Intersectional veganism (Unnatural vegan video)

[brimstoneSalad]

Yeah obviously dont see it that way at all, because I didnt hear absolutist statement, I heard her explaining in the context of intersectional theory, putting the appropriate precautions in place encase the first hand testemony of the victim is true, to believe them in principle until it can be proven diffinetively or disproved.

What if a straight white rich male claims to be the victim of oppression because of being straight, or white, or rich, or male (or all of those)? Do you believe that person until it can be proven definitively or disproved?

The problem is the presumption that people who are basically pre-qualified as victims are not only truthful but that their analyses of the situation are correct. This is only compounded by the difficulty of proving or disproving anything in this domain.

In a court trial, the accused is innocent until proven guilty regardless of race, class, sex, etc.
When that presumption shifts by default, that is racism, sexism, etc. It doesn't matter if it's for or against a particular "race" or sex.

In legal practice, it doesn't always work as well due to jury bias, etc., but the principle must be equitable. Practice is harder, and will take more work. But reversing all of these assumptions in a social sense doesn't help balance the scales, it just provokes more resentment. We've seen that with how despite it being a vocal minority SJW culture has galvanized opposition so strongly online and offline.

Intersectional theory is necessarily critical of absolute victimhood because of the interconnected nature of oppression,

That's not what I'm talking about.
I understand intersectionality will say a black man is oppressed due to race but not due to sex (or even is part of the oppressing class in that axis).
I'm talking about any specific case -- any specific axis.

It's a form of poltical organisation that people engage with because they find it useful,

I have a problem with people finding a belief system "useful" when it has not been proved.
We can't just assume something works.

it exists on a political spectrum that some politicians pay lip service to and is relatively new so it is yet to be tested as the dominant political reality,

Which is why we should not jump to conclusions. This is a cause to do more research, not to declare it useful.

social movement wins give us at least a facade of civil engagement outside the ballot box that if it wasnt there would put into question representative democracy, and leave the door wide open to militancy.

That's fine as a hypothesis. Such claims are very difficult to demonstrate and prove. It verges on the unfalsifiability of a religion.
If you assume it's useful for this reason, why is a fundamentalist Christian any more wrong in assuming that "fixing" gays is useful to enact the kingdom of God and maintain social order (Avoiding a Sodom and Gomorrah incident)?

[NonZeroSum]

I think it is very narrow minded thinking that everyone who wants to set an example by living a vegan lifestyle, or to put pressure on institutions through campaigning or government through the ballot box, necessarily has to subscribe primarily to this one materialist philosophy.

You do realize the title of the video is "Why I'm not an intersectional/social justice vegan", right?

Sure, but I'm addressing it in this way because UV says "it's not something I will be addressing in the upcoming videos because I think intersectionality in general is problematic not just intersectional veganism..."

It is interesting that the utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer who UV borrows some of their ideas from, was someone who taught firebombing en masse. McAllister Groves who spent time studying an animal rights group that rejected emotional arguments for veganism argued that through a cold embrace of emotional neutrality they were more likely to legitimise violent forms of protest as a means to an end. [4]

I don't know where you're getting that. You may be mixing up Peter Singer and Steven Best, or something.

Damn you're right, that's so weird. I remembered watching a documentary about an Australian university philosopher who constantly had to fight off legal charges from his youth as an ALF militant. Just attributed it to Singer, don’t know then. The McAllister study though was really interesting and something APV picked up on about militant veganism; vegans that are dogmatic because they have their blinkers on to emotional protest narratives of other causes, because they believe one cause is at the root of the human problem, are more likely to feel justified in using more extreme violent protest tactics to put an end to it.

Historically there are many examples of dictatorships causing famines by taking food stocks by the barrel of a gun to feed the inner party, and empires doing the same by reaping all the resources of its colonies like the Irish and Burmese Famines. It is true that even people in gulags cried over the death of the great patriarch Stalin, just as some colonial subjects accepted the master's methods as natural.

I don't know how that's relevant to the quote.
Can you address the thought experiment directly?

