What? No. No single belief, good or bad, is on its own likely to make somebody an ethical or unethical person.NonZeroSum wrote: ↑Sat Jun 03, 2017 8:49 pm 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,
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 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.
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.NonZeroSum wrote: ↑Sat Jun 03, 2017 8:49 pm call that and me racist and declare yourself winner then ramble on for 2 days,
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.NonZeroSum wrote: ↑Sat Jun 03, 2017 8:49 pm I don't take slander so lightly as to be something you can politely sling and then correct later.
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.
Note how you did not apologize for your original offensive comment seemingly equating of the struggles involving race with those around biological sex.NonZeroSum wrote: ↑Sat Jun 03, 2017 8:49 pmI 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.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.
You brought up a red herring about men's pride instead. But let's unpack the second claim you made a bit anyway:
This still sounds racist/sexist to me. I'm not trying to be difficult, but what you said sounds terrible.NonZeroSum wrote: ↑Sat Jun 03, 2017 8:49 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. 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.
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.
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.NonZeroSum wrote: ↑Sat Jun 03, 2017 8:49 pm I made no comment on the legitimacy of anyone's identities or rights struggles.
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.
What?NonZeroSum wrote: ↑Sat Jun 03, 2017 8:49 pm 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.
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.
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).NonZeroSum wrote: ↑Sat Jun 03, 2017 8:49 pm 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,
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).NonZeroSum wrote: ↑Sat Jun 03, 2017 8:49 pm just a perfectly legitimate comment on the usefulness of conservative movements
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.
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.NonZeroSum wrote: ↑Sat Jun 03, 2017 8:49 pm 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.
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.