tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6684123697924683344.post2071426306589790426..comments2023-10-29T06:54:56.825-07:00Comments on Extensive Arguments: The Shallowness Of IntersectionalityNo Availhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01826432850471652007noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6684123697924683344.post-79739611364209511752020-07-19T16:23:06.105-07:002020-07-19T16:23:06.105-07:00Unfinished comment:
You know of Richard Carrier, ...Unfinished comment:<br /><br />You know of Richard Carrier, right? The guy who denies the historicity of Jesus? Well, he defends intersectionality:<br />https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/14590<br /><br />And does so in an off-putting way. The title alone stinks. It's as if he's saying "you're just confused, so let me educate you".<br /><br />I read it in two attempts over a couple months, so I can't recall all of my complaints, but here are some predictable ones (apart from treating opponents as confused):<br /><br />-overly simplistic and psychologizing descriptions of the conservativism-progressivism axis;<br /><br />-mistaken view that a trait like race/gender/orientation is either a privilege or a disadvantage across the board. It's so glaringly clear to me that e.g. being a woman can be an advantage in some contexts. Maybe not 50% of the time, but even if it's some of the time, why not acknowledge it? I'm not well read on intersectionalist theorists, so maybe some do, but in my experience that fact is ignored. An even more obvious blind spot, coming from an outspoken atheist, is that being an atheist is a disadvantage in an American society. This is so crazy to me.<br /><br />-mistaken view that disadvantages/privileges are cumulative - you frame it really well;<br /><br />-responds to lowest hanging fruit like Christina Sommers;<br /><br />Here are good things:<br /><br />-separates descriptive theories from policy implications. Doesn't start with an ameliorative project (unlike some);<br /><br />-"intersectionality was invented to correct feminism on one very important point: that it's not just all about women".<br /><br />I'm curious if you can extract something good about intersectionality. The above quote might be one such silver lining: a multi-dimensional analysis of social justice, despite all its drawbacks, has to be an improvement over one-dimensional analyses. It's still simplistic, but less so. Would you not agree? If not, is there another steelman one could make of it?<br /><br />Also, from the view that other forms of injustice tend to be worse than social injustice, it doesn't follow that social injustice is therefore trivial or non-actionable. So here's another question for you: is intersectionality doomed a priori, or does it just not go far enough and/or in the right direction? Suppose that, instead of focusing solely on politically correct dimensions of tension, it takes a more realistic and de-politicized outlook on how people are disadvantaged. Any blind spots and uncomfortable facts you point out are acknowledged and accounter for. Does this correction necessarily destroy intersectionality, or can it survive and evolve into a decent social theory? Do the complexity and amount of variables preclude any attempt to coherently analyze (and therefore fix) social injustice? I think it would be premature to conclude that, because it would apply to many other sociological and political theories.Oleksiyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01202721026891399305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6684123697924683344.post-38819348646908422802019-07-20T16:37:19.494-07:002019-07-20T16:37:19.494-07:00Anon,
Regretfully, I'm yet to go over the stu...Anon,<br /><br />Regretfully, I'm yet to go over the studies you linked. In fact, I can't even recall the below comment from you, from last year, that provides me with all of that. But good on you for filling the speculative gaps that my post left itself open to.<br /><br />To the extent that there is an existing conversation on CP, I'm not opposed to seeing those names become a part of that conversation, assuming their work is empirically solid.