[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

2022-05-12: Ghost posting is now globally disabled. 2022: Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
View page     

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 67 KB, 720x695, 20210307_183009.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17723232 No.17723232 [Reply] [Original]


I need books, articles or anything you have refuting this.

>> No.17723237

Yeah it's called logic and rationality.

>> No.17723243

It's true, and there's nothing you can do about it

>> No.17723254


>> No.17723255

there's nothing to refute. It makes sense. The problem is there are thousands of dimensions and people disagree about which are the most important. Most people who believe in intersectionality put far too much emphasis on race, sex, and other non-factors, and way too little on money and being born into a non-shitty family

>> No.17723258

didn't work

>> No.17723294
File: 1.50 MB, 540x405, original (2).gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

no... i-it couldn't be...

>> No.17723386

Which book is that?

>> No.17723771


>> No.17723831



>> No.17723969


>> No.17723988

>Make retarded meme post
>Surprised when nobody cares to reply
The shits been torn to shreds by anyone with a lick of common sense or self-awareness.

>> No.17724403


>> No.17724554

Funny how people spend a lot more time claiming that these things have been refuted than they do refuting them

>> No.17724982
File: 850 KB, 720x1006, 1593884808371.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Adolph Reed

>> No.17725090

>people are different and experience different lives because they are different
Is this basically it or is there something I'm not getting?

>> No.17725394

Intersectionality is the collectivist's attempt at understanding the individual

>> No.17725433

Wealth transcends all of those attributes, and if you're a rich tranny lesbian nigga, you can live live a life of luxury and tell whitey to fuck off and not ever have to face your nigger tranny lesbianess stand in the way between you and your dreams. It's ironic. Most intersectionalists are also marxists, but they will never admit wealth trumps all of these factors.

>> No.17725863


>> No.17725944

You don't need to read anything to refute it, just don't believe in Christian morality. The defective and the perverted should be despised, not lifted up as equals.

>> No.17726719

“But surely the Greeks practised homosexuality? Not exactly, Foucault would reply. Certainly, men had sexual relations with boys or men, just as they have done in many other cultures. But they were not in consequence classified as homosexuals, invested with a subjectivity that was seen as the origin of their sexual practices, and regarded as deviant or perverse. The Greeks did not consider themselves in any way defined by their sexual habits.“

Therefore we don’t need hundreds of genders, because all of them is just a new stigma. Every categorisation is just a tool for further exclusion. We don’t need to identify with our sexual habits. I’m only like women and there’s nothing I can do about it. It wouldn’t change even if was wearing a pink dress and make up.

>> No.17726726

Imagine believing sex and gender are something comparable to culture, geography or religion

>> No.17726741

Why would anyone do this?

>> No.17726753
File: 1.96 MB, 480x320, 14F8FF7E-E31A-4C4D-9F62-79C51304CB07.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>quick guys, somebody smarter than me just said something on Facebook that I disagree with, refute them for me so I can act smug and perpetuate my ignorance.

>> No.17726813
File: 46 KB, 500x375, b0c.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>An intersectional analysis considers all the factors that apply to an individual in combination, rather than considering each factor in isolation.
Wow, a thing is the product of that which leads to it being what it is. It's vacuous. There's nothing to refute.

>> No.17727268

Fine, fine I'll fucking do it.
The primary issue with intersectionality is that it's based in an inherently biased and frankly unreasonable assumption that your existence is a detriment to itself or others. It's mindset that can be held by only the most childish and sheltered of people. To explain, nothing about intersectionality is objective, yet it's meant to be an objective metric of the detriments that oppression plays. It's existence is based in the political spectrum of the western world, and only in the modern day to boot. This, on top of the fact that it bases every "section" in terms of either vaguely defined (people of color) or oddly specific (antisemitism), yet equally empty notions that are interchangeable to suit the needs of whoever encourages using it as a metric, results in none of the sections having any true meaning.
Secondly, this chart reduces the nuances of human interaction to a handful of labels that MUST apply to you for them to work. It is not possible for your situation to be different than the implied status given by the label or the entire chart fails to accomplish anything. The labels are also it's greatest offense towards those it wishes to protect. Nobody, even the most empty of soulless human husks can truly be reduced to a pittance of labels. To do so is to dehumanize anyone you seek to analyze with this.
Thirdly, everything in intersectionality operates on the biased assumption of oppression being present. A white friend punches his black friend for saying something retarded? It must be even more egregious than a punch between friends because he's being oppressed by a white/educated/literate man and the black man MUST be oppressed because he's black/uneducated/illiterate. The event is racism and oppression, not the black guy saying something offensively stupid without thinking before he spoke. To assume any of this is an offense to both friends and interpersonal human interaction as a whole.
Lastly, and this is less critique and more opinion corner. It's just fucking retarded. It's something that's clearly biased towards overwhelmingly brainwashed idiots who want to feel theirs an objective merit to their racism so they teach this garbage like it's a science so they can matter-of-factly claim that otherwise innocuous things are several magnitudes worse than Hitler. It's also made by Jewish supremacists and doesn't hide that bias in the least, yet people gobble it up because some retard with a degree in gender studies told them it's fact. If this gains any more traction, I'm gonna lose it.

