okhowaboutnow wrote: ↑Mon Aug 13, 2018 12:14 pmBut as far as the position advanced is concerned, I'm enough of a believer in science that I am not worried about her tearing it down, lol.
I'm not worried about science, more that these notions could lead marginalized people AWAY from pursuing science in favor of pursuing voodoo etc. as their cultural "sciences", which is harmful to them. If only white people get legitimate science and other races are saddled with superstition instead and reject actual science as "colonized" then that will only reinforce white dominance/income disparity/etc.
The same applies to other things derived from critical race theory, like promotion of ebonics based on the idea that language is somehow genetic and black people just can't keep up trying to use white language. That would be fine, except that a language barrier would only worsen the cultural divide (rich white employers aren't going to hire or pay workers as much when they can't communicate with them).
okhowaboutnow wrote: ↑Mon Aug 13, 2018 12:14 pmSo, if she wants to take the results of "western science" and try to throw them out the window, and instead try to prove how a witch doctor really is able to call down a lightning strike on someone miles away, she should be allowed to try.
I'm not saying she shouldn't be allowed to, but it's unethical for her to waste her time on it when she could be doing something productive instead, and worse to drag other students into the endeavor.
There are certain attitudes that create ACTUAL inferiority, and rejecting science is one of them. Thankfully, it's not genetic and we can oppose these concepts that are helping to KEEP marginalized people marginalized by sabotaging the potential for upward mobility that education offers.
okhowaboutnow wrote: ↑Mon Aug 13, 2018 12:14 pm
You lost me. Who says black people are not capable of functioning as equals in white society due to racial/biological facts?
Ethnonationalists and critical race theorists, who essentially believe the same things.
okhowaboutnow wrote: ↑Mon Aug 13, 2018 12:14 pmThe second part is what I understand CRT to be saying: that they are kept from being able to function as equals in white society because of socioeconomic forces that are imposed through systems of law and practice that hold them down in a multiplicity of ways.
That is not my understanding. I understand they recognize that, but it's not limited to that. They oppose colorblindness etc. on that basis that the WAY in which white society operates, even if white and black children start out with equal opportunity in a colorblind world, marginalizes blacks because the nature of white society rewards white ways of thinking. White language, white science, white economics, etc.
okhowaboutnow wrote: ↑Mon Aug 13, 2018 12:14 pmNow if you disagree that we live in a "white society" or in other words that systemic racism is real, please come out and say that directly.
Depends on how you define it; of course we have a lot of inherited racism. A lot of society is NOT color blind yet, individuals and business owners contribute personal racism that has a systemic effect. Black children start on unequal footing due to disparate school funding because of the way districting works, poorer neighborhoods, lead exposure, etc.
This isn't where critical race theory claims end, though.
But let's say we manage to throw out all of that extra baggage and stick to the systemic issues that are recognized by the mainstream:
okhowaboutnow wrote: ↑Mon Aug 13, 2018 12:14 pmFirst, it is possible to understand deep connections in mindset between the forces that lead to racism, speciesism, sexism, ableism, etc and not need your novice to comprehend it all all at once. In fact, it doesn't matter if he or she never understand it (though if intersectionality is describing a true phenomenon, in time they likely MIGHT understand as a matter of their expanding compassion to others...)
Then in what way is that intersectional activism?
okhowaboutnow wrote: ↑Mon Aug 13, 2018 12:14 pmSecond, as someone who is experiencing within himself the connections provided by an intersectional approach and by intersectional thinkers, I strongly believe that the people you are most likely to convert are the people who are deeply attached to these other causes.
That's possible, and if I'm advocating to a feminist I might mention the parallels, but that doesn't make my activism intersectional, it makes it context aware and effective.
I agree you'll generally have more luck with liberals as well, but that's just a matter of being smart about using your time.
I don't see how any of that is intersectional.
okhowaboutnow wrote: ↑Mon Aug 13, 2018 12:14 pmSo I respect your valuing of diplomacy but if, like Unnatural Vegan, you believe that you may need to partner with racists in order to promote the vegan cause, I say, show me this ethical vegan racist! (Is it you?)(That's a sincere question I would have for her actually.)
I think overt racism is harmful to the vegan movement. It's not because I'm intersectional, but because racism just isn't popular. Vegan Nazis create associations with veganism and Nazism; Nazism is harmful to any cause it associates with.
Please see this article for more details:
wiki/index.php/Racism_in_Veganism
You might have to ask
@NonZeroSum about UV, he knows her videos better than I do. She has opposed Nazis in the past IIRC, but I'm sure he can link or drop some relevant quotes.
I can say if we were advocating veganism a couple hundred years ago, I would not push against racism in the vegan movement because virtually everybody was racist, and that would be counter productive.
Does that mean I'm indifferent to racism? Absolutely not, I find it disgusting. But I want to do the most good, and mixing causes isn't the way to do that. I might also participate in anti-racism stuff, but mixing the two only makes each cause more difficult to advocate for and find allies.
I just don't think a vague sense of "These are all bad things stemming from some vague shared notion of abuse" qualifies as intersectionality. That's kind of along the lines of Christians saying "Well you believe in love, right? God is love, so you're a Christian too!"
Any movement or ideology needs to have a definition both coherent and unique enough to distinguish it meaningfully from what it isn't. Claiming retroactive encapsulation of everything else seems to defeat the point of a movement.