The point was to show that there are examples of "justice" that would have negative outcomes.
Do you disagree?

No but I disagree with how the thought experiment is useful. It tells you what you would do in an extreme situation, like you would eat animals if you were starving. However, it's not a basis for a universalist justice system and not intersectionality’s purpose. Either way UV was making a specific claim about how ideological purity was harnessed to do harm in history through authoritarian communism. It just means activists for social change should be wary of authoritarianism wherever it rears its head and be willing to call it out, which means stepping out of single issue advocacy.

Yeah obviously don’t see it that way at all, because I didn’t hear absolutist statement, I heard her explaining in the context of intersectional theory, putting the appropriate precautions in place encase the first hand testimony of the victim is true, to believe them in principle until it can be proven definitively or disproved.

What if a straight white rich male claims to be the victim of oppression because of being straight, or white, or rich, or male (or all of those)? Do you believe that person until it can be proven definitively or disproved?

Yes it's just we're dealing with averages here, it's a theory about how being a member of these privileged identities means you've historically held the majority of power in institutions, society is more inclined to already trust your version of events. That's why Rosa Parks was chosen to do the civil protest not standing up on the bus after someone less socially dignified had already been locked up for doing the exact same and not getting the same coverage. It's an attempt to be cognizant of these internal biases before judging, staying 'agnostic'.

social movement wins give us at least a facade of civil engagement outside the ballot box that if it wasn’t there would put into question representative democracy, and leave the door wide open to militancy.

That's fine as a hypothesis. Such claims are very difficult to demonstrate and prove. It verges on the unfalsifiability of a religion.
If you assume it's useful for this reason, why is a fundamentalist Christian any more wrong in assuming that "fixing" gays is useful to enact the kingdom of God and maintain social order (Avoiding a Sodom and Gomorrah incident)?

It would absolutely be useful to conservative Christians to get gays to consider their actions degenerate so as to produce a more homogenous society that accepts the law and order of the church. That would be their version of civil engagement. We have to fight against those narratives by creating other ones, for example, about how letting in refugees fleeing ISIS will be a great help in the fight for peace ahead as they'll be able to testify against the dangers of fundamentalist religion. It's important that we understand and describe the world in the competing narratives of liberation and conservativism, as intersectionalist’s do with their interest in the psychology of identity affiliation.

[brimstoneSalad]

You do realize the title of the video is "Why I'm not an intersectional/social justice vegan", right?

Sure, but I'm addressing it in this way because UV says "it's not something I will be addressing in the upcoming videos because I think intersectionality in general is problematic not just intersectional veganism..."

Well, she would, being a consequentialist.

We can talk about consequentialism if you want. It may be important to establish that as background.
Have you read this thread?
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=785

The McAllister study though was really interesting and something APV picked up on about militant veganism; vegans that are dogmatic because they have their blinkers on to emotional protest narratives of other causes, because they believe one cause is at the root of the human problem, are more likely to feel justified in using more extreme violent protest tactics to put an end to it.

The militant vegans I have met have had inconsistent ethics.
Deontological when it suits them to declare harming animals absolutely wrong, and then consequentialist to justify the actions to prevent that harm, then deontological again to ignore the negative effects of those actions on the movement.
They just typically haven't thought about it much.

Pragmatic consequentialists understand that violence undermines the movement and hurts the cause. Our activism must be sympathetic to the general public, because we must win them over to have them on our side.

Consequentialists are not blind to other issues, they just understand them in perspective.

No but I disagree with how the thought experiment is useful.

Thought experiments like this are frequently used to examine compatibility and consistency of ethical premises.

It tells you what you would do in an extreme situation, like you would eat animals if you were starving.

It examines underlying ethical beliefs.
Extremes are useful, and issues like this come up in reality. See parsimony.
The mere decision of how to allocate public funds can save or cost lives, and if done on the basis of justice rather than which way will save the most lives, that's an issue, and it will kill people.

However, it's not a basis for a universalist justice system and not intersectionality’s purpose.

