Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. I meant concrete examples of academics who profess that all white people are sexist/racist. — Πετροκότσυφας

There's really no point in citing individuals, but the strong form of this notion comes from the definition of racism and sexism as "privilege plus power" from intersectional feminism. Under these definitions, non-whites and and non-males cannot be racist or sexist respectively, because they lack power and privilege, and all whites and all males therefore inherently benefit from it (which is how the notion that all whites/males are racist/sexist emerges).

I think the correct way to deal with institutional racism is to enact laws to prevent it (along with spreading awareness of the issue). I've come to understand that in order to preserve some kind of demographic racial equality in university enrollment, they devalue the test scores of Asians because they tend to score higher on average. I think that should probably be made illegal, but I'm open to being persuaded otherwise. I think circumcision should be made illegal, despite significant objections on religious grounds. I think audits, oversight, and reform is needed in America's judicial and penal system (start by eliminating for-profit prisons), but I can't tell you the specifics or extent that would be required to get results.

The one is an example of a practice which aims to prevent what is understood as marginalisation. — Πετροκότσυφας

How does forcing a certain demographic to speak and participate last prevent marginalization?

I know the reasons falling out of academia, but I'm curious to know why you think the progressive stack is a good idea.

I'd like to see how it is presented, analysed and argued by those that hold this view, not just your interpretation of it. — Πετροκότσυφας

I have faithfully reproduced the rhetoric, but if you would rather do your own research, that's quite alright.

I didn't understand from the video that the point of it all is for people from a "traditionally marginalised background" to speak last. What I understood is that they make sure that people from these groups get the chance to speak (and theoretically be heard) by moving some of them up in the list. If, say, you have in the list fifteen middle-class, white, male speakers and one working-class, black, female speaker, and if she originally was last in the queue of speakers, she'll be put, for example, somewhere in the middle, so that it will be ensured that she gets to speak and she's not among those that might lose their chance to speak, due to -say- time restrictions. I generally don't see how that's something revolutionary; it does not sound that far from quotas systems. — Πετροκότσυφας

I can see why you've misunderstood the progressive stack (it's pretty ridiculous after-all), but the point of the progressive stack is to have the most marginalized people speak first, which necessitates that least marginalized speak last (the progressive stack is a particular order of identities based on perceived levels oppression). Under the progressive stack the black woman would always be heard first in a room full of white men (is that fair?), and in rooms of mixed demographics, white males would always be heard last.

You have to understand that identity becomes credential; belonging to a marginalized group means you should get to speak first because your lived experiences directly reflect the systemic colonialism and patriarchy, and that is the boogieman we're here to fight. White men feeling like they are entitled to speak before other people is a part of the racist system that keeps women and people of color oppressed; white men don't actually have the right to speak publicly about the issue of racism or sexism because by definition they are a part of the problem.

I didn't express any personal opinion on it, either positive or negative. I wrote that it "aims to prevent what is understood as marginalisation.". Understood by its practitioners, obviously; you clearly don't share their understanding. I guess that this practice is preferred by those who want to actively promote and incentivise greater integration of the groups they perceive as marginalized. In general I think that's fine and worthy of support - the details of how exactly it's going to be implemented depend on the occasion. — Πετροκότσυφας

So we should organize groups by arbitrarily valuing the presence and ideas of people with certain skin colors, sexual, and gender orientations, and arbitrarily devaluing the presence and ideas of others. Doesn't that theoretically propagate marginalization?

What is "marginalization"? Noun: marginalization; treatment of a person, group, or concept as insignificant or peripheral.

But wait, it's not arbitrary. It all makes sense because in the western world, whites and males are more significant. The group "white males" in particular are advantaged center-stage attention hogs who have had nothing but privilege for their entire lives. This is why when you encounter an individual white male, it is O.K to make assumptions about their experiences and ideas based on their gender and race, and to therefore disregard them as racist or sexist. Just as non-white skin is a credential that gives your ideas instant merit, being white gives instant demerit...