>> No.17727301

Too lazy for reading the article. Doesn't the raw form just assume that people have multilayered identity, which is a truism and then slave morality bullshit gets tackled on to it with some kind of hierarchy of who has the most layers that were/are "oppressed"(=weak)?

>> No.17727312

They had words for homosexuals though, even today it's present in fucking English and I think French as well as pederast.

What kind of brainlet was this gay pedo frog?

>> No.17727697

theres nothing to refute, intersectionality is an important tool for analysing societal issues
>Most intersectionalists are also marxists, but they will never admit wealth trumps all of these factors.
untrue, marxists recognize that class still is the most important factor. race, gender etc are still important, but less so than class. stop confusing liberals for marxists.

>> No.17727763

>important tool for analysing societal issues
>nothing to refute
Anything that exists is open to scrutiny. A refusal to face scrutiny is a refusal for legitimacy.

>> No.17727843

That's true but also somewhat proves the point of intersectionality: how many rich tranny lesbian nigga do you know ? How many rich white guys is there for each of them ?

>> No.17727844

stating the obvious. scrutiny is not the same as wanting to refute something with epic facts and logic like in some youtube debate where one side gets declared winner, which is the feeling i got from OP.
intersectionality does deserve scrutiny, but seeking to refute it is nonsensical, since it is not a position, just a lens through which to analyse.

>> No.17727876

How am I supposed to "refute" the idea that our lives are collectively shaped by all the factors that affect us? It's just the truth.

>> No.17727884

Yeah everything intersects with the one fact that the "oppressed" doesn't have money.

>> No.17727950

Intersectionality is correct, but causes more issues than it fixes when the intersectional groups are based on what mental illness you have or who you’re depraved and degenerate in a similar way to

>> No.17727961

It's theoretically correct, practically retarded and dangerous.

>> No.17728346

The implication of being able to unite people who otherwise wouldn't be able to get along is that you can let the coalition fall apart when it becomes inconvenient. I'm sure all the theory makes sense if you start with their assumptions and mindset, but this is just an extension of divide and conquer only applied to the citizenry rather than foriegn nation. It the domestic policy version of the british empire redrawing the borders of the African and Middle Eastern nations in order to foster conflict.

>> No.17728431

Yeah is Beyonce oppressed for being a black woman, despite her having hundreds of millions of dollars? Do the police accost her when she goes places? OP's pic suggests that there is an equal input to each of these "struts" in the intersections, which is just not true. Money negates all others, and you cannot be both wealthy and oppressed in a society. True oppression would prevent the chance to get wealthy. Obviously Beyonce or Kanye West are outliers just as celebrities are in general, but if blacks were truly second class, they wouldn't exist and be popular musicians.

>> No.17728629

As many have pointed out, at its heart intersectionality is based on a truism which is difficult to really “refute.” What you CAN do is flip the chessboard over and directly criticize the psychology or the underlying worldview of the people obsessed with intersectionality.

Kaczynski’s analysis of leftism in his manifesto, as well as Nietzsche on the slave revolt and ressentiment in his “Genealogy of Morals” are good examples of this.

Also, ironically, are any authentic mystical traditions which acknowledge a person is more than just the sum total of their physical history and groups they can be placed into. Whether you call it the Atman, the Buddha-nature, or your eternal soul, what you are at your core can’t be defined with labels like black, white, male, female, oppressed or non-oppressed.

“There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Galatians 3:28

>> No.17728895

That doesn't refute it though. The claim is that a white man would just have it even better.

>> No.17729106

According to that logic a jewish man would have it even better than a white man, does intersectionality prove the jq?