I disagree with that. Intersectionality is both descriptive and prescriptive, and the prescriptions it makes insist on justice. It makes no provisions for pragmatic evaluation of harm.
If you aren't of that mindset, then I think you are not truly a follower of intersectionality or social justice; you just use them when it suits you.
And that's fine, or it would be if not for the tendency to breed extremists who actually follow through on that mindset.

The problem with the militant intersectionalists or SJWs is not that they are using it wrong, it's they they are following through on its teachings to their logical conclusions.

Much like you argued that consequentialism leads to a certain high propensity for violence when you misunderstood Singer (I disagree with the suggestion), I think a justice-based mindset really does lead to harm.

It just means activists for social change should be wary of authoritarianism wherever it rears its head and be willing to call it out,

You say that like it's easy.

which means stepping out of single issue advocacy.

No it doesn't. It means being pragmatic, not dogmatic.
Single issue advocacy can be very effective, and abandoning it is a kind of harm in itself.

Yes it's just we're dealing with averages here, it's a theory about how being a member of these privileged identities means you've historically held the majority of power in institutions, society is more inclined to already trust your version of events.[...]It's an attempt to be cognizant of these internal biases before judging, staying 'agnostic'.

Such mindset is inherently prone to create a bias, not cancel one out. That only increases resentment.
The problem of a lack of hard evidence in the social sciences only magnifies this, along with the general culture and peer pressure of social justice circles.

Sticking to hard evidence only, and being skeptical of your own beliefs enough to challenge the credibility of evidence the confirms what you thought already, is how you can fix this. But I see no attempt at that kind of skeptical hard-science mindset among social justice advocates. It's just a rhetoric engine.

In theory, this is one thing that could be fixed in the social justice community, but in practice I would expect a lot of resistance, particularly as there's a growing voice challenging science itself as white/colonial etc.
It's an uphill battle. My recommendation is to abandon the movement for pragmatism, which is founded in consequentialism and is more philosophically sound anyway.

It would absolutely be useful to conservative Christians to get gays to consider their actions degenerate so as to produce a more homogenous society that accepts the law and order of the church.

This sounds like an assumption, but let's say it is.
Does that make it right for them to do that?

We have to fight against those narratives by creating other ones,

Why? Why bother if it's just rhetoric against rhetoric, and nobody is coming to the table with facts?
How can you claim to be right? Just based on your feels against theirs?

[NonZeroSum]

(sorry I must be hitting quote accidently instead of edit, deleted duplicate)

[NonZeroSum]

Well, she would, being a consequentialist.

This is very puritanical hard consequentialism though, not valuing any other philosophical system as useful to individuals trying to live an ethical life. Even bad for the cause veganism.

Have you read this thread?
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=785

I have now yes, thanks.

Consequentialists are not blind to other issues, they just understand them in perspective.

Yes a very narrow one. You have to admit that the wedding of at least some virtue ethics to consequentialism helps describe why we are drawn to spontaneous emotional protest narratives. Why a street vendor lighting himself on fire because of the indignity of being brutalised by the police, sparked the reaction it did across the Arab world.

Thought experiments like this are frequently used to examine compatibility and consistency of ethical premises.

Sure the universality of one’s normative ethical premises, but radical egalitarians eschew the normative for meta-ethics, nomadic or nihilist ones; "nihilists seek to discredit and/or interrupt all universalist and relativist responses to the question of place ... nihilists are critics of all that currently exists and they raise this critique against all such one-sided foundations and systems." [1]

However, it's not a basis for a universalist justice system and not intersectionality’s purpose.

I disagree with that. Intersectionality is both descriptive and prescriptive, and the prescriptions it makes insist on justice. It makes no provisions for pragmatic evaluation of harm.
If you aren't of that mindset, then I think you are not truly a follower of intersectionality or social justice; you just use them when it suits you.
And that's fine, or it would be if not for the tendency to breed extremists who actually follow through on that mindset.

The problem with the militant intersectionalists or SJWs is not that they are using it wrong, it's they they are following through on its teachings to their logical conclusions.

Much like you argued that consequentialism leads to a certain high propensity for violence when you misunderstood Singer (I disagree with the suggestion), I think a justice-based mindset really does lead to harm.

