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.brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2017 1:10 amIt'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.NonZeroSum wrote: ↑Wed May 31, 2017 6:08 pm 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.
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.
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.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.
Do you agree it's better to err on the side of avoiding unnecessary labels when this may be the case?NonZeroSum wrote: ↑Wed May 31, 2017 6:08 pm Agreed, it's entirely possible that some tumblr feminists or other has turned intersectionality into a dead dogma too toxic to associate with.
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.
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.Unfortunately Men's rights has utility, a meaningful niche, and it's hard to replace it with a better term/movement.
Sensationalism galore aha.The only reason to be an intersectionalist today is if you're into the whole "science must fall" racist pseudoscience.
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#fnB2Assume what I said of CRT is true and accurate: is that not something we should not only reject but also fight against?
https://coriwong.com/2013/09/15/thinking-the-unknown/
Sally Haslanger wrote:...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.
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.Charles Mills wrote:...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.