Social Justice, Intersectionality, and Privilege

[West Leas Oros 2]

Even some of the authoritarian communists weren't terrible maniacs. Lenin did some nice things. A lot of which Stalin ruined. It bothers me when people act like their ideology has no blood on it's hands. No matter what quadrant, ideology, country. Anarchism is bloody. Marxism-Leninism is bloody. Fascism is bloody. Liberalism is bloody. No ideology has clean hands. So we should accept that.

Communism is on a level of its own. Even today, the CCP continues to sterilize Uyghur and gas protestors in Hong Kong, Chinese Communist leaders are sadistic maniacs who enjoy killing people for fun

Again, not every communist is favorable of China. Most even denounce it. Also, considering all the Dengist reforms, China is a lot more authcenter now.

[Nuroblav]

I think some social issues need to be recognised, but as you say many have a habit of taking these things a bit too far, to the point where it detracts from combatting the overarching systems of oppression that exist regardless.

Glad to know every communist ever is a hardcore Maoist.

Correct. The moment anyone starts mentioning such evil concepts such as 'free healthcare', you can tell they're a gulag-loving liberal communist anarchist socialist maoist with vuvuzuela characteristics. /s

[Genivaria]

Communism is on a level of its own. Even today, the CCP continues to sterilize Uyghur and gas protestors in Hong Kong, Chinese Communist leaders are sadistic maniacs who enjoy killing people for fun

Again, not every communist is favorable of China. Most even denounce it. Also, considering all the Dengist reforms, China is a lot more authcenter now.

I'd say 'most Communists' are Chinese honestly.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Again, not every communist is favorable of China. Most even denounce it. Also, considering all the Dengist reforms, China is a lot more authcenter now.

I'd say 'most Communists' are Chinese honestly.

In the USA, most communists are actually CIA plants.

"Yes, I love... *looks at hand* Carly Marks!"

[Borderlands of Rojava]

This is more of that regressive bullshit that allows the oppressive system in America to continue. It's hard to change things when everyone just gets divided and ruled or co-opted by corporate promises of "more representation."

I will say this. People like my father often consider the stereotypical SJW type to be "communist" but in many ways they're more like fascists. Their battle is not a class conflict but instead is often a race conflict. For an example as to the sheer backward ways of your archetypal SJW type (not all leftists are "SJWs" nor are people who truly want to stop oppression "SJWs" just for being rightfully mad), when I was in my first year of college, I joined the Latino Students Association. At first it was a fun time and they had good food, fun events and the women were all like 9/10 in appearance AT LOWEST, but then they started stanning real hardcore for intersectionality and they started pushing this idea that white people who didn't speak on racism everyday or cut off family members with less than progressive ideas were inherently racist. I tolerated this for a time but things came to a head when it was announced we would give two members of our organization a Quinceanera/Quinceanero. The guidelines for the Quince's was that the person who we threw one for HAD TO BE HISPANIC. If they were not of latino origin, they couldn't have one. However one of our members named John was a black man who grew up in North Lansing, which is heavily Mexican. John spoke fluent Spanish, to a point he could switch mid sentence into Spanish without any hesitation, and all the food he ate was Latin. His favorite musicians were hispanic and all his friends were Spanish too. In my eyes John was and always will be a hispanic like myself, and in my opinion, since hispanic is a culture, anyone can become hispanic by integrating in. By making the argument that John was a hispanic despite being born to a black American mother, i brought fire and fury down on myself the likes of which I never saw. I was called a "fucking retard," told that since John's lineage did not trace to Latin America he could never be one of us, and accused of not even knowing what a hispanic is despite being one. It was some racist crap, some real greaseball shit. It's ironic they wanted black and white allies in the fight against the abuses of ICE or police violence toward latinos but they wanted to exclude said groups at the same time. I never forgot that night I made that argument in our groupchat only to be shouted down, and it only made my opinion toward those who participate in identity politics even lower than before. Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere. Let's not pretend that we as individuals or our ethnicity is "especially oppressed" in a way no one else is, and let's not push people away because they aren't one of us.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

I'd say 'most Communists' are Chinese honestly.

In the USA, most communists are actually CIA plants.

"Yes, I love... *looks at hand* Carly Marks!"

Joe Stal is bae lmfao.

[Glorious Hong Kong]

Protestants and Catholics, Sunnis and Shi'ites, Stalinists and Maoists, Stalinists and Trotskyists, China and Vietnam, all turned their guns/swords on each other despite ostensibly sharing broadly similar ideals. That most American leftists do not back the CCP or vice versa is entirely beside the point. This is like claiming the 9/11 terrorists "weren't real Muslims".



