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.
It'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.
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.
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. The APVs of this world are stark raving mad in their certainty; they put the pope to shame when it comes to faith in their ideologies.
Faith is the difference between degree of certainty and what the evidence actually shows -- the evidence as interpreted by unbiased experts, not by wishful thinking and personal bias.
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.
Do you agree it's better to err on the side of avoiding unnecessary labels when this may be the case?
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.
Think of it like Occam's razor.
Vegan beats Intersectional Vegan.
The latter has more to justify, and if you can't show it's doing more good than harm overall, it's better to abandon the label and just work toward the good parts. Hopefully following the evidence to its limits and not beyond with faith.
NonZeroSum wrote: ↑Wed May 31, 2017 6:08 pm
I'd obviously draw the line at the one woman who got up and started talking about black magic and other such pseudoscience.
Are you versed in Critical Race Theory?
I feel like you may be overlooking the more irrational foundations because you agree with the Marxist ones.
NonZeroSum wrote: ↑Wed May 31, 2017 6:08 pm
You have your own line for nazis and pseudo-skepticism which I agree with on the right-wing, only I'd bring it in further visa ve men's rights activist toxicity and other such examples.
Unfortunately Men's rights has utility, a meaningful niche, and it's hard to replace it with a better term/movement. Men need representation of their interests.
Of course they need to clean house, but I don't see an alternative.
Equalists may do it, the problem is that may be deceptive.
Nazis and Intersectionalists are both coming from a fundamentally racist and pseudoscience based foundation.
It's like trying to find a legitimate use for chiropracty. There is a contingent of reform minded chiropractors who reject subluxation (which is very commendable) and want to enter the world of evidence based medicine, but there are already physical therapists there occupying the niche they would propose the fill. They have no use. Why even bother? The field should just die.
That's the difference between MRM and Intersectionality. MRM has at least the potential to fill a useful niche. The only legitimate uses of intersectionality are older than the term itself and just refer to multivariate analysis.
Beyond that we're either talking about the racist pseudoscience of "critical race theory", or we're talking about communism. The latter already has a more fitting and less alienating word.
I don't have such a problem with communist vegans as the intersectional ones. Communist vegan makes it clear there's a political ideology aside from veganism, and one could easily imagine a capitalist vegan too. It's also far less unreasonable and not fundamentally racist like intersectionality is.
The only reason to be an intersectionalist today is if you're into the whole "science must fall" racist pseudoscience.
Otherwise, the term should be abandoned for higher ground which is more respectable and doesn't drag veganism into that nonsense.
NonZeroSum wrote: ↑Wed May 31, 2017 6:08 pm
I'd have to post an academic summary of mainstream critical race theory and it's implications so we could discuss it before I could tell you how much I agree with it and whether I think your comments are fair, UVs next video will deal with the worst extremes I'm sure.
I don't think an obfuscated academic summary (which would be pages long) would be necessary. That would be like posting Dianetics in full text in order to discuss Scientology.
We're dealing with a field that is fundamentally deceptive and dishonest (and must be in order to hide how wicked and racist it is from the general public). Please don't be distracted by academic apologia.
It's just like the new wave of white nationalists who try to claim it's all about "preserving culture" which sounds to many like a good thing, but then you get into it and it's just good old fashioned racism after all.
Assume what I said of CRT is true and accurate: is that not something we should not only reject but also fight against?
NonZeroSum wrote: ↑Wed May 31, 2017 6:08 pm
What you're talking about is whether intersectionality takes without giving, I have my qualms about the consumerist holier than thou subculture and you don't like what you perceive to be deontological or faith based and we both don't like the no chicken first step guy bashing veganism all the time to make their argument.
I don't have much of a problem with Matt Ball, although I don't necessarily agree with his conclusions. That's a question of evidence; we could have a reasonable discussion.
Intersectionality is an issue of ideology and a fundamental difference in methodology from anything in science or philosophy.
It's not that I don't like faith based positions, it's that they can not really be argued.
NonZeroSum wrote: ↑Wed May 31, 2017 6:08 pm
That's a grave twisting of the definition of conspiracy and something the pseudo-skeptic community is fond of doing,
It isn't, though. There's the claim that all economists are either complete morons, or they're paid off. There's the claim about all of the politicians being paid off, Sandersian conspiracies. There are conspiracies upon conspiracies, up to the racist patriarchal system that they claim is being deliberately perpetuated by people who benefit from it. Even science itself; you can't trust anybody, they're all out to keep the revolution down.
NonZeroSum wrote: ↑Wed May 31, 2017 6:08 pm
a synthesis of studies to bring into focus all aspects of socio-economic life through game theory models, complex systems theory, intersectionality theory and an epistemology of ignorance is not a conspiracy theory, we just disagree on methodology.
Game theory is fine, multivariate analysis is great, "intersectionality" is insane: it's founded on racist pesudoscience, and it burns down anything it touches.
Neo-marxism and critical race theory aren't belief systems?) and have the bad habit of going on witch hunts and alienating people by calling them terrible names like racist (ironic since their belief is founded on a racist ideology) homophobe, etc. for disagreeing with their approach.