<br /><br />I can't promise that I'll be able to go over their data in a timely manner, but when I do, I'll make an edit in the appropriate section of this post (the part on pedophilia and what-ifs) and include whatever missing piece of the puzzle needs to be added, however preliminary you yourself said it is. (assuming the vetting goes well)<br /><br />I didn't intend to come across as alarmist on this, even minimally. I was toying with comparisons that are probably best left un-compared. Further, this whole post is, in retrospect, something I wish I had never written/posted. It's never been clearer to me that racial and sexual politics are not the sort of topics reasonable people can make headway on, at this time in history. I've seen too much doubling-down by identitarian zealots in the face of undeniably sound counterpoints, and there are plenty other topics which don't run up against people's notions of core identity, that pragmatists have a decent shot of making headway on. <br /><br />Also, I don't believe that I so much as hinted at a moral equivalence, or near-equivalence, between child-molestation occurring "out there" and a pedophilic sexuality as such. You seemed to ultimately conclude the same, after some uncertainties. Insofar as we agree that it's apples and oranges, all we're left with are quibbles over deterrence methods. You've done your homework on that, and I haven't. So I'll leave it at that for now.<br /><br /><br />But I should also mention that, as a fan of pragmatism (over and above any other ism that competes with it in political theory), I do count the broader topic of pedophilia as one of many "not a hill anyone should be willing to die on" issues. Maybe that's another point of contention; priority weightings. For anyone engaged in (unavoidably) coalitional politics, I would advise against casual stigma-eradication attempts, whenever the stigma at hand is as entrenched as this one appears to be. Just as I would advise against *even superficially sounding* like you favor more-and-more diversity for its own sake, let alone *actually* favoring it for its own sake. Not an electoral winner. Not with crucial swing states on the line. Similarly, I don't even see an opening for baby-steps currently as it relates to advancement of "unacted pedophilia is neither good or bad; it just is" positions. Regardless of who your opponents are, they'll smear you with smashing success; you and anyone they take to be your ideological cohorts, the moment they catch wind of this.<br /><br />I didn't cover your comment entirely but I hope to later. Right now I gotta run.No Availhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01826432850471652007noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6684123697924683344.post-87722152379539902802019-07-20T16:33:15.647-07:002019-07-20T16:33:15.647-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.No Availhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01826432850471652007noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6684123697924683344.post-85144940158672953332019-07-18T19:58:26.882-07:002019-07-18T19:58:26.882-07:00Part 2
"Such levels of ethical demandingness...Part 2<br /><br />"Such levels of ethical demandingness are easy to approve of in the abstract, but anyone who has to live them out 24/7 will inevitably concede "Don't let the best be the enemy of the better". So an older pedo may at some point say "I've spent my whole life not contributing to this stuff, I'll allow myself a bit of a reprieve, since it's already out there"."<br /><br />I think I understand what you are saying, but obviously I disagree this will "inevitably" happen. It might or it might not, but yes, there is the reality of temptation to be taken seriously when discussing pedophilia. However, my "agenda" mostly is to argue that there genuinely exist (whether we can actually point at them or not) pedophiles who will live and die having never molested, individuals who are effectively not a threat to children. I obviously will have a problem with anyone thinking this "inevitability" is an absolute reality applicaple to all cases of minor-attracted people. In my ten years of discussing and debating this topic, its this very argument that all pedophiles are ticking time bombs that is the most defining characteristic of my "opponents" (or pedophobes as simply put). I certainly don't think you are my opponent/pedophobe, and I'm aware that I'm focusing way too much on your choice of words here, but I just wanted to clarify where I stand. If we are in disagreement, I'd love to discuss this further and sort it out on some other platform perhaps, as I don't want to spam off topic text walls here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6684123697924683344.post-29457135965299588962019-07-18T19:56:35.422-07:002019-07-18T19:56:35.422-07:00Hey. The same anon here again.