>> No.17729146

Thanks for a good answer Fras

>> No.17729204

Poor tranny lesbian niggas can also “tell whitey to fuck off”, they do it all the time

>> No.17729279

Tell that to coal mine workers in West Virginia, who are predominantly white. Class trumps all other considerations. Comparatively quite a few individuals regardless of identity categorizations have it better than Beyonce. It's true that in the past racial class stratification was more pronounced, to the extent that it was structurally impossible for nonwhites to enter the upper classes (e.g. slavery, jim crow) but wealth and social status are inextricably related. Just because there are rich black rappers, pop stars, celebrities and athletes obviously does not extend to the whole population, but it does prove that class positions are permeable beyond race.

>> No.17729350

That doesn't refute intersectionality. Class is the most important distinction, doesn't mean there aren't other ones as well. Do you really want to tell me that race and gender have absolutely no impact on how society treats us?
I don't know, do Jewish people have it better than white people? I don't see a lot of white people getting shot up just for being white.

>> No.17729373

>o Jewish people have it better than white people?
by income yes, which is one of the big arguments for white privilege. And you don't hear about white people getting killed for being white because our dear friends at SPLC etc. don't like recording those as hate crimes and the press refuses to report on them.


>> No.17729439

If one is 'marginalized' it can only be in reference to a normative social order incarnated in concrete persons and institutions which is then inflated to totalitarian proportions. These people obviously havent read foucault and deleuze since their ideology is all about having an oedipal relationship with the institution and ceding all deontological psychiatric authority to corporate instances. The Left decided reading books was for straight white males and unthinkingly internalized prevailing atomistic neoliberal views of human subjectivity, psychiatry, essentialistic identity, post 9/11 discourse of counterterrorism, and bf skinner's behaviorism(the onus shifts from the conscious human capacity to construct the social world to unconscious prejudices which can only be adressed by institutional power)

>> No.17729481

The alphabet people and politically correct victimhood constituencies
are not anti system revolutionaries but purpose engineered biopolitical clientele for NGOs multinational corporations and the democratic party. They dont breed dont think read or question authority are completely detached from any authentic culture and utterly dependent on the media and corporations for validation so they can be made to do anything.

>> No.17729540
File: 65 KB, 591x518, images (52).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

As a privileged white male whos coming to terms with his prejudices against the queer community i would like to read some theory that can help me appreciate the diverse and vibrant culture of these politically correct victimhood units, i mean these most noble and progressive of creatures

>> No.17729561

I almost accepted an internship from these faggots, can you believe it? Good thing I noticed this in time.

>> No.17729642

>An intersectional analysis considers all the factors that apply
The refutation is that the statement above is a lie. Were it true, you'd end up with individualism.

>> No.17729680
File: 131 KB, 512x512, 1614303941850.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

newage garbage logic .
i can summarize this in one sentence.
who you are to others is how they value you, and what they want is predetermined before you showed up.

now fuck off tranny

>> No.17729690


>> No.17729711

>get’s a d in intro to business

>> No.17729719

>Were it true, you'd end up with individualism.
Which is exactly what has happened as a result of intersectionality, but its proponents are too scared to admit that lest they lose their progressive posture.

>> No.17729727

>Do you really want to tell me that race and gender have absolutely no impact on how society treats us?
Nobody is claiming they have no impact. They are claiming the impact is insignificant when compared to wealth/class.
>I don't know, do Jewish people have it better than white people?
According to college admission rates and income, absolutely. And don't get me started on the hasids living off welfare, despite living in McMansions.
>I don't see a lot of white people getting shot up just for being white.
News rarely reports on it outside of local stations and it's usually just written off as gang violence. You look at interracial violent crime rates and it will tell a much different story.

>> No.17729797

>Do you really want to tell me that race and gender have absolutely no impact on how society treats us?
Literally everything goes into how you are treated by a person.
This is something that irritates me. You, the person being treated, are an individual, a person, your identity (ego) has to be accoutned for, every little detail about you must be accounted for, but what are you being treated by? Society. A nebulous concept. Not a person. An idea.
What of the actual person? What is their identity? Why are you being treated this way? Why would anyone expect to be treated exactly the same as everyone else, erasing their differences, according to your standards based on their differences? Are we different? Or are we not different? Shall we be treated the same, though we are not the same? How is an apple to be treated as an orange while the orange maintains itself, its identity, its ego, as an orange? We forget that they are an orange, while also remembering that they are an orange?