Non-Marxist, neoliberal businessmen feel the need to appease the mob in order to secure their moneyed interests either out of greed or a fear of cancellation. In Hong Kong, conservative businessmen formerly loyal to the British Crown opposed democratization because it meant that moderate, left-leaning social democrats would be able to seize political power and improve the rights of working-class people. Thus, in the 1980s, they formed an unholy alliance with CCP-affiliated groups operating within HK to form the pro-Beijing camp that has governed the city with an increasingly iron fist since the Handover in 1997. Capitalism and communism are not mutually exclusive. While communism is anathema to a genuine capitalist, capitalism is a means to an end for these Marxist-Leninists. I consider them to be as communist as you are. They just happen to be a different kind of communist.



Genuine equality is compatible with liberalism, particularly social liberalism and its emphasis on the creation and maintenance of a social safety net. Liberalism is not "Marxist" in any way.



Not necessarily you. I'm referring here to American and European Marxists of the identitarian sort. What they're practicing is a form of accelerationism. A civil war and a total breakdown of law and order will create an opening for both fascists and communists alike to seize power by force similar to what happened in China in 1949. That's if they don't seize power via the ballot box and gradually transform and co-opt the Democrat Party into a de facto communist party little by little similar to what happened to the conservative business elite in Hong Kong. If this happens, then communism in America will have a much more singular focus and an actual conspiracy may actually begin to take root.



You hesitate to consider these nutjobs as Marxists and leftists, but neither are they in any way liberal in their stated goals and intentions. They are not one of us either. I do not necessarily view everything through a conspiratorial lens. The CCP has no involvement in efforts to destabilize America, and there is no hard evidence that the BLM and social justice riots are part of some overarching conspiracy. But what is clear is that all these movements are inspired by Marxist principles, albeit with an identitarian SJW twist.

If you oppose these identitarian Marxists and consider them to be "not really Marxist", then you must also oppose intersectionality, Black Lives Matter, and Antifa whether you consider them to be Marxist or not.

Absent any kind of grand conspiracy, the simplest explanation is that the sudden resurgence of identitarian Marxism within the past 5-10 years, or whatever it is you want to call it because it's definitely not liberal, is like the sudden emergence of the coronavirus pandemic, and the mode of transmission is via word of mouth. It's more like a mind virus that slowly turns its unwitting victims little by little with intersectionality here and safe spaces there until they are full-blown superspreaders. Many of those turned may not even identify as Marxists, communists, or leftists. Liberals like myself seem to be more susceptible to indoctrination than conservatives because its grand promises of equality and social justice are more appealing and intoxicating to us. That's what makes communism so insidious. While this may not have been Karl Marx's original intention, it is what it is.

I could go on about my views on communism, but a full analysis would take up exactly nine sides of A4. If you want to know more, the link (The case against communism) is in my sig.

1. Except you're claiming that the American left is working with China, aren't you? Or am I mistaken.
2. Fine by me. But at least accept that the Marxists who oppose that have more in common with you than they have in common with the MLs. A lot of Marxist-Leninists would rather work with capitalists than ancoms. No need to make every Marxist your enemy.
3. Sure, but still, plenty of Marxists would agree with you. Most argue class matters more than other identities. Even the OP said so.
4. I doubt that tactic will work. America isn't likely to go down that path. I particularly doubt that the Democrats will ever be a de facto communist party.
5. As a matter of fact, I do have a beef with Antifa, intersectionality, and BLM. Not a particularly strong one, but I know they have a capacity for identitarianism of the most harmful sort. I am a Marxist in the sense that I follow the beliefs that Marx laid out. Obviously, anything that I see that deviates from Marx's belief I would consider "not Marxist", just as say, a Christian would say that teachings that run against the teachings of Jesus would be "not Christian". I would consider identitarianism antithetical to the Marxist goal, so therefore, whether they think so or not, they are undermining the Marxist goal.

1. For the record, I'm not claiming any sort of CCP involvement. I'm fully aware that many American leftists condemn and oppose the CCP. Hence, my analogy vis a vis factional infighting.

2. I do not consider you personally to be my enemy given what you've told me about yourself. You remind me of a moderate Ahmadiyya Muslim I spoke to two years ago who believes his religion has been defamed and misrepresented by his fellow Muslims.