Part 1
Sorry for ...Hey. The same anon here again.<br /><br />Part 1<br /><br />Sorry for replying so late. I initially thought your comment sufficed and I did not want to start a debate here (and I still don't, but more of this later), as pedophilia isn't even the topic of this blog post.<br /><br />However, I can't help but be excessively curious as what are the reasons behind your anti-pedophile stances. I've read your comments on Youtube (I have been subbed to Inmendham for ages), where I discovered you, and you are evidently an intelligent (and very eloquent) person. But almost without exception people with analytical thinking skills of your level concede right away there is nothing wrong with being a non-offending pedophile or using fictional CP when they are explained the relevant facts (most important being that pedophile is not a synonym with child molester). Here's a good philosophical essay, which might resonate with you and also be a good starting point to a more advanced discussion perhaps:<br />https://www.ntnu.no/ojs/index.php/etikk_i_praksis/article/view/1718/1836<br /><br />"If the taboo is lifted entirely, demand stands to go up, which may easily increase the likelihood of more minors being coerced into producing (non-anime) flicks for the pedos with larger appetites."<br /><br />But wouldn't demand in that case be for the fictional porn, meaning that demand would not matter, as there is no victim in the production of the material in the first place? Additionally, if that demand goes up, isn't it likely that demand for the actual CP goes down, since both stuff caters to the same people? Perhaps you meant that when the taboo is lifted from fictional CP, this has the effect of indirectly making real CP more viable even when it still remained illegal? I can understand this concern, but I feel this argument proposes a bit too far-fetched a scenario to be a very strong one. I say this in the context of the Diamond's cross-national study on the effects of porn (which I linked in my previous post). Porn seems to correlate with reduced sexual offending (CP was studied too). If the study had found an opposite effect, arguments similar to yours would have much more strength. But given the results, does not it appear more likely that fictional CP rather works as an outlet reducing crimes than increasing them (for example through ways you just described)? So yeah, we can can come up with various arguments for and against fictional CP, but if we look at what the study says, the arguments for seem to have at least some empirical support. Of course, were there studies with opposite outcome, that would lend support for your concerns, in turn, but I have not come across such study yet, though they might still exist. <br /><br />"For now though, I need to get some reliable stats on the number of minors trafficked or coerced into porn, and whether this shifts upwards or downwards in the (few) societies that have relaxed the taboos on "pedo thought-crimes" or maybe even relaxed taboos on pedophilia simpliciter."<br /><br />You are concerned and want to be risk-averse, I understand, we are dealing with children's safety. I'm afraid I still have to harp on my study, because it does examine sex offense rates to find correlations. I mean obviously (sexual) trafficking of minors and coercing them in porn are forms of sex crimes. I really don't want to straw man you or anything, but it feels what you are asking for has already been investigated and reported on the study. Sure, the study does not exclusively deal with analysing trends about trafficking of minors or cases of them being coerced in porn, but they fall under the ubmbrella of "sex crimes" still.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6684123697924683344.post-847482456825131792018-05-28T09:59:10.486-07:002018-05-28T09:59:10.486-07:00Anon,
"crapshoot"
I didn't scroll ...Anon,<br /><br />"crapshoot"<br /><br />I didn't scroll up to re-read that entire paragraph, but as I recall, I meant to say that boosting the social status of near-term-victimless 'pedo' content may not result in low or stable long-term-victimless pedo content. If the taboo is lifted entirely, demand stands to go up, which may easily increase the likelihood of more minors being coerced into producing (non-anime) flicks for the pedos with larger appetites. Granted, I'm assuming a sizable number of pedos with such appetites exist; pedos whose desires overpower their otherwise grounded ethics.<br /><br />I'd imagine that, for some pedophiles, having zero-tolerance for flicks involving actual minors, though ethically proper, is as demanding as the view that "doing versus allowing harm" distinctions in moral philosophy aren't nearly as thick as the folk normally take them to be. Such levels of ethical demandingness are easy to approve of in the abstract, but anyone who has to live them out 24/7 will inevitably concede "Don't let the best be the enemy of the better". So an older pedo may at some point say "I've spent my whole life not contributing to this stuff, I'll allow myself a bit of a reprieve, since it's already out there".