments against it.

I didn't light 101 fires. Four or five, maybe.
I think you can address them if you have arguments.

If you believe that racial differences are comparable to sex differences, then yes, you're a racist.
Race is some made up bullshit social construct we would be better off rid of. Some day everybody will be various shades of brown and it won't be an issue. But there will probably still be males and females, as biology is not a social construct.

Historically meaningful, that's all,

Only to an historian.

Poverty is the cause of itself in the modern world; we need no conspiracies of racial subjugation, particularly in the developed world. It's carried on its own momentum, like a tire rolling down a hill. Trying to address the person who originally pushed the tire after his funeral is asinine; the tire will keep rolling even when it reaches the bottom of the hill (level ground) unless its momentum is arrested. You don't need to suppose some invisible man is continuing to push the tire along, or that the ground is still invisibly sloped.

Poverty causes poor nutrition and poor education, poor prenatal care, is associated with lead exposure and other diseases (like zika), all of which affect IQ and overall capacity to function in society, and it spills over into the next generation from there. There are even memetic aspects, like cultural assumptions of oppression which discourage making an effort (intersectionality only feeds these), and psychological disassociation between action and consequence that promotes criminality as a response to poor conditions.

Historical first causes that started the cycle are irrelevant to modern solutions. If there is any residual racism contributing meaningfully to the problem, it's so diminished by now that the effects don't show through all of the other primary issues of its momentum.
There are some hardcore racists, and it sucks (I would put Nazis and Intersectionalists in that basket, but I suppose you disagree on the latter); we either need to change their minds or wait for them to die. In the mean time there are real and VERY substantial issues to address which we know can bring people out of poverty and help end the cycle, and they have nothing to do with race. Poor white and black children alike are affected by poor prenatal nutrition, lead poisoning, and poor education; both are equally tragic.
If you favor helping poor black children as a priority and leaving the poor white children to languish in their "privilege" then you're racist. The hand of white colonialist patriarchy will not lift them up. White people live and die in poverty too, it knows no limits on skin pigmentation.

As far as human welfare goes, I don't care if all black people are poor and all white people are rich, or all white people are poor and all black people are rich: I care that people are poor period. We help people who are in bad circumstances, race should have nothing to do with it. The fact that historical oppression influenced that starting condition means nothing today, the only thing that matters is using evidence based solutions to solve poverty, not some invisible system conspiracy theorists have faith is behind it all.

colored skin people don't have equal civil rights

That's not true in most developed countries. The evidence for persecution lies along class lines, and it's due largely to IQ suppression and promotion of criminality in youth due to environmental factors associated with poverty.

There are sound reasons these people can not find stable employment; they are borderline retarded, unreliable, and often untrustworthy too.
There are terrible reasons for those attributes, and they trace back to the prenatal and childhood environment -- this is where you stop poverty. We have to intervene, regardless of race, to ensure children have the best chance they can get.

I disagreed that the anti-feminist men's rights movement that sprung up in the west is useful. Not that men's rights don't need to be addressed, not that they aren't based on legitimate physiology or comparable to illegitimate racial differences or any of that.

1. The term "Men's rights" is descriptive and hard to replace. It might make sense to gut the movement. But regardless of that:

2. Expecting Men's rights to not be anti-Feminist is a misunderstanding of adversarial politics.
In a trial, is the prosecution anti-defense? Is the defense anti-prosecution? In a sense, yes. And it must be for the system to work.
Men and Women need to negotiate with each other for compromises on issues where there is no clear means of equal treatment. There's no such thing as dividing abortion rights in half. We can't split this baby down the middle. In such a case, each side needs advocates.

The asinine claim of Intersectional feminists is that men should just trust them to decide which rights men can get. That's like the defense trusting the prosecution to cover both sides in the trial and be fair about it. I've heard intersectional vegans argue that men should be assumed guilty of rape if accused unless proven innocent.

No, men should not trust feminists. And NO, feminists should not be saddled with that responsibility even if men would trust them. Their job is to advocate for women's interests. If they don't do that, and the two sides are not at least somewhat adversarial, then they fail everybody.

The Men's rights movement is an example of a movement with serious problems, but that none-the-less has an important purpose.
Feminism, likewise, has an important purpose.

Intersectionality does not have such a purpose; like fundamentalist religion, it can just die off and we won't be for want of it, and the world will be better off.

Do you not see that this is just a more eloquent statement of "Science Must Fall!"?

No I think that is a really short sighted critique based on preconceived notions, I gave you the end of a summarised review of his philosophy to help if you didn't have time to read the quote in context.