3. The question then is how they would go about realizing genuine equality devoid of intersectional BS. Communists believe in revolution and direct action. Democratic socialists believe in furthering their goals through the ballot box. Social democrats are less interested in overthrowing capitalism and more interested in creating an extensive social safety net, something that I, as a liberal, find more acceptable. I do not believe for one second that abolishing capitalism is the way forward. I do not believe lawless anarchy and violent revolution are the way forward.

4. I hope, for all our sakes, you're right.

5. See 3.

Trump won because of the electoral college, states that went blue turned red because Clinton is the exact image of anti-workers while Trump, despite being a billionaire that steps on other people, has a populist pro-worker message during his campaign. Hillary doubled down on her urban elite persona

But dead on your hill that college leftists don't understand the plight of the poor and downtrodden. But it should also include the infamous "Google is free" mindset many leftists have when someone who may otherwise consider leftist viewpoints asks for direction on theory. Or how linking a vox article equates to giving $15 to their venmo as 'emotional labor'. If I wasn't already set on my own beliefs, I'd run away from leftist circles, it's a mindset only the privileged could have because I'm sure the starving miner being exploited won't have the time, energy, or money to "google" mindlessly and have the resources to 'compensate' someone for answering a question. Direct action isn't an option to these types

Ah yes, 'emotional labor' I remember a BLM FB page where people kept demanding payment before they would back up any of their bullshit claims.
Get a degree in what we're talking about and write a book and then MAYBE I'll pay for your fucking opinion you entitled shit.

Medium can rot for all I care.

I think some social issues need to be recognised, but as you say many have a habit of taking these things a bit too far, to the point where it detracts from combatting the overarching systems of oppression that exist regardless.

Glad to know every communist ever is a hardcore Maoist.

Correct. The moment anyone starts mentioning such evil concepts such as 'free healthcare', you can tell they're a gulag-loving liberal communist anarchist socialist maoist with vuvuzuela characteristics. /s

I'm an anti-communist liberal and I support universal healthcare.

Totalitarianism =/= Communism. Alexander Dubcek is a communist and he resisted Soviet totalitarianism in favor of a "Socialism with a human face". Right-wing dictatorships are also just as likely to kill you for fun (See Imperial Japan and Francoist Spain) as left-wing totalitarian states

Even some of the authoritarian communists weren't terrible maniacs. Lenin did some nice things. A lot of which Stalin ruined. It bothers me when people act like their ideology has no blood on it's hands. No matter what quadrant, ideology, country. Anarchism is bloody. Marxism-Leninism is bloody. Fascism is bloody. Liberalism is bloody. No ideology has clean hands. So we should accept that.

Lenin assassinated the entire Royal Family and entourage. He also orchestrated the Red Terror. He is one of the most wicked individuals ever to have walked the Earth. Given Marxism-Leninism's track record of significantly worsening the human condition and anarcho-communism's inability to make any sort of positive, meaningful impact on the lives of ordinary people, why would you want to call yourself a communist in the first place?

I also acknowledge that liberalism has blood on its hands and I apologize on behalf of all liberals for all the mistakes we have made. I'm not going to pretend that the racists, imperialists, and wealthy industrialists of the 19th and early 20th century were anything but liberal. We also screwed up when we admitted China into the WTO in the naive belief that the CCP would become just like us and embrace democracy, which has never happened. I'm sorry for all the endless wars of aggression that have been waged in our name. I'm sorry for all the dictatorships that were installed by liberal, Democratic administrations during the Cold War in our righteous struggle against communism back when we actually struggled against it instead of appeasing it and allowing some of its dangerous ideas to silently infiltrate our minds like many of my fellow, misguided, SJW liberals are doing today, which I am also ashamed of. I hesitate to call them liberals because there is nothing liberal about intersectionality. SJW liberals are so far removed from what I would consider to be liberal principles I don't even recognize them anymore.

But I would also argue that liberalism's track record has been far more successful than that of communism, however. Some ideologies (and religions) are objectively better than others by leaps and bounds. Liberalism is also not responsible for the sudden emergence of identitarian, intersectional Marxism/not Marxism in the West today. Intersectionality is a product of identitarian, postmodernist, Marxist ideology. Critical race theory advanced by BLM and like-minded interest groups is derived from critical theory, itself a product of the Frankfurt School, a hub of Western, cultural Marxist thought as opposed to traditional, economic Marxist thought. I'm really happy Trump banned the teaching of critical race theory within the federal government. The Trump administration is taking a strong and uncompromising stand against this absolutely vile, openly racist, intersectional BLM nonsense.