<br /><br />For now though, I need to get some reliable stats on the number of minors trafficked or coerced into porn, and whether this shifts upwards or downwards in the (few) societies that have relaxed the taboos on "pedo thought-crimes" or maybe even relaxed taboos on pedophilia simpliciter.<br /><br />On violence: I don't think we should discourage it by banning, or even regulating, violent media. Namely because I don't see any evidence that Life Starts To Imitate Art on that front. Read Pinker on "Why violence has declined" and you'll see the inverse effect; The least violent era in history is the very era we live in, with its unprecedented levels of violent media. Not saying there's necessarily a causal link here, but the correlational links are so abundant, I think it's safe to conclude that Vicarious Violence does not influence people to be more violent elsewhere.<br /><br />Good comments overall though.<br />No Availhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01826432850471652007noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6684123697924683344.post-80415502314859671382018-05-27T22:21:00.427-07:002018-05-27T22:21:00.427-07:00Part 2/2
"If child-molestation rates start s...Part 2/2<br /><br />"If child-molestation rates start skyrocketing [...]. But last I checked, the stats on child molestation and child rape don’t indicate a flux or a spike or anything of the sort."<br /><br />No one has 100% proof fictional child porn reduces sex crimes, BUT all data (at least I've read) indicates that. Here's Milton Diamond's extensive cross-national study on the effects of porn (child porn also):<br /><br />http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/2005to2009/2009-pornography-acceptance-crime.html<br /><br />Given the data, I think at this point we have to come to the conclusion that these outlets are overall more likely a good thing than a bad thing. Hell, for the sake of preventing harm, one could even attempt to formulate arguments for allowing some form of PASSIVE possession of real child porn, but I don't go there, since I don't need to, and that argument is much more complicated and multifaceted anyway.<br /><br />"No one involved in the sex-positivity movement is attitudinally euphoric on the existence of sexualities contaminated by pedophilia."<br /><br />Today many leading researchers (Michael Seto, James Cantor, Ray Blanchard...) view pedophilia as a sexual (age)orientation due to its similarities with homosexuality:<br /><br />http://www.scribd.com/doc/134033172/Michael-C-Seto-2012-ASB-is-Pedophilia-an-Orientation<br /><br />"Even in their minimalistic, victimless or non-offending incarnations, pedophilias get a bad rap."<br /><br />Exactly, if I read correctly, we seem to agree in that not all manifestations of pedophilia deserve condemnation. If we were to say pedophilic fantasies are morally wrong, we might as well extend the condemnation to other thought crimes as well, including the fleeting fantasy of murdering one's boss at work.<br /><br />I want to end with my personal opinion that there really is not just one way to express one's sexuality. It's mostly a head game. Society should stop regarding all pedophiles as monsters, since they do have an option to be responsible/non-offending. If we agree they can be responsible/non-offending, it just doesn't follow that we automatically judge them all and deem their sexuality as impossible. Even without fictional porn, pedophiles can possess imagination to fantasize and hands to jerk off, which is something familiar to everyone regardless of their sexuality.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6684123697924683344.post-60662198051612376092018-05-27T22:20:04.785-07:002018-05-27T22:20:04.785-07:00Part 1/2
Just a few comments on a specific topic....Part 1/2<br /><br />Just a few comments on a specific topic.<br /><br />"People who aren’t afflicted by this understand perfectly the involuntariness of it all"<br /><br />Also a person with a pedophilic orientation can be perfectly in agreement with the idea that child-adult sex is wrong. If you woke up one day finding underage children attractive, you probably wouldn't throw away your morals and principles just because of your new desires. Even for a pedophile it is not really normal to rape innocent children.<br /><br />"And this minor-free content is possible to pull off (i.e. anime), but people still scoff at the prospect of a society in which animation for pedos is normalized or encouraged... or even celebrated."<br /><br />My country allows fictional child porn, but I don't see it "celebrated". It's violent media everyone seems to root for.<br /><br />"It’s a crapshoot, in a sense."