Factual Feminist on intersectionality

General philosophy message board for Discussion and debate on other philosophical issues not directly related to veganism. Metaphysics, religion, theist vs. atheist debates, politics, general science discussion, etc.
User avatar
miniboes
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1578
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 1:52 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: Netherlands

Re: Factual Feminist on intersectionality

Post by miniboes »

EquALLity wrote:I think there is an argument to be made that voter suppression of minorities by the republican party is inherently racist, though I haven't looked into it much.

I wouldn't be surprised, since there have been instances recently where they have clearly tried to suppress voters, and because of their history with the Southern Strategy.
I have not looked into this either, but ask yourself: are we talking about racist people and organization, or a racist system? From what I've seen, many intersectionalists would have you believe the former; that there is systemic racism. It is telling that you say 'the republican party' rather than 'the parties', or 'the government'. This implies that it's not the system that is doing the suppressing, rather the republican party, which is an organization.

An experiment; take a look at this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeyHc5ZNkfs

Think about it, perhaps write down what your thoughts are.

Then, you could take a look at a rebuttal:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRZEwIRD4mQ

Now what do you think?
"I advocate infinite effort on behalf of very finite goals, for example correcting this guy's grammar."
- David Frum
User avatar
EquALLity
I am God
Posts: 3022
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 11:31 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: United States of Canada

Re: Factual Feminist on intersectionality

Post by EquALLity »

I just realized, it's kind of ironic that we're critiquing intersectionalim on 'TheVeganAtheist' forum. :P

Brimstone-
Ah, yeah. In practice, when discussed, things labeled oppressive are pretty much always bad, though. I was generalizing.

I do think it'd be good for people of most demographics to be vegan, including feminism, because people are more likely to listen to messages from members of their group.
I'm just doubtful most groups should mix things like that. It'd probably be fine with religious people, though, and once vegan they'd be open to the secular arguments, so might spread those as well.
"I am not a Marxist." -Karl Marx
User avatar
EquALLity
I am God
Posts: 3022
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 11:31 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: United States of Canada

Re: Factual Feminist on intersectionality

Post by EquALLity »

miniboes wrote:I have not looked into this either, but ask yourself: are we talking about racist people and organization, or a racist system? From what I've seen, many intersectionalists would have you believe the former; that there is systemic racism. It is telling that you say 'the republican party' rather than 'the parties', or 'the government'. This implies that it's not the system that is doing the suppressing, rather the republican party, which is an organization.
The republican party is the government. They aren't the entire government, but they are still apart of the government. If they are being racist, the the government is being systematically racist.

You can't say that because one specific party of government is racist, but not the entire government, that it's not institutional racism.
That's like saying that the Pledge of Allegiance isn't discriminatory towards atheists because it's just government schools doing it, not every part of government.
miniboes wrote: An experiment; take a look at this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeyHc5ZNkfs

Think about it, perhaps write down what your thoughts are.
I don't think it's good that the first states that vote are disproportionately white. It's harmful for the reasons mentioned in the video.
However, it's not institutional racism. It's bad government policies that happen to cause racial harm, but the cause isn't racism.

That was inadvertently pointed out in the video when the narrator mentioned the reason why Iowa goes first.
miniboes wrote:Then, you could take a look at a rebuttal:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRZEwIRD4mQ
Just because we have a black President doesn't mean that institutional racism doesn't exist.

I don't think 'Sargon' understands the issue with states that aren't representative of America voting first.
Overly white states in proportion to the general population -> candidates win those two states -> those states are first and so those candidates are considered the 'real' candidates, even though they just won states that aren't representative of the general population.
It's giving white people more choice in determining the candidates than they should proportionally get.

And for this reason, no, white people and minority groups are not being disenfranchised equally.

Again, I'm not saying this is institutional racism. But these policies do lead to bad racial outcomes, something Sargon denies.

Like he points out, the national primary thing is a horrible idea.
I think Illinois should go first. Demographics change over time, but right now, Illinois is most representative. If Iowa's system is so bad that they need to go so early, then they need to fix their system.
"I am not a Marxist." -Karl Marx
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Factual Feminist on intersectionality

Post by brimstoneSalad »

miniboes wrote: I have not looked into this either, but ask yourself: are we talking about racist people and organization, or a racist system? From what I've seen, many intersectionalists would have you believe the former; that there is systemic racism.
Did you mean "former"?
EquALLity wrote: That's like saying that the Pledge of Allegiance isn't discriminatory towards atheists because it's just government schools doing it, not every part of government.
This is a misunderstanding. One is bottom-up, and the other is top-down.