[West Leas Oros 2]

1. Except you're claiming that the American left is working with China, aren't you? Or am I mistaken.
2. Fine by me. But at least accept that the Marxists who oppose that have more in common with you than they have in common with the MLs. A lot of Marxist-Leninists would rather work with capitalists than ancoms. No need to make every Marxist your enemy.
3. Sure, but still, plenty of Marxists would agree with you. Most argue class matters more than other identities. Even the OP said so.
4. I doubt that tactic will work. America isn't likely to go down that path. I particularly doubt that the Democrats will ever be a de facto communist party.
5. As a matter of fact, I do have a beef with Antifa, intersectionality, and BLM. Not a particularly strong one, but I know they have a capacity for identitarianism of the most harmful sort. I am a Marxist in the sense that I follow the beliefs that Marx laid out. Obviously, anything that I see that deviates from Marx's belief I would consider "not Marxist", just as say, a Christian would say that teachings that run against the teachings of Jesus would be "not Christian". I would consider identitarianism antithetical to the Marxist goal, so therefore, whether they think so or not, they are undermining the Marxist goal.

1. For the record, I'm not claiming any sort of CCP involvement. I'm fully aware that many American leftists condemn and oppose the CCP. Hence, my analogy vis a vis factional infighting.

2. I do not consider you personally to be my enemy given what you've told me about yourself. You remind me of a moderate Ahmadiyya Muslim I spoke to two years ago who believes his religion has been defamed and misrepresented by his fellow Muslims.

3. The question then is how they would go about realizing genuine equality devoid of intersectional BS. Communists believe in revolution and direct action. Democratic socialists believe in furthering their goals through the ballot box. Social democrats are less interested in overthrowing capitalism and more interested in creating an extensive social safety net, something that I, as a liberal, find more acceptable. I do not believe for one second that abolishing capitalism is the way forward. I do not believe lawless anarchy and violent revolution are the way forward.

4. I hope, for all our sakes, you're right.

5. See 3.

Ah yes, 'emotional labor' I remember a BLM FB page where people kept demanding payment before they would back up any of their bullshit claims.
Get a degree in what we're talking about and write a book and then MAYBE I'll pay for your fucking opinion you entitled shit.

Medium can rot for all I care.

I think some social issues need to be recognised, but as you say many have a habit of taking these things a bit too far, to the point where it detracts from combatting the overarching systems of oppression that exist regardless.

Correct. The moment anyone starts mentioning such evil concepts such as 'free healthcare', you can tell they're a gulag-loving liberal communist anarchist socialist maoist with vuvuzuela characteristics. /s

I'm an anti-communist liberal and I support universal healthcare.

Even some of the authoritarian communists weren't terrible maniacs. Lenin did some nice things. A lot of which Stalin ruined. It bothers me when people act like their ideology has no blood on it's hands. No matter what quadrant, ideology, country. Anarchism is bloody. Marxism-Leninism is bloody. Fascism is bloody. Liberalism is bloody. No ideology has clean hands. So we should accept that.

Lenin assassinated the entire Royal Family and entourage. He also orchestrated the Red Terror. He is one of the most wicked individuals ever to have walked the Earth. Given Marxism-Leninism's track record of significantly worsening the human condition and anarcho-communism's inability to make any sort of positive, meaningful impact on the lives of ordinary people, why would you want to call yourself a communist in the first place?

I also acknowledge that liberalism has blood on its hands and I apologize on behalf of all liberals for all the mistakes we have made. I'm not going to pretend that the racists, imperialists, and wealthy industrialists of the 19th and early 20th century were anything but liberal. We also screwed up when we admitted China into the WTO in the naive belief that the CCP would become just like us and embrace democracy, which has never happened. I'm sorry for all the endless wars of aggression that have been waged in our name. I'm sorry for all the dictatorships that were installed by liberal, Democratic administrations during the Cold War in our righteous struggle against communism back when we actually struggled against it instead of appeasing it and allowing some of its dangerous ideas to silently infiltrate our minds like many of my fellow, misguided, SJW liberals are doing today, which I am also ashamed of. I hesitate to call them liberals because there is nothing liberal about intersectionality. SJW liberals are so far removed from what I would consider to be liberal principles I don't even recognize them anymore.