>> No.17729828

These are not individuals, but mass produced victimhood units, I mean have you tried bringing up nietzsche or any western philosopher for that matter around your local lgbtsjwtfnpc marxist cattle? In no time you will see their little beady cowlike eyes light up in panic. Soon enough they will start with the usual subhuman bleating "wasnt he sexist? Arent you being dangerously eurocentric? Why read books by dead white men when you could have been streaming the latest diverse and inclusive workplace comedies at netflix hulu and disneygo? You should know reading non YA literature is ableist against those who are too retarded to read. What are you a russian bot trump supporter? Have you been taking your SSRIs and HRT? it is very important that you take the medication dr goldstein prescribed otherwise we will have to report you to corporate for mandatory sensitivity training".

>> No.17729907

Jokes on you, I study math and we don't have letter grades in Britain.

>> No.17729995

Only white straight males can afford to think of themselves as individuals, marginalized folks can tell individualism and colorblind racism has always been a cover for white supremacy and a means to rob them of their culture and impose white norms. Right wimg PoC are brown mouths speaking white words, part of decolonization is to root out internalized oppression

>> No.17730024

Relatively? Yes. There's proportinally far more poor white people and far more rich jewish people.
>I don't see a lot of white people getting shot up just for being white.
That's what happens if you only consume msm. There's more non-white>white violence than the other way round.

>> No.17730041

Pure ideology
What you are saying is based on the premise that we are nothing but the collective
>brown mouths speaking white words
If this is the case then it's race war now
Your own premise demands war and hostility with one another
That this is a zero sum game where we separate into tribes and fight for survival
No communication needed since we are nothing but mouth-pieces for our tribe

>> No.17730190

This premise that we are nothing but the collective also refutes intersectionality. If we are to factor in every single little detail about all your special snowflake differences there will be a grand total of 1 person in each group.
>I'm a mouthpiece for gay black trans neocon bald-headed short skinny denim wearing hat wearing dogkin named jim
Great, so you're the mouth-piece for you.
>marginalized folks
Also, who are the marginalized folks? Who decides what is valued more in this game of marginalization? Who decides what is deemed most marginalized? Is it gay black queer female midgets with clubbed feet and no eyes? Do we find that person and put them in charge of "fairness"? Shall we crown them God?
The whole thing is batshit insane gobbledygook

>> No.17730344

>What you CAN do is flip the chessboard over and directly criticize the psychology or the underlying worldview
That's basically what Critical Theory does.

>> No.17730364

The frankfurt school and foucault would all be far right white males by todays standards.

>> No.17730626

>PoC's are oppressed and PoC's who say otherwise are just brainwashed.
Dismissing ideas you disagree with as the self-serving babblings of minds shaped by the
malign influence of a certain reality is polylogism, a proud marxist tradition.

>> No.17731115

This has to be bait

>> No.17731141

You're an idiot.

>> No.17731153

Unironically, Jordan Peterson has a great argument against this.

The gist is: there's no obvious stopping criteria for dimensions to consider when "intersecting" them for analysis. Consider LGBT as an example: it just gets more and more fragmented because there are always sub-groups that feel they are not being accurately represented (e.g. asexual aromantics, nonbinary bisexuals, etc etc; I can't even keep up.)

Once you keep fragmenting it essentially reduces to having each individual in their own group. And the whole intersectional analysis just falls apart.

So, showing again, the primacy of the individual.

>> No.17731187

I too found JBP's assesment credible

>> No.17731216

Intersectionality is a methodology, not a belief system. It seems to analyze how identities "intersect" to create certain kinds of phenomena and experiences where singular analyses of independent axes of identity seem insufficient. You can't "refute" it; at best you can minimize its usefulness as a concept by demonstrating that conclusions it tends to reach are systematically riddled with error and/or are more easily reached through other lens of analysis.

>> No.17731265

>There's more non-white>white violence than the other way round.
I know that you faggot. Almost none of that violence is because they are white. Race is completely irrelevant to 99.9% of those interactions.

>> No.17731288

>Most intersectionalists are also marxists, but they will never admit wealth trumps all of these factors.
Which means they are not marxists.

>> No.17731295

If you can dismiss all of that as irrelevant because it's not race related, what gives you the right to say that any violence committed against black people (usually by blacks) happened because they're black?

>> No.17731349

Midwit take after skimming the Wikipedia article of it:

>a model is not a good model if it tries to recreate reality. it loses its usefulness
>it is entirely based on subjective experience. white supremacists could just as easily use it to claim oppression as black women
>it uses several labels layered on top of each other. is it about individual experiences or an aggregation of stereotypes? kind of schizophrenic

>> No.17731406

I mean, we can claim Neo-Nazi's don't represent actual nazism because most of them are mouth-breathing neckbeards, but saying they AREN'T nazis would be disingenuous, now wouldn't it?

