Philosophical Vegan Forum

NonZeroSum wrote: ↑Sun Jun 04, 2017 4:57 am I want to know that it's okay to ignore your comments, and you wont take it as breaking the rules of the forum, if it is I'd like to know so I don't waste my time starting new threads and I'll just leave.

. . .
Do whatever you want, man. In the odd chance you did get banned, why would you care if you were going to leave anyway?
Like I said, though, you're always welcome here.

"so I don't waste my time starting new threads" - it's right there in the quote.

NonZeroSum wrote: ↑Sun Jun 04, 2017 5:13 am "so I don't waste my time starting new threads" - it's right there in the quote.

I don't think it would be a waste of time. Isn't the point for them to have educational value?
If I were you I'd just take some time to cool off.

Not to sound all hippy, but being angry and resentful isn't a healthy state. Find a little inner peace. It's entirely possible that arguing with people online just isn't psychologically healthy for you, and you should take some time off the internet for your own well being.

You're welcome back whenever you feel better. Or you can stick around, I'm not your mother, but really you should take a break. I haven't seen that much cussing in a long time.

I want to apologize to Cait for the shit show, but ultimately it probably demonstrates an important point: it's nearly impossible to have a productive and civil conversation around intersectionality, I think even more so than around other religions because there's not the same broad recognition that intersectionality is faith based as there is with religions (where people recognize there are many religions and those of other religions aren't necessarily bad). There are also more racist and sexist sounding claims, on both sides of the debate.

Cait wrote: ↑Wed May 31, 2017 11:09 am Has anyone had any experience doing this/willing to offer any advice?

The best thing you can probably do to save friendships and avoid charges of racism/sexism etc. is to attempt to remain neutral on the subject.
There are people who will say you're a racist unless you're an intersectionalist, even if you oppose racism and have never said anything racist and don't align with any racist ideologies, but these people are extremists and it's unlikely you'll be able to reason with them anyway.

It just occurred to me that people may still be viewing this dumpster fire, I won’t go into the ridiculous accusations saga, just wanted to reiterate position on intersectionality if this page is to be left up.

Everyone has their own lines for what politics they deem too toxic to be associated with issues they care about, in my case it’s along the lines of any Nazis, war mongers, religious/market fundamentalists and conservative pride groups in the 'market place of ideas.' For others it might be Nazis, alt-right skeptics and 4th wave feminism.

My experience of intersectionality is about privileging an authentic knowledge of socio-economic experience and how that should feed into social movements that hope to bring about change.

There are many pro-intersectional critiques of the negatives associated with it by its opponents like call-out culture and oppression olympics, here are just a few:

• Anarchism and the politics of ressentiment | Saul Newman
  - https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/saul-newman-anarchism-and-the-politics-of-ressentiment
• Gender Disobedience: Antifeminism and Insurrectionist Non-dialogue | Lilith
  - https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/lilith-gender-disobedience-antifeminism-and-insurrectionist-non-dialogue
• Calling In: A Quick Guide on When and How | Sian Ferguson
  - http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/01/guide-to-calling-in/

Some great introductory videos on the subject:

• Why pro-intersectional veganism is important
  - https://youtu.be/eiWOWysJHmc
• Intersectional Veganism Made Simple – ModVegan
  - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_AZHtPho9g

And a switchboard of internal articles and discussion:

• Intersectionality – a topic I fear we may have overlooked.
  - http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=3379

_______

Is it faith based?

No it can be argued for via the pre-figurative virtue ethic of justice, it can also be an ethical nihilist consciousness raising exercise about authenticity and complex systems theory. Put simply it wants to build on the progress of equal rights, autonomy struggles, and economic gains towards a more eudemonic participatory democracy.

Does it have a useful niche?

It’s more Meta, if you care about total liberation, leveraging the good objectives and will of many autonomous struggles together where practical. There are many examples of left-right splits in the academy, for example the right emphasising “Sellers scientific realism and nominalism, while the left-wing. . . emphasize instead. . . Sellars insistence on the irreducibility and sociality of rules and norms.” The left giving complex systems theory pre-figurative teeth is just that.