But I would also argue that liberalism's track record has been far more successful than that of communism, however. Some ideologies (and religions) are objectively better than others by leaps and bounds. Liberalism is also not responsible for the sudden emergence of identitarian, intersectional Marxism/not Marxism in the West today. Intersectionality is a product of identitarian, postmodernist, Marxist ideology. Critical race theory advanced by BLM and like-minded interest groups is derived from critical theory, itself a product of the Frankfurt School, a hub of Western, cultural Marxist thought as opposed to traditional, economic Marxist thought. I'm really happy Trump banned the teaching of critical race theory within the federal government. The Trump administration is taking a strong and uncompromising stand against this absolutely vile, openly racist, intersectional BLM nonsense.

Not to nitpick, but that same royal family did some pretty heinous things to political criminals, and some of their loyalists executed terrors of their own. Also, there are other communist schools that aren't Marxist-Leninist or anarchist. It's not quite the tankie anarkiddie divide that it is said to be.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

So different, but similar in that they're both ridiculous bullshit?

In a weird way, yeah. It's a rabbit hole you're best not looking too deep into and I speak as someone that is not white but also has white privilege so take it as it may

You can only hide your non whiteness to a certain point. Think of it like how a gay man in the closet feels about being gay. True, as long as he isn't exposed, he'll be alright. But how long can you hide it?

Youre fortunate unlike me to not look at all like the stereoptypical hispanic (When I shave I look more Lebanese but still visibly "exotic") but even as a white passer, eventually someone will figure out your name or your heritage and they'll put two and two together. If it hasn't happened to you yet, it will eventually.

[Alternamerica]

In a weird way, yeah. It's a rabbit hole you're best not looking too deep into and I speak as someone that is not white but also has white privilege so take it as it may

You can only hide your non whiteness to a certain point. Think of it like how a gay man in the closet feels about being gay. True, as long as he isn't exposed, he'll be alright. But how long can you hide it?

Youre fortunate unlike me to not look at all like the stereoptypical hispanic (When I shave I look more Lebanese but still visibly "exotic") but even as a white passer, eventually someone will figure out your name or your heritage and they'll put two and two together. If it hasn't happened to you yet, it will eventually.

The comment was a sarcastic joke at non-Arab/non-Latinos calling me White just for looking the part, ignoring the long history the Levant has with Greco-Roman and Persian civilizations; also ignoring that Arabs and Latin Americans are the two most mixed people in the world. Readers fear us, we're the future of mankind

People already know my identity. My family name is Arabic so I'm exposed the instant I do anything. I also don't hide my race, while I have no connection to Mexico, I'm proud of both my Mexican and Lebanese origins

Not to nitpick, but that same royal family did some pretty heinous things to political criminals, and some of their loyalists executed terrors of their own. Also, there are other communist schools that aren't Marxist-Leninist or anarchist. It's not quite the tankie anarkiddie divide that it is said to be.

Serfdom in the 20th century also isn't cool. Lenin at least laid the groundworks for dismantling Russia's archaic system.

It's also sad people forgot the Syndicalists, Mutualists, and AuthComs who hate Stalin/Mao. There are some Ho Chi Minh/Tito/Castro stans who have nothing but critique for Stalin and Mao. After all, no one hates leftists more than other leftists

[Ricksolot]

Honestly the United States of America is the least oppressive country in the world. I think identity politics is just a tool for planting the seeds of hatred and contention. By their fruit you will recognize them. Just take a look at what people do versus what they say. BLM is just a Marxist organization bent on brainwashing colored people. And antifa is a terrorist group. Additionally Marx was a racist himself soooooo. Not to mention that no communist or socialist government has ever existed without the mass execution of millions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7C6tNjiRKY

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboo ... ist-164792

I personally don't care that Marx was racist. Especially considering he lived at a time when slavery was still a thing for much of his life. Who wasn't at least somewhat racist then? Nobody is perfect.

Also, LOLing at the hilariously stupid take that BLM or Antifa are Marxist.

Also also, nice "Communism killed 10 quintillion people" there. It's almost as stupid as the "What about Venezuela?!?!?!?"

Well when the organizers of the movement have stated that they are trained Marxist is it not reasonable to assume that their organization is founded upon there own ideologies?

Also I accept the point that it’s not fair to judge men by standards that they did not live in. However I just thought that it was interesting that so many in BLM and similar groups have done the exact same thing with judging those of the past by the standards of today, I gave into the temptation to give them some of there own medicine. At least that’s the way I saw it.