Ironically, the redefintion of racism I've outlined becomes itself a classically racist assumption, and along with the cadre of associated ideas and pundits coming out of this school of thought, are partially responsible for creating the classically racist alt-right (both sides reciprocate bigotry with bigotry).

Are you old enough to remember the thinking behind "don't see color"? It was the attitude that skin color should not be taken into account when making decisions about individuals. "I don't see color" was said to indicate as much. Nowadays, the phrase is viewed as harmful, because by not seeing color, we therefore do not see the credentials of lived experiences of oppression, et cetra, et cetra..., and can therefore never combat racism (by, for instance, employing a progressive stack)...

Everyone is looking to be a victim these days, but intersectional feminism has made it its science.

You have to understand that identity becomes credential; belonging to a marginalized group means you should get to speak first because your lived experiences directly reflect the systemic colonialism and patriarchy, and that is the boogieman we're here to fight. White men feeling like they are entitled to speak before other people is a part of the racist system that keeps women and people of color oppressed; white men don't actually have the right to speak publicly about the issue of racism or sexism because by definition they are a part of the problem. — VagabondSpectre

Let's imagine that we're trying to find out about something that happened in our social circle one night. It makes sense to ask people who were there.

Let's imagine that we're trying to find out about how people from different backgrounds feel about stuff. It makes sense to ask them.

Let's imagine that we're trying to find out about the possibility of really different experiences from different backgrounds. Yeah, still makes sense to ask them. They might even reveal things that we wouldn't even have thought of, maybe even couldn't in some cases.

How about assessing working conditions in an office? Let's ask all the people. Should we only ask men when sexual harassment of women is one of the reasons the office is being externally assessed? No, that's freaking stupid.

Why does it make sense to ask the people who were there and experienced stuff we wanted to find out about in any of the cases above? Well, because we want to know what events are relevant to them, if there are any patterns in those events, and how those events propagate through time - how they might stay as norms and so on. Fundamentally, the analysis of social circumstances begins with testimony of those people in them. Structure comes later.

So what's intersectionality? Really. It's the apparently outrageous idea that since people from different backgrounds often have different experiences, it makes sense to get their testimony about it before trying to find any underlying patterns.

It's that simple. If I wanted to find out about how second generation black immigrants are treated with regard to their national identity here in Trondheim Norway, I'd probably do well to start with asking members of that group. Turns out, for some reason me as a balding, stocky migrant temp worker with a ginger beard actually gets asked 'Are you Norwegian?' less than all second gen black citizens I've spoken to. Hm, I wonder how this relates to perceptions of national identity and racial stereotypes.

Applying intersectional methodology is nothing more than common sense applied to using testimony to study social circumstances. It does not mean that a person is automatically right in their descriptions of those social circumstances.

Also btw, as a cis white bloke, the intersectional feminists and trans folk I've spoken to have always been very receptive to my ideas, and they usually have something interesting to say. Especially postcolonial feminists. Maybe it's you?

The problem with that is that things like race or sexual orientation are not nearly as strong an indicator as the actual individuals traits. You get much more mileage asking about peoples experiences based on their actual experiences rather than the experiences you think (or even they think) they have had based on their race, gender or whatever other immutable trait they might posses.
You say its simple, but that is becuase you have made it that way, you just judge everything through the lense of immutable traits, a label that satisfies some but is not actually all that accurate (only in the most superficial ways). People are much more than these immutable traits, but if one views them as individuals then that will greatly hamper the outrage agenda and virtue signalling VagabondSpectre is talking about here.
Also, your anecdotal experience of how you are treated by certain kinds of people (whom I would just call people, your specificity seems totally irrelevent to me) is not really addressing whats being discussed here.
This is specifically about a movement, one that operates under the guise and as the unsolicited, unelected, and unverified spokespeople of minority groups in service of an outrage or victim culture. The movement is about power and revenge. Power to elevate certain groups above other groups and revenge for percieved slights of the past targeting innocent people today based on purely superficial traits like the color of their skin (white) or their gender (male).
Whether not you yourself are part of this movement or not I do not know, but its out there and its ugly and its precisely the same kind of false justification anti black/proponents of slavery used to dehumanise blacks in the US long ago. It is a rationalisation structure created not in service to anything just or righteous but rather for a dark emotional fulfilment.