Does the subscribing to intersectional analysis mean chaotic campaigns?

No, it just warns against overly restrictive consumer campaigns that limits who can practically participate, and links the fight for immediate reforms to a long-term project of building popular consciousness and organisational solidarity.

Is it necessary to also believe in CRT?

No, that’s a deontological branch that occurred in the 90s, see article on 'feminist friendships' for earlier. It might have ‘as if’ contractarian descriptive power, but many who are pro-intersectionality disagree with any attempt to give it legalist prescriptions, and I personally use memetics to explain bigotry.

Is it necessary to be a Marxist?

No, Marx was pretty shit, and liberation movements have a long history of fighting against the authoritarian dictatorship of the inner party bull justified in his name. There are also much better modern systems theorists today. The most popular and prosperous democratic socialist parties have the dismantling of capitalism's profit motive in favour of direct national and union control of the economy written into their constitutions and policies, that is what I fight for along with social attitudes to change which can happen dramatically quickly and make for more cohesive communities.

Is it necessary to be a conspiracy theorist?

I don't agree with any of the conspiracy theories people attach to intersectionality and never have, for me with its 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 fairness/justice isn't often a workable short-term goal, I'll go on promoting it as an ethical nihilist consciousness raising exercise, and carry on voting for reforms on the issues.

Is it necessary to be a racist/sexist?

No, socialist feminists can be said to have fought for a better society for men and women, so stake a claim to holding the equalist flag, but if men want to advocate for themselves under a humanist/socialist framework as I have done with consent, that’s great too.

Did you write that FAQ above yourself, or is it from somewhere?
I meant to reply to this earlier, but I haven't had much time... and I got sucked into a conversation about 80-10-10 I don't have time for either (you know how it goes, a quick reply turns into a novel).

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Sun Sep 03, 2017 2:24 am Did you write that FAQ above yourself, or is it from somewhere?

Yea it's all me, highlights from early on in the thread. Prefer not to promote this thread any more than necessary though, if you want to try and start up a real discussion you could quote my takeaways from this thread and carry on on any of these:

Intersectional veganism (Unnatural vegan video)
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2944

Feminist Friendship (Cori Wong)
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=3394

Intersectionality – a topic I fear we may have overlooked.
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=3379

I was just going to respond pretty briefly to a couple points. That should keep it short.

NonZeroSum wrote: ↑Thu Aug 24, 2017 6:41 am Is it faith based?

No it can be argued for via the pre-figurative virtue ethic of justice, it can also be an ethical nihilist consciousness raising exercise about authenticity and complex systems theory. Put simply it wants to build on the progress of equal rights, autonomy struggles, and economic gains towards a more eudemonic participatory democracy.

Where does that stuff come from though?
You could say Christianity isn't faith based because it's based on the Bible which is a real physical book, but then the belief that the Bible is a credible source of information provided by god is faith based, no matter how many steps you remove the faith (like it's credible because it's historically accurate, yet it's not confirmed by extrabiblical sources).

Some of these things can be based on reason and evidence, we can possibly arrive at virtue ethics through consequentialism, for example, and appeal to psychology. But it's an argument that needs to be made and I don't see that being done. It's usually based on deontology and political assumptions. If it were based on evidence, it would be much more provisional and uncertain.

Keep in mind I consider most politics and activism based on faith.

NonZeroSum wrote: ↑Thu Aug 24, 2017 6:41 am Is it necessary to also believe in CRT?

No, that’s a deontological branch that occurred in the 90s, see article on 'feminist friendships' for earlier. It might have ‘as if’ contractarian descriptive power, but many who are pro-intersectionality disagree with any attempt to give it legalist prescriptions, and I personally use memetics to explain bigotry.

Who coined the phrase? I put a lot of emphasis on coinage for modern terms.
Would Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw agree? As the coiner, she seems to be in a position of authority to tell us what it is or isn't (as much as I may dislike her, I have to give her that).
If she would agree that intersectionality is not based on CRT and that it's fine for intersectionalists to disagree with and reject CRT, then I'd conceded the point.
She's still alive, can she be asked?