>> No.17731419

No it wouldn't, actual nazis from back in the day wouldn't consider them nazis

>> No.17731895


>> No.17732447

OK cool but you're wrong on pretty much everything you've said

>> No.17732901

No one even mentioned black people. Seems like someone lives in your head rent free.
Anyways if someone is known for hating Jews, posts online about how he's going to kill the Jews and specifically seeks out a place only occupied by Jews for a mass shooting, it's absolutely fair to assume that it happened because their Jews.

>> No.17732924
File: 8 KB, 272x262, wut.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>most important
>except for the things which are no less important
bro, I'm sympathetic to leftism but jesus christ

>> No.17732943


>> No.17733196

Fuck off

>> No.17733356

Don't be sympathetic to leftism. It's overrun by actual fucking retards who want to destroy any remaining semblance of sanity. If you feel they have some good points like "Don't kill off your working class with unjustifiable working conditions", then bring the leftism down and make something worth keeping around.

>> No.17734037

You forgot to mention that it has to redefine oppression as unmatched privilege to even manage to make its first claim. The assumption that oppression can exist without oppressors because we decided to define it that way is simply taking an idea beyond the point of absurdity.

>> No.17734046

>Funny how people spend a lot more time claiming that these things have been refuted than they do refuting them

>> No.17734916

>redefine oppression
This has to be what pisses me off the most about this insanity. "If there's a contradiction in your logic, just redefine it until the contradiction isn't in your court and then pretend it was always defined like that." Then explaining why you can't do that just makes them assume they win the argument and it ends there.

>> No.17735507

Not him, but can you tell me in what he is wrong? Because his comment is pretty spot on

>> No.17735812

Few with the "nigga" attribute because of the IQ problem. But white tranny lesbians that are also rich are overrepresented in Hollywood ans politics for example. Also asians.

>> No.17735950

It honestly isn't an IQ issue so much as a cultural one. You can see a vast difference in black men raised in any respectable culture versus those raised by "hood" culture. Not saying there ain't an average IQ difference, just that no matter where you go in the world the issues they primarily face have to do entirely with "hood" or African "culture"

>> No.17735975

anglos be like:
how can I argue with facts and logic and waste my life online with other mentally ill freaks

>> No.17736027

Although true to a degree it's also misinterpretation. The blacks who are in white society have been selected for IQ already. Through rent or the cost of a plane ticket from Africa or whatever. Hood culture is mainly just black society depleted of its high IQ members. They propably would test at an African IQ average.

>> No.17736061

>They propably would test at an African IQ average.
While this is possible, issues should be solved one by one starting with the best course of action considered for each. Say we were to take our causes and present them to a judge in charge of carrying out solutions, do you think he'd be more likely to want to try and fix hood culture first? Or give mass IQ tests and extradite the failures back to Africa? I feel its best to consider solutions that possibly fix the problem before we consider ones that remove it entirely.

>> No.17736069
File: 163 KB, 1280x720, 1596240899582.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


Seemed pretty spot on to me.

>The labels are also it's greatest offense towards those it wishes to protect. Nobody, even the most empty of soulless human husks can truly be reduced to a pittance of labels. To do so is to dehumanize anyone you seek to analyze with this.

I particularly liked this part as it is apparent that these righteous folk who seek to 'protect' POCs/BAMEs etc often don't realise how condescending they are by reducing the sum of a persons life to a few petty, surface labels and then deny them agency to defend themselves (but poor person of maligned social group! YOU are already brainwashed if you don't agree with MY pseudo-academic take on your plight! Let ME tell YOU what YOUR problems are!)

>> No.17736100

Sure. It's not even that difficult in technical terms. Stop financially incentivizing illegitimate births and the crime rate for example should collapse. Still incredibly unrealistic in political terms. If it were me I would offer blacks a few million dollars to leave the country and renounce their citizenship, offer maybe half a million to whoever wants them (they would be of great value in Africa). Aside from Democratic politicians everyone would be ecstatic, we could even call it 'reparations' because why not.

>> No.17736112

Money is the ultimate good, God
This is a fundamental implication in all of this
This is all a replacement for God. It's secular religion.
>how do we convert the heathen minorities to our white middle class american ways?
It's a replacement of nature and letting things be for the idea that we are God. Nothing is real but what we create. If we say equality, so it shall be. If we say equality is this, so it shall be. It's hubris. Arrogance.
The personal responsibility and importance of everyday interactions is eschewed and deferred to state statements. It's a show. A farce. A game for the bored middle class.