Lastly other than calling what I said stupid you have not said anything to actually refute it. You have not given me the courtesy of at least explaining why. I say communism and socialism will always fail because it’s a flawed system based on completely faulty principles that aren’t consistent with human behavior and can’t nurture the human spirit.

Here’s someone who is much older than me and has a better explanation.

“ 1. Socialism is the Big Lie of the twentieth century. While it promised prosperity, equality, and security, it delivered poverty, misery, and tyranny. Equality was achieved only in the sense that everyone was equal in his or her misery.
In the same way that a Ponzi scheme or chain letter initially succeeds but eventually collapses, socialism may show early signs of success. But any accomplishments quickly fade as the fundamental deficiencies of central planning emerge. It is the initial illusion of success that gives government intervention its pernicious, seductive appeal. In the long run, socialism has always proven to be a formula for tyranny and misery.
A pyramid scheme is ultimately unsustainable because it is based on faulty principles. Likewise, collectivism is unsustainable in the long run because it is a flawed theory. Socialism does not work because it is not consistent with fundamental principles of human behavior. The failure of socialism in countries around the world can be traced to one critical defect: it is a system that ignores incentives.
In a capitalist economy, incentives are of the utmost importance. Market prices, the profit-and-loss system of accounting, and private property rights provide an efficient, interrelated system of incentives to guide and direct economic behavior. Capitalism is based on the theory that incentives matter!
Under socialism, incentives either play a minimal role or are ignored totally. A centrally planned economy without market prices or profits, where property is owned by the state, is a system without an effective incentive mechanism to direct economic activity. By failing to emphasize incentives, socialism is a theory inconsistent with human nature and is therefore doomed to fail. Socialism is based on the theory that incentives don’t matter!
2. The strength of capitalism can be attributed to an incentive structure based upon the three Ps: (1) prices determined by market forces, (2) a profit-and-loss system of accounting and (3) private property rights. The failure of socialism can be traced to its neglect of these three incentive-enhancing components.
3. By their failure to foster, promote, and nurture the potential of their people through incentive-enhancing institutions, centrally planned economies deprive the human spirit of full development. Socialism fails because it kills and destroys the human spirit–just ask the people leaving Cuba in homemade rafts and boats [and those waiting in long lines today in Venezuela struggling, and often failing, to buy food].
4. The temptress of socialism is constantly luring us with the offer: “give up a little of your freedom and I will give you a little more security.” As the experience of this century has demonstrated, the bargain is tempting but never pays off. We end up losing both our freedom and our security.
Socialism will remain a constant temptation. We must be vigilant in our fight against socialism not only around the globe but also here in the United States.
The failure of socialism inspired a worldwide renaissance of freedom and liberty. For the first time in the history of the world, the day is coming very soon when a majority of the people in the world will live in free societies or societies rapidly moving toward freedom.
Capitalism will play a major role in the global revival of liberty and prosperity because it nurtures the human spirit, inspires human creativity, and promotes the spirit of enterprise. By providing a powerful system of incentives that promote thrift, hard work, and efficiency, capitalism creates wealth.
The main difference between capitalism and socialism is this: Capitalism works.“

This was the work of Scholar Mark J. Perry

[Borderlands of Rojava]

I've probably experienced more racism toward myself in the last year alone than I did in the previous two decades before that. That's shocking and sad, but I will say that many of the social justice types take the wrong approach to racism.

What do I mean? I mean maybe racists would be more quiet if they got roasted to shit. I had an incident two years ago in which a guy called me a spic and a wetback over the phone (he was mad that I called him out for hanging around waiting for a girl to leave her boyfriend so he could pick her up, and I said he ought to be the newest member of Them Crooked Vultures) and I responded by calling him a cheap rip off of Wayne Brady, fat Albert, Mac -10, and a half ass wannabe gang member, and lo and behold, while I laughed, he screamed and threatened me over the phone while throwing shit literally the wall in his house. Like go ahead and roast me for my race. It's a weak insult when all you can hit me with is "you're brown" While I point out that your entire family thinks you're a disgrace, your grandmother disowned you, you steal drugs from old people to sell on the street and you only have $10 in your pocket despite allegedly being "in the mob." Whiney protesting, safe spaces and sensitivity training won't make racists afraid. Telling racists off will (maybe, possibly) work.

[Major-Tom]

I hardly know what any of these words or concepts mean anymore, they've become so abstract yet so popular for reasons I can't fathom. Why can't we just say that if somebody wants to stand up for the marginalized, that is good work, regardless of who they are?