The schools may or may not want to be discriminatory against atheists, but the government requires it.
In the case of preventing people from voting, this isn't some mandate from up high, the corruption is happening at the lower levels where the small groups of republicans (often individual racists) are trying to cause trouble for people.

It's the difference between systematic/institutional racism, and a country which just has a lot of racists in it (still a problem, but the only apparent solution is public education and basically just waiting for the old people to die, unfortunately).
EquALLity wrote:I just realized, it's kind of ironic that we're critiquing intersectionalim on 'TheVeganAtheist' forum. :P
This just happens to be atheists who are vegan (or vegans who are atheists). We don't say vegans need to be atheists or atheist means being vegan inherently (atheists can easily be immoral/nihilists).

Although I do think it would have been better if it were "rational vegan" instead, since the word "atheist" may turn people off. We hardly talk about religion here at all in practice.
EquALLity wrote:Ah, yeah. In practice, when discussed, things labeled oppressive are pretty much always bad, though. I was generalizing.
I don't agree. I think the labeling itself is often more harmful than the actual fact, particularly when the fact is trivial or even fictional. Cries of oppression trigger violent revolutions, and often for little or no reason. A lot of violence comes from the idea, rather than the fact of, oppression.

I think we need to be skeptical of claims of oppression, due to the harm the mass hysteria causes and how often it's not true (and how subjective it is).
Everybody thinks they're oppressed -- how many white protestant Christians claim this?
Claiming or labeling something oppression doesn't mean it's true, and definitely doesn't mean it's bad -- I don't even think it usually is.
User avatar
EquALLity
I am God
Posts: 3022
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 11:31 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: United States of Canada

Re: Factual Feminist on intersectionality

Post by EquALLity »

brimstoneSalad wrote:This is a misunderstanding. One is bottom-up, and the other is top-down.

The schools may or may not want to be discriminatory against atheists, but the government requires it.
In the case of preventing people from voting, this isn't some mandate from up high, the corruption is happening at the lower levels where the small groups of republicans (often individual racists) are trying to cause trouble for people.

It's the difference between systematic/institutional racism, and a country which just has a lot of racists in it (still a problem, but the only apparent solution is public education and basically just waiting for the old people to die, unfortunately).
I looked into it more, and it's a matter of policy (gerrymandering):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sio9Dcz6n4g

There's also the continual chipping away of voting rights:
"The contested measures reduced early voting days, ended same-day registration, ended out-of-precinct voting and halted the preregistration of 16- and 17-year-old high school students. These measures had been adopted in the past 15 years to increase voter participation and were disproportionately used by black, Hispanic and younger voters."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/14/us/si ... .html?_r=0
brimstoneSalad wrote:This just happens to be atheists who are vegan (or vegans who are atheists). We don't say vegans need to be atheists or atheist means being vegan inherently (atheists can easily be immoral/nihilists).

Although I do think it would have been better if it were "rational vegan" instead, since the word "atheist" may turn people off. We hardly talk about religion here at all in practice.
I know, just an observation. :P
brimstoneSalad wrote:I don't agree. I think the labeling itself is often more harmful than the actual fact, particularly when the fact is trivial or even fictional. Cries of oppression trigger violent revolutions, and often for little or no reason. A lot of violence comes from the idea, rather than the fact of, oppression.

I think we need to be skeptical of claims of oppression, due to the harm the mass hysteria causes and how often it's not true (and how subjective it is).
Everybody thinks they're oppressed -- how many white protestant Christians claim this?
Claiming or labeling something oppression doesn't mean it's true, and definitely doesn't mean it's bad -- I don't even think it usually is.
Good point. I wasn't thinking of the Christians who think they're discriminated against, because they so obviously aren't that I didn't identify it as an example of something labeled oppression. :P

Anyway, this doesn't really matter. I was just saying that we should care about all forms of oppression, though not combine them and cause confusion and issues. By oppression, I meant what I perceive to be real oppression, which is pretty much always harmful.
"I am not a Marxist." -Karl Marx
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Factual Feminist on intersectionality

Post by brimstoneSalad »

EquALLity wrote: I looked into it more, and it's a matter of policy (gerrymandering):
Gerrymandering is a kind of slimy practice, but it isn't racist. They typically use data on party affiliation. They'd split up an artsy area, or somewhere with a lot of white students who voted democrat too.