The nearest philosophical parallel to the sociology of intersectionality is an 'epistemology of ignorance' [2], which seeks to define prejudice as a mythos or contract with which identity groups implicitly agree to sign up to, to maintain their place of power in the social order. It certainly does shine a light on past and present injustices and makes reparative justice more appealing, whether that is possible, useful, how fast that happens or what it looks like is up for people to decide. If UV wants to make a video denouncing existential maoist terrorists like shining path, I'm all for it.

Single issue advocacy can be very effective, and abandoning it is a kind of harm in itself.

I didn't say abandon; I said step out of, like any intellectual on a debating panel would draw parallels with other causes. It is pretty telling though that the first time UV steps out of their single issue advocacy role is to attack intersectionality directly when there are other political phenomenons like right-libertarians claiming veganism and doing such damage around the world.

The problem of a lack of hard evidence in the social sciences only magnifies this

I'd like to square that away for another debate, to leave some arguing to do for the next videos, as that is the topic of the final in a series of three promised.

It would absolutely be useful to conservative Christians to get gays to consider their actions degenerate so as to produce a more homogenous society that accepts the law and order of the church.

This sounds like an assumption, but let's say it is.
Does that make it right for them to do that?

My meta ethics of radical freedom would tell me it's harmful to the heterogeneous nature of our human, even animal existence, but I wouldn't use the word right or wrong because "I'd take the ontological problematic of nonbeing to its limit by rejecting the subject as the locus of ethical agency." [3] [4] History would tell me that a small social class of people like priests, royalty or oligarchs, making bad decisions for people they share no overlapping experiences with lowers the productivity of the country.

_______________________

References:
1. Anarchism and Animal liberation; Essays on Complementary Elements of Total Liberation (great book).
2. The Racial Contract - sites.sas.upenn.edu/educationglobal/files/ebooksclub-org__the_racial_contract.pdf
3. After Post-Anarchism by Duanne Rouselle.
4. SpeculativeNonBuddhism.com/2012/03/27/samsara-as-the-realm-of-ideology/

[brimstoneSalad]

This is very puritanical hard consequentialism though, not valuing any other philosophical system as useful to individuals trying to live an ethical life. Even bad for the cause veganism.

How is that bad?
There's nothing wrong with consistency.

Obviously if the viewer is looking for a religiously motivated mindset, he or she will seek another youtuber.
Likewise, a deontological viewer will follow somebody like Francione.

However, while I see the value in a Christian approach to veganism, for example, I see negative value in the deontological one.

Yes a very narrow one.

One limited to reason, evidence, and a framework that actually functions in reality.

Yes, by limiting bad logic and dogma, you are technically narrowing your options, but in a good way.

You have to admit that the wedding of at least some virtue ethics to consequentialism helps describe why we are drawn to spontaneous emotional protest narratives.

There are consequentialists who discuss virtues. And a consequentialist can consider the cultural capital an idea has.

Why a street vendor lighting himself on fire because of the indignity of being brutalised by the police, sparked the reaction it did across the Arab world.

Symbols like these can be very effective due to how they spread. That's why PETA focuses on such ridiculous campaigns; they're banking on free press.

Sure the universality of one’s normative ethical premises, but radical egalitarians eschew the normative for meta-ethics, nomadic or nihilist ones; "nihilists seek to discredit and/or interrupt all universalist and relativist responses to the question of place ... nihilists are critics of all that currently exists and they raise this critique against all such one-sided foundations and systems." [1]

I don't find such approaches coherent or useful.

The nearest philosophical parallel to the sociology of intersectionality is an 'epistemology of ignorance' [2], which seeks to define prejudice as a mythos or contract with which identity groups implicitly agree to sign up to, to maintain their place of power in the social order. It certainly does shine a light on past and present injustices and makes reparative justice more appealing, whether that is possible, useful, how fast that happens or what it looks like is up for people to decide.