[Borderlands of Rojava]

I hate how racist our society has become just in the last few years. It's hard to have friends of other races when the smallest thing can trigger a heated discussion and an angry gamer moment.

I can only imagine how it must have been for Maronites with Arab Muslim friends in Lebanon right when the Civil War broke out.

[Imperialisium]

I hardly know what any of these words or concepts mean anymore, they've become so abstract yet so popular for reasons I can't fathom. Why can't we just say that if somebody wants to stand up for the marginalized, that is good work, regardless of who they are?

Because a lot of these political movements are debunked by facts and well...simple logic. So the ones who believe in practically all of these movements need to essentially conduct goalpost shifting fallacies repeatedly in order to seem quasi-sensical.

[Major-Tom]

I hardly know what any of these words or concepts mean anymore, they've become so abstract yet so popular for reasons I can't fathom. Why can't we just say that if somebody wants to stand up for the marginalized, that is good work, regardless of who they are?

Because a lot of these political movements are debunked by facts and well...simple logic. So the ones who believe in practically all of these movements need to essentially conduct goalpost shifting fallacies repeatedly in order to seem quasi-sensical.

I think I disagree, I just think well-intentioned individuals who genuinely want to fight for positive change are too often overly concerned about pedantic things such as terminology, such as concepts of "intersectionality," which can certainly appear to delegitimize a movement, but I'd argue that in practice, it does no such thing. It merely delegitimizes those who want to hijack social movements with their redundancies.

[UniversalCommons]

The word intersectionality is about the multiple identities a person has father, man, brother, catholic, caucasian, diabetic, poet, liberal, etc. or whatever identities you happen to hold. It specifically speaks against single identity politics and says people are complex beings, not single issue people. This argument fails to even come close to meeting what the description of intersectionality is.

The interconnected nature of social categorizations such as race, class, and gender as they apply to a given individual or group, regarded as creating overlapping and interdependent systems of discrimination or disadvantage:

A deeper definition is:
Audre Lorde Intersectionality is the recognition that categories of difference (sometimes also referred to as axes of identity) including—but not limited to—race, ethnicity, gender, religion/creed, generation, geographic location, sexuality, age, ability/disability, and class intersect to shape the experiences of individuals; that identity is multidimensional.

This discussion needs a little more depth to it. The language needs to be clearer and the arguments need more dimension to them.

[Imperialisium]

Because a lot of these political movements are debunked by facts and well...simple logic. So the ones who believe in practically all of these movements need to essentially conduct goalpost shifting fallacies repeatedly in order to seem quasi-sensical.

I think I disagree, I just think well-intentioned individuals who genuinely want to fight for positive change are too often overly concerned about pedantic things such as terminology, such as concepts of "intersectionality," which can certainly appear to delegitimize a movement, but I'd argue that in practice, it does no such thing. It merely delegitimizes those who want to hijack social movements with their redundancies.

I see your point, and I'm sure many of the people who proscribe to such things are genuine in wanting to enact positive change. Yet, in practice they're typically the opposite. Especially, since all three of these terms are as un-scientific as they come with zero empirical proofs for much of their arguments when going from theorem to practicum.

However, defining the terms concretely, and not just goalpost shifting to fit a particular narrative would do wonders.

[Major-Tom]

I think I disagree, I just think well-intentioned individuals who genuinely want to fight for positive change are too often overly concerned about pedantic things such as terminology, such as concepts of "intersectionality," which can certainly appear to delegitimize a movement, but I'd argue that in practice, it does no such thing. It merely delegitimizes those who want to hijack social movements with their redundancies.

I see your point, and I'm sure many of the people who proscribe to such things are genuine in wanting to enact positive change. Yet, in practice they're typically the opposite. Especially, since all three of these terms are as un-scientific as they come with zero empirical proofs for much of their arguments when going from theorem to practicum.

However, defining the terms concretely, and not just goalpost shifting to fit a particular narrative would do wonders.

Well, at the very least, we can see eye to eye on the ridiculousness of shifting those goalposts. We'd get a lot more done were it not for the absurdity of trying to ascribe a label to everything.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

The problem with intersectionality is it assumes equality of racial, economic and gender discrimination. This is a fallacy. In the United States, being black does not confer the same disadvantages upon someone as being poor does. If you dont believe me, compare how many members of our government are black to how many members of our government make less than $25,000 a year per household, and you'll notice something peculiar. And gender discrimination, at least in the US, was always apples to oranges when compared to racial discrimination. Sexism was based on a patronizing view of females and an equally prejudiced mistrustful view of young men, while racism was based on "Northern Europeans superior, everyone else inferior and undeserving of basic rights."