I read the excerpts you posted. Like this:

Thus in effect, on matters related to race, the Racial Contract prescribes for its signatories an inverted epistemology, an epistemology of ignorance, a perticular pattern of localized and global cognitive dysfuntions (which are psychologically and socially functional), producting the ironic outcome that whites will in general be unable to understand the world they themselves have made.

From where I stand, it's rambling pseudo-intellectual jabber. The worst Christian apologetics are not half as bad. Modern art criticism isn't even that bad.
Don't assume I don't understand it: I understand that it's meant to sound smart, but it doesn't really mean much of anything.
"They muddy the water, to make it seem deep."

If you think it makes sense and he's arguing something different, then please, explain in your own words distilled into something transparent. Give me a clear explanation of "what fabric the Emperor's clothes are made from". Correct me, but make an argument.

Also, have you read Dianetics in full?
If not, is your critique of Scientology short sighted?

I've read of intersectionality what I needed to in order to understand the basis of it, I don't need to spend my life buried in that pseudo-intellectual nonsense, I don't need to go to invisible fashion design school to see the emperor is naked.
What you've given me hasn't helped; I can smell the trappings of the same racist pseudoscience in that.

It's easy to make assertions like you have, but you need to back them up with arguments. I need to hear them from you so that I know you fully understand and can represent what you're saying clearly and answer questions about it.

[NonZeroSum]

I said in the other thread after re-reading an essay on the critical theory tradition I can understand your objections to it being deontological in nature,

Scientology is easily debunked because of it's supernatural claims without evidence of a sci-fi writer, from what I've read of CRT the controversy is over some misguided attempts to introduce deontological narratives to the court room, and maybe college campuses. The contractarian view of sub-conciously signing up for oppression doesn't sound without merit

As an evolutionary ethicist I would also put it in terms of memetics, but I can understand and appreciate the contractarian model Mills was putting forward for its descriptive capability, hence the favorable review from a fellow universalist - http://www.mit.edu/~shaslang/papers/MillsAPA2.html#fnB2
and existentialist - https://coriwong.com/2013/09/15/thinking-the-unknown/

You don't need to agree with my entire philosophy to not jump down my neck calling fallacy or racist at me every time I make a very mainstream point about power relations and history or how religions are made.

My point was simply whenever you have a group of people getting together to protect their perceived in group identity interests which correspond with on average holding the majority of power either now or historically, it becomes deeply conservative and toxic in my eyes, not that I think they have it good across the board or those parties like the republicans don't also prey on the most impoverished, misguided populations. You thought I needed to apologise to the whole world based on a misunderstanding, I'm still waiting for just your apology for calling me a racist, so we can have a civil discussion.

Chris: What do you do at a Young Republicans meeting?
Alyssa: We help those who already have the means to help themselves. Also, we perpetuate the idea that Jesus chose America to destroy non-believers and brown people.
Chris: I don't know why, but I feel safer already.

- Family Guy


Wikipedia: Being proud of your race is fine, unless you're white ... in which case you're RACIST
http://m.imgur.com/gallery/07QX9xD

1. Gay isn't a race, 2. This is a definition of a term in the context of culture. This isn't hard to figure out.
- AutoTomato

[brimstoneSalad]

I said in the other thread after re-reading an essay on the critical theory tradition I can understand your objections to it being deontological in nature,

That's the problem I have with Francione or Kant, but that's the tip of the iceberg when it comes to intersectionality. The most prevalent problem I have with intersectionality is that it IS fundamentally racist at its core. Deontological belief systems can be accidentally more or less harmless depending on how they're aligned, but intersectionality is aligned in precisely a way to cause maximal harm. It's insidious, it wears two faces and it creeps into the belief systems of people who want to be anti-racist, making them the worst and most harmful kind of racists instead.

Nazis, the KKK, and other groups are transparently racist; nobody is falling for these anymore, and they're in their death throes. Intersectionality is a very different kind of threat.

You don't need to agree with my entire philosophy to not jump down my neck calling fallacy or racist at me every time I make a very mainstream point about power relations and history or how religions are made.

Just because the racism you are promoting is "mainstream" (within the fringe, or academics, at least) doesn't excuse it.
I take offense at racism regardless of its popularity or the guise it comes in.

My point was simply whenever you have a group of people getting together to protect their perceived in group identity interests which correspond with on average holding the majority of power either now or historically, it becomes deeply conservative and toxic in my eyes,

Of course if they already hold power it's conservative to maintain it. But any group thinking becomes toxic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RC-Cqkq6zWc

We need to break down imaginary barriers/identities and sources of "pride" like race, nationality, and religion. They're unnecessary and divisive. Promote values like humanism and even sentientism instead.

"Pride" is a classical sin for a reason. It's not the pride of hard work that's the problem, it's OK to feel good for doing a good job, it's this unearned pridefulness and obsession with identity that's the problem.