This is all very hypothetical.
If people are not deciding based on facts and realistic predictions of the consequences, then harm is more likely to be done.

there are other political phenomenons like right-libertarians claiming veganism and doing such damage around the world.

Maybe that's something to request another video on.

My meta ethics of radical freedom would tell me it's harmful to the heterogeneous nature of our human, even animal existence, but I wouldn't use the word right or wrong because "I'd take the ontological problematic of nonbeing to its limit by rejecting the subject as the locus of ethical agency." [3] [4] History would tell me that a small social class of people like priests, royalty or oligarchs, making bad decisions for people they share no overlapping experiences with lowers the productivity of the country.

You waxed very relativistic and abstract, then you used the word "bad", and then talked about productivity.
Do you mean to equate economic productivity, or some other productivity, to good?
Or are you unwilling to make any claims of right or wrong?

The trouble with systems that fail to establish clear definitions is that they can't really be discussed.

[NonZeroSum]

This is very puritanical hard consequentialism though, not valuing any other philosophical system as useful to individuals trying to live an ethical life. Even bad for the cause veganism.

How is that bad?
There's nothing wrong with consistency.

Because anyone listening to the message 'I don’t care about justice' who is experiencing injustice is going to be turned off by a utilitarian message of just eat well and be an example to others, it will actively push people into a 'boycotts don’t work' resentment mentality and slave morality. If they are being negatively impacted by a legacy of racism, or any other oppression, and living that situation, they are simply wishing people would just acknowledge injustice and take on board that it's a problem that might inform who they vote for or how they act.

Yes a very narrow one.

One limited to reason, evidence, and a framework that actually functions in reality.

Yes, by limiting bad logic and dogma, you are technically narrowing your options, but in a good way.

Right, a philosophy that strips all virtues down so even bestiality and infanticide gets the all clear by some. A philosophy which only trusts hard-science. So let’s use it to blunder into other disciplines with only a bare grasp of the subject and call our reflections scientism.

And a consequentialist can consider the cultural capital an idea has.

Talking of which, a cultural capital worth preserving; the Arab world, before science and secularism was weaponised by the new atheists to advance the 'war on terror'. [1][2]

Symbols like these can be very effective due to how they spread. That's why PETA focuses on such ridiculous campaigns; they're banking on free press.

Did you really just equate the spontaneous events of the Arab spring with PETA's pre-planned marketing strategy which was intended to exploit the media spectacle? The same shameless group that APV talked about in her video response to UV as something not intersectional and bad for veganism?

Sure the universality of one’s normative ethical premises, but radical egalitarians eschew the normative for meta-ethics, nomadic or nihilist ones; "nihilists seek to discredit and/or interrupt all universalist and relativist responses to the question of place ... nihilists are critics of all that currently exists and they raise this critique against all such one-sided foundations and systems."

I don't find such approaches coherent or useful.

Well you wouldn't would you being a hard consequentialist ? Historically we can trace the situationist ethic as a good disruptive force in Paris's May of 1968.

The nearest philosophical parallel to the sociology of intersectionality is an 'epistemology of ignorance' [2], which seeks to define prejudice as a mythos or contract with which identity groups implicitly agree to sign up to, to maintain their place of power in the social order. It certainly does shine a light on past and present injustices and makes reparative justice more appealing, whether that is possible, useful, how fast that happens or what it looks like is up for people to decide.

This is all very hypothetical.
If people are not deciding based on facts and realistic predictions of the consequences, then harm is more likely to be done.

Are you saying a legacy of racism and sexism doesn't have predictive capability today?

It is pretty telling though that the first time UV steps out of their single issue advocacy role is to attack intersectionality directly when there are other political phenomenon’s like right-libertarians claiming veganism and doing such damage around the world.

Maybe that's something to request another video on.

Side-stepped my point.

My meta ethics of radical freedom would tell me it's harmful to the heterogeneous nature of our human, even animal existence, but I wouldn't use the word right or wrong because "I'd take the ontological problematic of nonbeing to its limit by rejecting the subject as the locus of ethical agency." [3] [4] History would tell me that a small social class of people like priests, royalty or oligarchs, making bad decisions for people they share no overlapping experiences with lowers the productivity of the country.