All they want to do is make districts come back red (as in republican). If there were a black neighborhood that were predominately conservative in that area, they'd also district it to have more voting power.

It's all about political party, and winning the election.
EquALLity wrote: There's also the continual chipping away of voting rights:
Younger voters and students are more likely to vote democrat. Republicans have been trying to reduce voter turnout in those demographics for years. The policies aren't inherently racist; they're just trying to decrease voting by democrats. Lots of correlations, but the cause isn't trying to stop blacks from voting, just trying to stop democrats from doing so.
EquALLity wrote: By oppression, I meant what I perceive to be real oppression, which is pretty much always harmful.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman ?
User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 3897
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: To the Depths, in Degradation

Re: Factual Feminist on intersectionality

Post by Red »

brimstoneSalad wrote: Gerrymandering is a kind of slimy practice, but it isn't racist. They typically use data on party affiliation.

It's all about political party, and winning the election.
Oh like with Hitler and the working class?
brimstoneSalad wrote: Younger voters and students are more likely to vote democrat. Republicans have been trying to reduce voter turnout in those demographics for years. The policies aren't inherently racist; they're just trying to decrease voting by democrats. Lots of correlations, but the cause isn't trying to stop blacks from voting, just trying to stop democrats from doing so.
Sanders is the quintessential example.
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci
User avatar
EquALLity
I am God
Posts: 3022
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 11:31 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: United States of Canada

Re: Factual Feminist on intersectionality

Post by EquALLity »

brimstoneSalad wrote:Gerrymandering is a kind of slimy practice, but it isn't racist. They typically use data on party affiliation. They'd split up an artsy area, or somewhere with a lot of white students who voted democrat too.

All they want to do is make districts come back red (as in republican). If there were a black neighborhood that were predominately conservative in that area, they'd also district it to have more voting power.

It's all about political party, and winning the election.
Hm, ok, fair enough.
Do you think gerrymandering should be replaced?
brimstoneSalad wrote:Younger voters and students are more likely to vote democrat. Republicans have been trying to reduce voter turnout in those demographics for years. The policies aren't inherently racist; they're just trying to decrease voting by democrats. Lots of correlations, but the cause isn't trying to stop blacks from voting, just trying to stop democrats from doing so.
Well, they passed policies that disproportionately reduced votes from minorities (and students) for no legitimate reason. It's not just about the students.
I'm saying that I was thinking of what I would reasonably perceive to be oppression, not things like 'Christian persecution' in America, and that it's pretty much always harmful.

Are you saying that oppression is subjective, so Christian persecution really is oppression since there's no objective definition?
If you think that 'oppression' is subjective... Well, I pretty much just mean cruel treatment by it. So, we should care about pretty much all forms of cruel treatment, but not mix them together. Whether or not the word oppression is used or not doesn't really impact what I'm saying.
"I am not a Marxist." -Karl Marx
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Factual Feminist on intersectionality

Post by brimstoneSalad »

EquALLity wrote: Do you think gerrymandering should be replaced?
Oh yes. One person, one vote. Not districts or electoral college or any of that nonsense. We have the technology now.

We should also have another voting system, like approval based voting, or instant runoff, or something along those lines.
EquALLity wrote: Well, they passed policies that disproportionately reduced votes from minorities (and students) for no legitimate reason. It's not just about the students.
Their reason was not legitimate, but it wasn't a racist reason. It was to rig the system to reduce democrats voting. They're happy to have votes from anybody if they're for republicans.
EquALLity wrote: I'm saying that I was thinking of what I would reasonably perceive to be oppression, not things like 'Christian persecution' in America, and that it's pretty much always harmful.
That's pretty subjective, though. You perceive those things to be oppression because they're harmful, I think, not the other way around.
EquALLity wrote: Are you saying that oppression is subjective, so Christian persecution really is oppression since there's no objective definition?
Basically, yes.
EquALLity wrote: If you think that 'oppression' is subjective... Well, I pretty much just mean cruel treatment by it.
That's not the definition, though (it's only one possible definition in a much broader usage), so we should use another word.
Also, what would or would not be considered "cruel" can even be subjective.

"willfully causing pain or suffering to others, or feeling no concern about it."

Christians may think it's cruel to stop them from leading class prayers. We do it willfully, and knowing that they don't like it, and this causes them emotional pain because they're unable to fulfill their religious duties as they see them. I'm also not much concerned with this pain caused to them: I have to admit to being pretty calloused toward it, I can get behind the "cry me a river" mentality there. And it's true to some extent that it's cruel. That doesn't mean it's wrong, because it's even more harmful for them to be allowed to do it.