Intersectionality is nothing more than a call to listen to people's testimony from different backgrounds to learn about those groups. Nothing essential about this call changes when those groups are typical social demographics.

Intersectionality is rooted in noticing that people from different backgrounds tend to have different experiences and think differently.

Put in a bit of effort to listen to people's perspectives, exposing yourself to backgrounds from a different part of the system we're all in and maybe you'll notice structural differences.

Bell Hooks was not pro-slavery or authoritarian in political standpoint. You'd think that people who allegedly spend their time obsessing over how any application of power marginalises others would be quite opposed to authoritarian politics.

The problem with that is that things like race or sexual orientation are not nearly as strong an indicator as the actual individuals traits. You get much more mileage asking about peoples experiences based on their actual experiences rather than the experiences you think (or even they think) they have had based on their race, gender or whatever other immutable trait they might posses. — DingoJones

You:You get much more mileage asking about peoples experiences based on their actual experiences rather than the experiences you think (or even they think) they have had based on their race, gender or whatever other immutable trait they might posses..

I agree entirely! This is precisely why you ask people what they think. That's how we end up noticing social patterns when we're not part of them. Why would you ever think I would disagree with this so much that it's a counterpoint?

You say its simple, but that is becuase you have made it that way, you just judge everything through the lense of immutable traits, a label that satisfies some but is not actually all that accurate (only in the most superficial ways). People are much more than these immutable traits, but if one views them as individuals then that will greatly hamper the outrage agenda and virtue signalling VagabondSpectre is talking about here. — DingoJones

No. Some parts of people's backgrounds are pretty innate; say having autism. Most of our socialisation, however, isn't. What matters is how people are treated. Why on earth, again, would you think that I treat identities as immutable? Why would you think that being committed to basic testimony gathering methodology entails all of this?

Also, your anecdotal experience of how you are treated by certain kinds of people (whom I would just call people, your specificity seems totally irrelevent to me) is not really addressing whats being discussed here. — DingoJones

It's supposed to undermine the idea that people who believe in intersectionality are belligerent and unresponsive to cis white blokes. It's a case of not everyone is like that, and no part of believing in intersectionality commits one to behaving like a close minded ass. People turn to intersectionality precisely to try and avoid being a close minded ass.

Disagreements can be reconciled, but outrage prefers revenge. By simplifying and polarizing, we seem to have lost the resolution required to navigate our differences, along with the emotional will to do so. — VagabondSpectre

In American political discourse there is absolutely no desire to achieve any kind of consensus or reconciliation. The main objective is simply to win the argument by taking power.

Actually I'm very worried that similar kind of vitriolic political discourse will happen here (as we tend to mimic things happening in the Big World). Some decency and cordiality still exists here as political parties have to form joint administrations with others.

"The caravan" is another concrete and more recent example of how a narrow world view can be hijacked via outrage inducing rhetoric, to the detriment of all. — VagabondSpectre

It's the political rhetoric of today. Just like the "mushroom cloud" was earlier. Totally obvious for Trump to start talking about caravans as he has done earlier. And for ignorant simple people it's very effective.

I noticed also that the Mexican media focused on that a policeman was attacked by knife in a riot by the people trying to get into the country (and naturally Mike Pompeo reported it too). That kind of newsclip makes ordinary Mexicans angry, which is basically the intention of the newsclip. A similar agenda? Immediately came to mind that Lopez Obrador is taking power in December and as a typical leftist he has been (at least earlier) open to the idea of immigration. You can find similar political agendas in other countries too.

Intersectionality is nothing more than a call to listen to people's testimony from different backgrounds to learn about those groups. Nothing essential about this call changes when those groups are typical social demographics.

Intersectionality is rooted in noticing that people from different backgrounds tend to have different experiences and think differently.