You waxed very relativistic and abstract, then you used the word "bad", and then talked about productivity.
Do you mean to equate economic productivity, or some other productivity, to good?
Or are you unwilling to make any claims of right or wrong?

The trouble with systems that fail to establish clear definitions is that they can't really be discussed.

You appear to be purposefully misinterpreting me. It was one complete sentence:

You: "Does that make it right for them to do that?"
Me: ". . .It's harmful. . . but I wouldn't use the word right or wrong because 'I'd take the ontological problematic of nonbeing to its limit by rejecting the subject as the locus of ethical agency.'"

Obviously 1 + 1 = 2. It was a point about determinism; I don't see the usefulness in calling them morally bad actors if they are a product of their society and our world. We can call their decisions objectively bad for democracy, but they aren't intrinsically morally bad people, because morality is something socially learnt and dependant on where we're born. [3]

I think there is a consequentialist argument to be made about how laissez faire capitalist economies stresses workers into an early grave, [4] I just find meta-ethics or evolutionary ethics a lot more interesting, because it gets to the heart of the human pursuit of happiness. [5][6][7]

__________________

References:
1. Saba Mahmood: Religious Liberty, the Minority Problem and Geopolitics - youtube.com/watch?v=5QYjo3VBmoc
2. Beyond free and equal; the limits of liberal democracy - tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/65490/1/Singh_Jakeet_201211_PhD_thesis.pdf
3. How Self-Interest Shapes Our Opinions and Why We Won't Admit It; A Solution to the Mysteries of Morality -DeScioli and Kurzban
4. aljazeera.com/programmes/101east/2016/12/fleeing-south-korea-161228075711093.html
5. Boredom / happiness studies; Adorno on the fetishism of sustaining & schopenhauer - theeveningrednessinthewest.wordpress.com/2009/12/28/boredom-happiness-studies-adorno-on-the-fetishism-of-suntanning-schopenhauer/
6. Emotions and emotional labour at worker-owned businesses: Deep Acting, Surface Acting, and Genuine Emotions - onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/tsq.12113/pdf
7. Toleratedindividuality.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/the-emergent-working-society-of-leisure.pdf

[inator]

I'd like to address a few of your points and perhaps clarify them together.

Because anyone listening to the message 'I don’t care about justice' who is experiencing injustice is going to be turned off by a utilitarian message of just eat well and be an example to others, it will actively push people into a 'boycotts don’t work' resentment mentality and slave morality. If they are being negatively impacted by a legacy of racism, or any other oppression, and living that situation, they are simply wishing people would just acknowledge injustice and take on board that it's a problem that might inform who they vote for or how they act.

The utilitarian message is by no means just "eat well and be an example to others". Perhaps we're not the ones strawmanning the opposing position. Consequentialism would recommend boycots IF there's a justifiably good chance that they'll have good and lasting effects (as opposed to creating more division and resentment). It recommends effective altruism.
It also takes into account both the "oppressed's" and the "oppressor's" interests (if you want to define the world in black and white), so as to not risk simply inversing their roles and then call that historical justice. Consequentialism is a philosophy of action, not one of resignation, and it strives to change the world as much as the social justice movement does. It just gives more weight to effectiveness than to inflexible principles.

Sure the universality of one’s normative ethical premises, but radical egalitarians eschew the normative for meta-ethics, nomadic or nihilist ones[...]

How do you justfy radical egalitarianism though?
The consequentialist's goal is to increase society's overall wellbeing, while also increasing the wellbeing of the worst-off as much as possible (especially if we take into account diminishing returns). The intuitive thought is simple enough: If nothing is gained from an unequal distribution, things should be equally distributed; if an unequal distribution would make things better for the worst-off individuals, then the best distribution is just that.

Even Rawls would recognize the sociological observations of classical economists and game theorists that genuine equality under real life conditions could probably only be achieved by reducing the status of all to some common denominator. A fair determination that any consequentialist would accept is to allow any inequalities that produce better lives for those who are worst off - because wellbeing is a multi-dimensional concept in which egalitarian justice is only one axis.