I think the only useful metric looks at consequential harm -- not cruelty itself, which is manifold, but the net harm vs benefit -- and that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with what would commonly be called "oppression" or even "cruelty" which could serve a larger purpose sometimes and may or may not result in net harm. Unnecessary cruelty is probably more relevant.

Animal testing is cruel -- pretty much all of it -- some is clearly unnecessary, and some is arguably necessary, and there's a big difference there.
It may seem cruel to lock away murderers, but it may be the least of evils because it's even more cruel to others to release them upon society.
EquALLity wrote: So, we should care about pretty much all forms of cruel treatment, but not mix them together. Whether or not the word oppression is used or not doesn't really impact what I'm saying.
I think we should care most about unnecessary cruelty; cruelty that is avoidable, and serves no justifiable purpose. But we should also try to fixate on those things where our efforts will produce the most benefit, not more complex and difficult matters that are very hard to affect (and where we might easily inadvertently do more harm than good).
User avatar
EquALLity
I am God
Posts: 3022
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 11:31 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: United States of Canada

Re: Factual Feminist on intersectionality

Post by EquALLity »

brimstoneSalad wrote:Oh yes. One person, one vote. Not districts or electoral college or any of that nonsense. We have the technology now.

We should also have another voting system, like approval based voting, or instant runoff, or something along those lines.
If we had elections based on approval ratings, Bernie would've already won. ;)

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/02/05/ ... oters.html
Bernie Sanders has the highest favorability rating of any candidate in the poll at 44%, and a net positive approval rating of (+9). In contrast, former Sec. of State Hillary Clinton has an approval rating of 39% and an unfavorable rating of 56%. Clinton has a net negative approval rating of (-17).
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/don ... on-voters/
We’ve got an unpopular set of presidential candidates this year– Bernie Sanders is the only candidate in either party with a net-positive favorability rating — but Trump is the most unpopular of all. His favorability rating is 33 percent, as compared with an unfavorable rating of 58 percent, for a net rating of -25 percentage points. By comparison Hillary Clinton, whose favorability ratings are notoriously poor, has a 42 percent favorable rating against a 50 percent unfavorable rating, for a net of -8 points. Those are bad numbers, but nowhere near as bad as Trump’s.
Instant runoff voting seems like a good idea.
brimstoneSalad wrote:Their reason was not legitimate, but it wasn't a racist reason. It was to rig the system to reduce democrats voting. They're happy to have votes from anybody if they're for republicans.
Well, they're not trying to suppress minority votes because they hate minorities, but they are intentionally suppressing minority votes.
brimstoneSalad wrote:That's not the definition, though (it's only one possible definition in a much broader usage), so we should use another word.
Also, what would or would not be considered "cruel" can even be subjective.

"willfully causing pain or suffering to others, or feeling no concern about it."

Christians may think it's cruel to stop them from leading class prayers. We do it willfully, and knowing that they don't like it, and this causes them emotional pain because they're unable to fulfill their religious duties as they see them. I'm also not much concerned with this pain caused to them: I have to admit to being pretty calloused toward it, I can get behind the "cry me a river" mentality there. And it's true to some extent that it's cruel. That doesn't mean it's wrong, because it's even more harmful for them to be allowed to do it.

I think the only useful metric looks at consequential harm -- not cruelty itself, which is manifold, but the net harm vs benefit -- and that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with what would commonly be called "oppression" or even "cruelty" which could serve a larger purpose sometimes and may or may not result in net harm. Unnecessary cruelty is probably more relevant.

Animal testing is cruel -- pretty much all of it -- some is clearly unnecessary, and some is arguably necessary, and there's a big difference there.
It may seem cruel to lock away murderers, but it may be the least of evils because it's even more cruel to others to release them upon society.
I don't really think cruelty is subjective.
You just gave a definition that seems pretty straight-forward.

The bold- That's why I said we should care about 'pretty much' all cruelty. The cruelty towards religious people in that regard, while unfortunate, is less cruel than brainwashing students.
brimstoneSalad wrote:I think we should care most about unnecessary cruelty; cruelty that is avoidable, and serves no justifiable purpose. But we should also try to fixate on those things where our efforts will produce the most benefit, not more complex and difficult matters that are very hard to affect (and where we might easily inadvertently do more harm than good).
I agree.

I'm guessing you are referring to political correctness when you say there are things we shouldn't focus on? :P
"I am not a Marxist." -Karl Marx
Post Reply