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Sun Sep 03, 2017 2:51 pm Keep in mind I consider most politics and activism based on faith.

Fine aha. I think that's the main point of contention indy had; calling all deontologists woos, so you could talk more about that in the thread below, I've already stated I don't think it's a fruitful project to try and absorb virtue or duty based ethics into consequentialism from an ethical nihilist perspective, but we really need a a deontologist or virtue ethicist to come onto the forum to defend their position.

Video Response to Our Letter To Dillahunty
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3402

The most interesting and important in my view philosophy that I've read has been moral skeptic/intuitionist why's, and virtue/subjectivist/nihilist how's:

Scott Alexander on the distinction between axiology and morality
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=3422

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Sun Sep 03, 2017 2:51 pmWho coined the phrase?

Crenshaw wrote:So many of the antecedents to it are as old as Anna Julia Cooper, and Maria Stewart in the 19th century in the US, all the way through Angela Davis and Deborah King. . . In every generation and in every intellectual sphere and in every political moment, there have been African American women who have articulated the need to think and talk about race through a lens that looks at gender, or think and talk about feminism through a lens that looks at race. So this is in continuity with that.

The concept of intersectionality is intended to illuminate dynamics that have too often been overlooked in feminist movements and theory. As articulated by bell hooks, such an approach "challenged the notion that 'gender' was the primary factor determining a woman's fate". This exploration sprang from a historical exclusion of black women from the feminist movement that had been challenged since at least the 1800s by black feminists such as Anna Julia Cooper. In many ways, the introduction of intersectional theory supported claims made by women of color that they belong in both of these political spheres.

She didn't write Critical Race Theory till 6 years after coining the term, and Collins the critical theorist who did the most to promote the term simply switched "black feminist thought" with intersectional, demands for women's voice that included being good friends to black women so everyone understood everyone's interests gets enveloped from earlier.

She came across a lot of examples in her law profession to develop analysis of oppression, and I support that, I also agree with my anarcha-feminist friends that it's a misplaced energy trying to get clemency from the court, than using that solidarity to build up our communities autonomously. Policy on putting into law reduced sentencing, restorative justice, environmental and animal welfare as stop gaps aside, these things should be airtight but represent a narrowing of laws place as guidance, not to go on ad infinitum.

Reg Flowers wrote:Yes I agree that one might accept the notion that their are systems of oppression (organized or no) to employ an intersectional analysis. But even without an understanding of these systems a black person can analyze how their "blackness" impacts their experience, and a woman can analyze their experience and a black woman can understand that their experience might be drastically impacted by the intersection of both of these identities in their life without understanding it as oppression or even as anything "negative". Emma DeGraffenreid is a real African-American woman who was experiencing a real barrier in her life that was directly connected to her dual identity (to simplify things). She could not get a job at the auto manufacturer where all of the jobs for black people were on the factory floor and the employer discriminated in these jobs by only giving them to men. Emma could not get a job as a secretary at the plant, although these job were given strictly to women, because the company only hired white women in these jobs. So, even if I don't know anything about oppression, I need an intersectional analysis (or at least I need to take into account both race and gender of the individual) to see that it was only a person who was both non-white and non-male who who experience discrimination at this plant. The court in Emma's case failed to see that complexity and the case was lost.

Outside of concrete experience of situations where these combinations of race, class, gender and other traits are having positive and negative impacts on the specific individuals or groups of people in concrete ways, intersectionality become pretty cumbersome and perhaps even useless. I really only find myself even talking about intersectionality to defend Kimberle Crenshaw's theory as valid and with people who I know challenge that validity.

NonZeroSum wrote: ↑Mon Sep 04, 2017 2:52 am She didn't write Critical Race Theory till 6 years after coining the term,

Not sure what you mean. This says intersectionality was coined in 89: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality#Feminist_thought

This says mid to late 80's for the origins of CRT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory

I can't parse most of that, since it's kind of unclear.
I think I'd have to hear a clear answer from her.