<br /><br />Sadly I don't understand what you mean in a sentence before that. English is not my native language, but I know that "crapshoot" means a risky game. If and when we know that such material more likely helps than harms children, (even you said earlier <br /><br />"[...] I see no reason as to why the availability of digital indulgences wouldn't deter pedos from diddling victims in meatspace more often than not.") <br /><br />would not denying pedophiles their "medicine" be the irresponsible act?<br /><br />But I'm glad at least you admit that there is "skirmish" to be had instead of emotionally just treating the topic of fictional CP as out of question or plain "sick" as some others might.<br /><br />"Given how irritatingly speculative the whole ordeal is, it’s tempting to just play it safe and conclude that even a sturdy consequentialist ought to manifestly discourage deviation from the cultural status-quo."<br /><br />Should we "discourage violence" by banning violent media too? Besides, most people who consume it don't have a dangerous "illegal" need to satisfy so it isn't even a similar outlet for the "normal folks". I'm aware you haven't explicitly said lolicon should be illegal, but at the end you seem to arrive at a conclusion where it might as well be (akin to other dangerous substances).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6684123697924683344.post-5437127218292435912017-09-07T00:16:29.931-07:002017-09-07T00:16:29.931-07:00I don't blame you, it's going to be painfu...I don't blame you, it's going to be painful. But it's worth watching if for no other reason than to see what happens when they try to be consistent and avoid the 'zig zag'.<br /><br />Agreed. What's strange to me is how intersectionality in particular has managed to pull it off in such a short space of time - I don't recall such rhetoric being mainstream even four or five years ago when I was in University, which seems to be the fertile ground that intersectionalists have sprung from. Maybe I was just oblivious to it then, I'm not sure.<br /><br />Speciesism is touchy for intersectionalists more broadly but there are intersectional vegans. They take a very interesting stance when it comes to situations like native peoples and tribes who's traditions involve gruesome animal butchering/sacrificing rituals - from what I can gleam (I'm vegan so it's of some interest to me personally), they feel that to reprimand these tribes/cultures for their barbarism towards animals would be tantamount to neo colonialism. And sure, maybe it is - if you stretch the definition of 'colonise' to its breaking point. In any case I'd rather be guilty of that than guilty of being complicit in needless acts of barbarism, personally, but I guess I'm just old fashioned like that. <br /><br />That's pretty standard - you have people like Carol J Adams to thank for that. Her 1990 book 'The Sexual Politics of Meat' is where every intersectional vegan lifts their rhetoric from still to this day, almost verbatim. <br />The level of language policing they ask for - or demand, depending on your perspective - is preposterous. Say anything they find 'problematic' and you'll be sure to earn yourself every 'ist' imaginable ("You ableist, racist, sexist pig!"), or get the boot if it's a forum or group online. If you can catch any of them outside of their safe space you might have a shot at having an honest dialogue, it depends.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10387037844868251077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6684123697924683344.post-49222417461507637022017-09-07T00:14:37.352-07:002017-09-07T00:14:37.352-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10387037844868251077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6684123697924683344.post-23997623500765577022017-09-06T13:23:22.659-07:002017-09-06T13:23:22.659-07:00Glad you enjoyed it.
No clue who Riley Dennis is,...Glad you enjoyed it.<br /><br />No clue who Riley Dennis is, but I'll prepare for the worst when I eventually get around to checking out the linked video. I'm unable to withstand that level of stupidity at this particular moment.<br /><br />These people are a godsend to neo-puritans, religious apologists and even atheistic trad-cons. It's a gift to pretty much everyone who has been waiting for a new Secular Dogmatism to point to for decades now, in an attempt to rekindle anti-modernist sentiment. Intersectionality is the best candidate for that. Not sure if it's changing anything offline, but it sure seems to be working in cyberspace.<br /><br />About oppressions: Would the gruesomeness of factory farming by any chance infiltrate those matrices of oppressions in their eyes?<br /><br />Last time I brought up dietary ethics and speciesism in an intersectionalist-esque sphere, I was charged with subtle racism for comparing trans and PoC folk to animals. That the plight of non-human animals is quantitatively (and I'd argue qualitatively) much worse compared to trans dating issues didn't enter into the equation for them.