>> No.17736305

Can someone explain why most intersectionalists don't give a fuck about autistic people?

>> No.17736371

Because they're mostly male and annoying to be around.

>> No.17736426

The feeling's mutual.

>> No.17737091

I am the guy he replied to. He's most likely just a baiting retard, given the context.

>> No.17737845

They only give a fuck about black and females

>> No.17739515

It's true lol

>> No.17739676

How many of those rich white guys are jews

>> No.17739795

autistic spiritual hierarchy for liberals

>> No.17740030


>> No.17740174

The iPhone gamer is right

>> No.17741646


>> No.17741884

Don't really think you can. That being said a lot of talk about "identity" today is extremely superficial and done to support the aims and goals of Capital (making everyone into interchangeable cogs and consumers to be marketed too), so you could take that angle.

>> No.17742034

You literally have rich niggers like LeBron James saying he's more oppressed than white homeless people. No matter your race, gender, sexuality, or whatever, if you're rich any talk about ending oppression will only come off as condescending and out of touch with the working class.

>> No.17742131
File: 19 KB, 640x340, 1615160505737.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.17742346

Read fannon and quijano you need to decolonise your mind

>> No.17742419

I am right wing and I agree with intersectionality theory. Makes sense in some regards. Most of the opposition to it is by people who JBP and other conseracucks who don't understand the theory and think anything to the left of them is Marxism.

>> No.17742434

This anon's post, but it also generally has issues with how it compiles oppressor dynamics. It assumes homogenization of oppressors. I.e., men oppress women, whites oppress blacks, and straight people oppress gays, therefore the ultimate oppressor to everyone is a straight white man. But in reality black men are more sexist and hate gays more than white men, and white women in particular like levying power against black men (e.g., providing fake evidence for lynchings.) So it's very good at diagnosing which group is being affected by negative social dynamics, it's god awful at determining why and how.

>> No.17742442

Seeing /lit/ deal with this is a good demonstration how pseudointellectual the majority of the people here are. I would put the average IQ here at 95.

>> No.17742459

Also trannies arent an oppressed minority but autistic neets who became perverted from watching way too much anime pornography

>> No.17742475

Intersectionality is right in that certain groups hold more privilege than others in a given social context. But the conservative right in America is even more egalitarian than the progressive left (they're the social left and only economically left on some issues) in that they assume everyone is a blank slate and equal. They seriously underestimate the effects of slavery and post slavery policies towards blacks. This is because both conservatives and progressives both adhere to liberalism.

Because the conservatives (who are the de facto right) totally eschew any form of ethnic or racial nationalism they reject the use of race in any analysis of societal and economic problems. Intersectionality at it's core is says some obvious things. My response to proponents of intersectionality when they say that whites are more privileged than blacks is too simply say "So what?". That a society founded by a certain group of people favours its own is not in any way or shape problematic. This is why types like JBP and other conservatives aren't really able to mount an counter-argument because the only avenue they have they have closed off.

>> No.17742563

A surprising number of blacks think integration was a mistake. ie. Whereas once they had their own businesses communities they are now to be integrated and measured against white society all the while it was johnson's liberal big society policies that really wrecked havoc on the inner cities. Liberals have no answer for racism except for relegating it to the subconscious of the individual reviving the crude behaviorist ideas of bf skinner and negating the specially human capacity for self definition and communication(contrast the civil rights movement of the 60s which was still grounded on a christian anthropology and still featured a critique of capitalism). Meanwhile the right embraced IQ and genetic determinism. Both agree on the fundamental premise of society as a total institution, they differ on the engoal of wheter this institution wheter should produce 'equality' by demographic category or sort by IQ but pretty much all vision of the good life or human autonomy or community has been lost.

>> No.17742611

Therefore we must destroy gender entirely

>> No.17742620

dangerously based

>> No.17742641

No you fucking idiot.

Intersectionality means that a disabled person and a male person both face difficulties in certain situations, but a person that is both disabled and male will have each of those difficulties modified by the interaction of those aspects in ways not experienced by the person who is one but not the other.

>> No.17742706

Anyone whos read foucault ironically cannot help but look at these ideas with suspicion because power is first and foremost the power to tell you who you are. I mean do you really want to cede it over to HR and marketing departments and midwit academics, drug companies and astroturf activists and mass media? By accepting the premise you are 'marginalized' you accede to be defined in relation to this social order which is always incarnated in concrete persons and institutions

Delete posts
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.