Conversely, being poor in Apartheid South Africa was better than being black if you were a poor white person. In the case of that country, race held more power than class did. So in the end, our complex identity traits do not hold the same amount of influence on how society treats us.

[UniversalCommons]

The problem with intersectionality is it assumes equality of racial, economic and gender discrimination. This is a fallacy. In the United States, being black does not confer the same disadvantages upon someone as being poor does. If you dont believe me, compare how many members of our government are black to how many members of our government make less than $25,000 a year per household, and you'll notice something peculiar. And gender discrimination, at least in the US, was always apples to oranges when compared to racial discrimination. Sexism was based on a patronizing view of females and an equally prejudiced mistrustful view of young men, while racism was based on "Northern Europeans superior, everyone else inferior and undeserving of basic rights."

Conversely, being poor in Apartheid South Africa was better than being black if you were a poor white person. In the case of that country, race held more power than class did. So in the end, our complex identity traits do not hold the same amount of influence on how society treats us.

That is not what I have read. My understanding is that it talks about the multidimensionality of identity and that a person can experience more than one kind of discrimination at one time because of having many different identities. A lot of people like to add equality to the mix when it is not the main point of an argument. There is a tendency to equate equality with sameness. That is part of what intersectionality is arguing against. People are different, they have different experiences of oppression.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

The problem with intersectionality is it assumes equality of racial, economic and gender discrimination. This is a fallacy. In the United States, being black does not confer the same disadvantages upon someone as being poor does. If you dont believe me, compare how many members of our government are black to how many members of our government make less than $25,000 a year per household, and you'll notice something peculiar. And gender discrimination, at least in the US, was always apples to oranges when compared to racial discrimination. Sexism was based on a patronizing view of females and an equally prejudiced mistrustful view of young men, while racism was based on "Northern Europeans superior, everyone else inferior and undeserving of basic rights."

Conversely, being poor in Apartheid South Africa was better than being black if you were a poor white person. In the case of that country, race held more power than class did. So in the end, our complex identity traits do not hold the same amount of influence on how society treats us.

That is not what I have read. My understanding is that it talks about the multidimensionality of identity and that a person can experience more than one kind of discrimination at one time because of having many different identities.

But not all discrimination is equal. A rich black man and poor white man are not equally discriminated against, as the rich black man holds more institutional power than the poor white man.

[UniversalCommons]

That is not what I have read. My understanding is that it talks about the multidimensionality of identity and that a person can experience more than one kind of discrimination at one time because of having many different identities.

But not all discrimination is equal. A rich black man and poor white man are not equally discriminated against, as the rich black man holds more institutional power than the poor white man.

The point of intersectionality is that there are different experiences of discrimination or oppression. The poor white man getting stopped by a police man is less likely to experience police violence than the rich black man being stopped statistically. This is what intersectionality is often about. The poor white man may be less able to afford a lawyer than the rich black man. It is speaking to individual identity and the multidimensionality of experience.

[Ricksolot]

I hate how racist our society has become just in the last few years. It's hard to have friends of other races when the smallest thing can trigger a heated discussion and an angry gamer moment.

I can only imagine how it must have been for Maronites with Arab Muslim friends in Lebanon right when the Civil War broke out.

I agree that are society is experiencing intense division. I just hope that when people see you that they take the time to learn of your character. I wish people would stop race-baiting and deceiving. From my experience living in Washington State near Seattle I’ve met several people who have claimed to experience racism. Identity politics is not a good thing.

Word of advice: don’t waste time on those who seek to dampen your day. Also don’t stoop to there level with there shouting and name calling. Hold on to your character.

Fight the mob and I hope that you have a good day.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

I hate how racist our society has become just in the last few years. It's hard to have friends of other races when the smallest thing can trigger a heated discussion and an angry gamer moment.

I can only imagine how it must have been for Maronites with Arab Muslim friends in Lebanon right when the Civil War broke out.

I agree that are society is experiencing intense division. I just hope that when people see you that they take the time to learn of your character. I wish people would stop race-baiting and deceiving. From my experience living in Washington State near Seattle I’ve met several people who have claimed to experience racism. Identity politics is not a good thing.

Word of advice: don’t waste time on those who seek to dampen your day. Also don’t stoop to there level with there shouting and name calling. Hold on to your character.

Fight the mob and I hope that you have a good day.

It's a matter of surviving.