<br /><br />Just awful, tantrum-prone people.No Availhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01826432850471652007noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6684123697924683344.post-9690973695900273112017-09-03T23:34:12.253-07:002017-09-03T23:34:12.253-07:00Thoroughly enjoyed this post. I think it's no ...Thoroughly enjoyed this post. I think it's no accident that progressives have earned themselves the perjorative 'regressive left' label, even though its effect is starting to wear off.<br /><br />I'm not sure if you're aware but there are intersectionalists who take their moralising of apolitical aesthetic preferences/dispreferences to a sort of conclusion, with hilarious results of course. Have you heard of Riley Dennis by any chance? I'm not sure if these comments will allow me to post a link, but in particular I'm referring to this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2X-PgHSZh6U<br /><br />It's about trans dating, not incels, but I think it's somewhat interesting all the same.<br /><br />It's also worth pointing out how entirely confused the intersectionalists are on exactly what the arithmetic of the intersecting oppressions amounts to - I've heard that oppressions add, stack, multiply, amplify... There are even matrices of oppressions, which, funnily enough like matrices in regular mathematics, don't seem to be commutative. Not that the lack of consensus is particularly damning but it is certainly amusing, and makes me highly skeptical of the supposed overlapping and intersecting nature of oppressions. Agenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6684123697924683344.post-65896125817987035172017-08-12T19:05:47.188-07:002017-08-12T19:05:47.188-07:00"What evidence do you have that racists deval...<i>"What evidence do you have that racists devalue other races because of aesthetics?"</i><br /><br />Because that's the <b>only</b> way of telling ethnicities apart once you're outside the lab, which applies to most everyone obsessing over racial and ethnic differences nowadays. It's not empirically sound, but it's good enough for identitarians of all stripes apparently. Please don't waste my time with anymore basic questions.<br /><br />You don't have to click on any of the links to grasp the points being made in the post. They're just there if you want the full scoop on the background of what's swiftly being mentioned in the post.<br /><br /><i>"Did you actually READ the misogynistic bile on there?"</i><br /><br />I did. Been following these groups on/off ever since the Isla Vista killings. Evidently you don't grasp how it's a combination of open misogyny and internalized misandry. The latter often props up the former. Many of them start out putting all sorts of psychological stock into female approval, fail to acquire said approval, and from there their sense of self-worth takes a nosedive. They are psychological train wrecks, but only because they're tacit vagina-worshippers in the first place. If they weren't, female disapproval/rejection wouldn't cause them to go into a tailspin.<br /><br />As for rural whites: I get the sense you have an idyllic view of blacks in America. Why would you expect someone like me, who is openly pessimistic about humans in general, to run with this?<br /><br />I despise Dave Rubin. A lot. It's gotten to the point where I can't even listen to his lazy sloganeering and general overreliances on analytically hollow left/right distinctions in order to know what he does or doesn't do with recent guests. I wouldn't put it past him to pander to white nationalists if doing so boo$t$ pledges. How does this invalidate my points about ideologically motivated (non-monetary) dog-whistles not being a staple of modern politics? At most, they're the exception, not the rule.<br /><br />Off the top of my head, two examples of individuals who routinely accuse people of being 'useful idiots' for Nazis are YouTubers Contra Points and Richard Coughlan. Check their twitter feeds if you want to spare yourself the hassle of watching their videos. Roughly 80% of what they tweet about is race-related. They're fully on board with intersectionality. I can provide additional examples if you'd like. You'd have to be living in a cave not to spot the connection between intersectionality and interpreting innocuous things as dog whistles... which historically unsophisticated non-intersectional audiences <i>naturally</i> cannot appreciate...<br /><br />There are some bad typos in your post. I suggest you save, remove and repost your comment. And don't post under anon if you're planning on having an extended back and forth.No Availhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01826432850471652007noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6684123697924683344.post-86432481185211418582017-08-12T03:00:19.694-07:002017-08-12T03:00:19.694-07:00Sorry, but you are all over the place with this.