You thought I needed to apologise to the whole world based on a misunderstanding, I'm still waiting for just your apology for calling me a racist, so we can have a civil discussion.

If you can convince me that you are not a racist by addressing my arguments, sure.
From my perspective you have said some very racist things, and you're supporting a fundamentally racist ideology.

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.

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.

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.

1. Gay isn't a race, 2. This is a definition of a term in the context of culture. This isn't hard to figure out.
- AutoTomato

It's not hard to figure out that this is an apologia of group think and racist/sexist/etc. prejudice.
It doesn't have to be a race, sexism and orientationism are the same sort of bigotry when they are not substantiated.
The difference is that variable treatment based on biological sex CAN sometimes be substantiated due to biological differences in reproduction, and rarely possibly so can the differences in intercourse substantiate slightly different treatment of gays (like blood donation, due to possibly higher risk of disease transmission from unsafe sex vs. similar practice in heterosexuals, this is debatable though).

I understand that pride movements are a reaction to shaming. Psychologically, it makes sense. But two wrongs don't make a right.
There is nothing good about being black or gay compared to white, asian, straight, or asexual: these are neutral. We just need to help society understand that there's nothing bad about it.
When things like pride "gay is good" "black is good" [implicitly that means it's better than straight/white] are promoted as a reaction against shaming, that just causes another counter-reaction from the other side which escalates, then a counter-counter reaction (like black supremacy, and literal white genocide... and there may even be a couple of "gay supremacists" out there [although I can't find them]).

When somebody wrongs you by saying you are less than they are, you don't return the insult and expect that to even things out, you correct them and remind them of your equality. Pride is a misstep in that process which only makes the situation more difficult in the long run.

[DarlBundren]

The difference is that variable treatment based on biological sex CAN sometimes be substantiated due to biological differences in reproduction

Have you ever heard of 'legal abortion'? It sounds like a good idea to me. Too bad they have also associated themselves with those other idiotic causes.
https://www.rt.com/news/334720-legal-male-abortion-sweden/

[NonZeroSum]

It's insidious, it wears two faces and it creeps into the belief systems of people who want to be anti-racist, making them the worst and most harmful kind of racists instead.

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?

You don't need to agree with my entire philosophy to not jump down my neck calling fallacy or racist at me every time I make a very mainstream point about power relations and history or how religions are made.

Just because the racism you are promoting is "mainstream" (within the fringe, or academics, at least) doesn't excuse it.
I take offense at racism regardless of its popularity or the guise it comes in.

Can you accept that your original call to racist was based on a misunderstanding, when I was talking about subjective power relations?

My point was simply whenever you have a group of people getting together to protect their perceived in group identity interests which correspond with on average holding the majority of power either now or historically, it becomes deeply conservative and toxic in my eyes,

Of course if they already hold power it's conservative to maintain it. But any group thinking becomes toxic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RC-Cqkq6zWc

We need to break down imaginary barriers/identities and sources of "pride" like race, nationality, and religion. They're unnecessary and divisive. Promote values like humanism and even sentientism instead.

"Pride" is a classical sin for a reason. It's not the pride of hard work that's the problem, it's OK to feel good for doing a good job, it's this unearned pridefulness and obsession with identity that's the problem.

I don't disagree, that wasn't my point, am I still a racist based on your misunderstanding?

You thought I needed to apologise to the whole world based on a misunderstanding, I'm still waiting for just your apology for calling me a racist, so we can have a civil discussion.

If you can convince me that you are not a racist by addressing my arguments, sure.
From my perspective you have said some very racist things, and you're supporting a fundamentally racist ideology.

Mott - From my perspective you have said some very racist things,
Bailey - and you're supporting a fundamentally racist ideology.

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.

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.

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, said I don't think we need conservative groups, MRM, you confused that with men's rights, you can own up to your mistake so we can have a proper conversation or you can keep poisoning the well.

1. Gay isn't a race, 2. This is a definition of a term in the context of culture. This isn't hard to figure out.
- AutoTomato

It's not hard to figure out that this is an apologia of group think and racist/sexist/etc. prejudice.

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'.

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.

[brimstoneSalad]

The difference is that variable treatment based on biological sex CAN sometimes be substantiated due to biological differences in reproduction

Have you ever heard of 'legal abortion'? It sounds like a good idea to me. Too bad they have also associated themselves with those other idiotic causes.
https://www.rt.com/news/334720-legal-male-abortion-sweden/

I've heard of it. There are many proposed ideas, and they all have strengths and weaknesses. I only assert that each side needs representation to come to reasonable compromises, since no solution is perfect.

I'm not really prepared to comment on the solutions themselves. It's not really my battle.

[NonZeroSum]

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.