This is not to say that the current state of affairs is not exceedingly unfair and therefore not conducive to the maximization of wellbeing. Both the social justice movement and the consequentialists strive to massively reduce inequality. It's just that, once this is hypothetically achieved, consequentialism proceeds to be critical of the legitimacy of radical egalitarianism as well and looks further towards even better systems, rather than making equality an end in itself.

Obviously 1 + 1 = 2. It was a point about determinism; I don't see the usefulness in calling them morally bad actors if they are a product of their society and our world. We can call their decisions objectively bad for democracy, but they aren't intrinsically morally bad people, because morality is something socially learnt and dependant on where we're born.

Yes, due to determinism, judging actors seems nonsensical. Consequentialism is not virtue ethics, though, it's not concerned with people's characters. The only usefulness in judging individuals is for the practical purpose of deterrence/promotion of certain actions. The concept of "blame" has no place here.
Consequentialism mainly judges systems on the objective better-worse scale, while also allowing for different systems to score similarly. The same value of X amount of wellbeing can theoretically be expressed in a diversity of cultural systems, sure. But not being willing to jude different systems according to objective metrics because that may somehow devalue the legitimacy of a certain cultural expression is misguided.


Edit: I see UV's new video is out and it addresses some of these things.

[NonZeroSum]

I'm just really disappointed now with the reductionism and lack of dialogue in UV's video, I just want to see the chips fall and comment afterwards now.

[brimstoneSalad]

Because anyone listening to the message 'I don’t care about justice' who is experiencing injustice is going to be turned off

So will anybody who believes in a god if you say you don't care about religion.
I think too many people didn't actually watch her videos.
I agree it probably wasn't the best thing to put in the title, but the point of the videos was that she cares about suffering.

Right, a philosophy that strips all virtues down so even bestiality and infanticide gets the all clear by some.

It does not get the "all clear" from any consequentialist, it depends on net consequence.

A philosophy which only trusts hard-science.

Hard science is the only method that properly controls for bias, so it is the most trustworthy.
For lack of hard science, it is only appropriate to use other things (like anecdotes) to inform hypotheses to later be tested by real (hard) science.

It's fair to have a tentative PERSONAL belief, but asking other people to act on it without strong evidence is inappropriate.

Did you really just equate the spontaneous events of the Arab spring with PETA's pre-planned marketing strategy which was intended to exploit the media spectacle? The same shameless group that APV talked about in her video response to UV as something not intersectional and bad for veganism?

viral movements and marketing have a lot in common. There's a difference in that one [mostly] evolves and the other is designed, but they also inform each other.
You should know that to compare is not to equate.

Are you saying a legacy of racism and sexism doesn't have predictive capability today?

I do not assume it does, no.
You would have to prove what is happening today with contemporary evidence. Hard evidence.

When you ask somebody to act on your behalf or join your movement, you take on the burden of proof.
I'm only saying I don't buy it, and I think that's probably what UV is saying too.
If I saw good hard evidence that these things are effective and will be the path of least resistance to a good outcome, I would reluctantly support them as the means to an end despite having personal problems with what some people are saying (distasteful means). Just like I support some of PETA's goals, and would more so if they were demonstrated more effective.

Side-stepped my point.

Your point as I took it was an implicit insult directed at a third party. It is not telling, it's your assumption, you're reading into it. I'm not willing to make such assumptions. I didn't even about Trump (it's clear now, but I didn't before he was elected); I give people the benefit of the doubt.
I did not see the relevance to this topic. She may or may not do videos like that in the future, you just don't know.

You appear to be purposefully misinterpreting me. It was one complete sentence:

Your failure to give anybody the benefit of the doubt, and instead assume bad faith, is very concerning.
I have no motivation to misrepresent you. This isn't that public of a discussion, my intention is only to learn your thoughts and possibly convince you that you're wrong if they're mistaken.

Inator covered my concern about this section; you may be able to see from that why I found it troubling and confusing. You should respond to that post if you can, it was very insightful and well said.