...Sorry, but you are all over the place with this.<br /><br />What evidence do you have that racists devalue other races because of aesthetics? Maybe you sourced it, but I honestly cannot tell because of how needlessly overloaded your posts is with hyperlinks. Did you really need to leave a link to a wiki's noise/signal page? What purpose does that link serve? Because you used the word noise? WTF?<br /><br />I also think it's laughable that you compare the issues of white flight to the ravings of entitled miscreants whose celibacy is often a self-fulfilling prophecy in that it is the product of their own blatant misogyny. You linked to a reddit page for and by Incels. Did you actually READ the misogynistic bile on there? How is this similar to what blacks in America have to put up with? <br /><br />RE useful idiots for neo-Nazis: Can you give some examples? This is something people usually say about Dave Rubin because of his tip-toey "let the guest speak" interview style despite the ACTUAL white nationalists he keeps brining on. He either doesn't challenge them either because he does have some sympathy for their arguments, or because he's too dimwitted to, making him a useful idiot. Are you saying that neither of those is a realistic possibility?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6684123697924683344.post-7197406637800472142017-08-10T15:19:31.084-07:002017-08-10T15:19:31.084-07:00You sure you read the post? Recall the 'aversi...You sure you read the post? Recall the 'aversive racism' comparison I made to the non-problem of aversive sexual disassociation? You have guys like Elliot Roger who believed they were morally wronged by women who didn't fuck them. How is that anything other than doublethink in terms of non-judgmentalism? Associational selectiveness on a personal level is either fair play or it isn't. Pick one.<br /><br />Of course, intersectionalists believe impartiality via legality doesn't settle the deeper issues of racism/sexism/ableism/transphobia/queerphobia/etc. What's needed is a Cultural Revolution of sorts. Clearly the one from 50 years ago didn't get the job done. They're also convinced that the roots of all these oppressions are concentric & cumulative. I believe this is magical thinking, just as it is when it comes to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audism<br /><br />Perhaps an example this absurd will drive the point home. The drawbacks of deafness are not systemic. The way non-deaf people treat the deaf in the modern world is not what makes deaf people's lives harder. Cultural revolutions aren't going fix the underlying problem. Neither will any non-legal solution for the other isms and 'phobias' I listed. You can't merge abnormality with normality. All you can ever do is rearrange the parts.<br /><br />Tell you what, just deal with these few paragraphs from the closer:<br /><br />It's aesthetic. Racial biases. Sexual biases. It's all aesthetic. Their non-rational similarities are scantly if ever perceived as a barrier to all-inclusive treatments of derogation and oppression. Raise the issue around a devout intersectionalist and you will be told the conjoined pieces of it all are just plain different on the aesthetic front, or that they are, if nothing else, prejudicially asymmetrical.<br /><br />This dodge is furbished by an agent-centered guide to ethnic conflict where the anti-racist is convinced that he is uniquely obligated to keep an eye on the worst members of his own ethnic tribe, even if the misbehavior of the worst members of other ethnic tribes results in more deleteriousness for all involved. A new-and-improved way to focus on groups-over-individuals! Seems that the old NIMBY mindset is more pluralistic than I ever gave it credit for. With any "I'm a white anti-racist which means I'm responsible for white racism first and foremost!" we're basically looking at a moral version of NIMBY.<br /><br />The oft-mocked accusations of "ethnic guilt" arise due to such agent-centered mindsets and the stubborn refusal to prioritize social agendas in accordance to the gravity of each social problem. Arguments that ethnic guilt does most of the thinking for intersectional progressives who are whites get doubly mocked, because then said arguments make the White Guilt accusation. White Guilt is a punchline in just about every anti-racist circle that's aware of the accusation in the first place. Should it be? I mean, is "Arabic Guilt" a punchline anywhere? If so, point me to that section of the internet. I've only ever seen the concept of White Guilt get mocked, typically by white anti-racists. And so, the aversive racism of a rural white remains a point of focus while open hostility to whites qua whites remains a point of mockery.<br /><br />Arguing for a coherent reprioritization of the betterness/worseness of all social ills brands you a "useful idiot" for neo-Nazis and other icky figures. This, thanks to some Very Sophisticated historical factoids shaping intersectionalists' priorities.No Availhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01826432850471652007noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6684123697924683344.post-62623323572408052612017-08-10T02:46:39.193-07:002017-08-10T02:46:39.193-07:00I read the whole post and you don't really exp...I read the whole post and you don't really explain how intersectionality is responsible for the "spillover" problems of personal choices. Can you clarify? I have other issues with this post, but I doubt going into that will be productive until I get an idea of why you think personal choices are "doublethink" for intersectionalists.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com