Put in a bit of effort to listen to people's perspectives, exposing yourself to backgrounds from a different part of the system we're all in and maybe you'll notice structural differences. — fdrake

Two things. First, perhaps a differentiation between intersectionality and weaponized intersectionality. If all you mean is listening/understanding people, then Ill just keep calling that listening/understanding to people and you can call it intersectionality. If the idea is to listen to people based on the immutable characteristics like race or gender then I think its at best naive to the reality of how that is being used as a weapon by the aforementioned victim/outrage movement/culture.
Secon, I think its more accurate to frame it as different people equals different experience. Adding background just leaves the door open fir the above mentioned weaponisation.

I agree entirely! This is precisely why you ask people what they think. That's how we end up noticing social patterns when we're not part of them. Why would you ever think I would disagree with this so much that it's a counterpoint? — fdrake

A result of a sloppy work on my part, I didnt mean “you” you, but rather “you” in general. Poorly worded/phrased sorry. I switched between general use and specific use with no indication.

It's supposed to undermine the idea that people who believe in intersectionality are belligerent and unresponsive to cis white blokes. It's a case of not everyone is like that, and no part of believing in intersectionality commits one to behaving like a close minded ass. People turn to intersectionality precisely to try and avoid being a close minded ass. — fdrake

I dont think it undermines it at all, since as I mentioned this is specifically about a nefarious culture of outrage and victimhood, not about innocent or friendly people you might know.
Also, I dont turn to intersectionality, am I a close minded ass?

Intersectionality is an attempt to make people from all backgrounds heard on a methodological level. It has a generous intention of equality and inclusivity; so that we can try and better our societies to foster equality of opportunity.

Is it so surprising that a methodology which seeks to give voice to patterns of suffering related to identities appears as a weapon? The intent here is violent in a sense, it is to destroy unfair practices!

When people of similar background get together and articulate their experiences, commonalities are noticed. Eventually this filters through to public discourse if there are open channels. Hence our modern and enlightened rejection of prejudices like sexism, racism and transphobia. A good account of life requires reaching out to it.

Two things. First, perhaps a differentiation between intersectionality and weaponized intersectionality. If all you mean is listening/understanding people, then Ill just keep calling that listening/understanding to people and you can call it intersectionality. If the idea is to listen to people based on the immutable characteristics like race or gender then I think its at best naive to the reality of how that is being used as a weapon by the aforementioned victim/outrage movement/culture. — DingoJones

Differences based on background (1) predate intersectionality as an idea and (2) must be seen as changeable for activism concerning them to make sense. If you look at race and gender from a biological lens alone it's a bit different. For race there's less genetic between group variation (say, black vs white) than within group variation so 'racial differences' are pseudoscience. Gender seen biologically is essentially sex, and we know that humans are both sexually dimorphic and that human genitals have lots of different rarer forms. When we're talking about race and gender, we're not talking about them in either of these senses. We're instead talking about them as historically specific, contingent social facts.

There's a top down component - structural issues like availability of appropriate medical care for trans people and the mentally ill, ghettoisation and so on. Things which are systemic properties with multifaceted causes, contributing factors and which require pluralistic strategies of redress.

But there's a bottom up component too - 'what's your experience like at the doctor's regarding that you're trans/schizophrenic?' etc. The top down bit and the bottom up bit actually have very similar content - one expresses the other. The major difference between them is that it's a lot easier to ask questions of people when trying to form representative accounts of how people like them are treated. Contrasted to how hard it is to intuit structure top down without formative experiences.

Let's imagine that we're trying to find out about something that happened in our social circle one night. It makes sense to ask people who were there.

Let's imagine that we're trying to find out about how people from different backgrounds feel about stuff. It makes sense to ask them.

Let's imagine that we're trying to find out about the possibility of really different experiences from different backgrounds. Yeah, still makes sense to ask them. They might even reveal things that we wouldn't even have thought of, maybe even couldn't in some cases. — fdrake

It's certainly well intended, but its general application is silly and divisive. If we're trying to survey the opinions of a particular demographic, then yes we should be asking that demographic, but most discussions, such as those at an occupy wall-street rally, aren't so specific. By assuming in the general sense that race or orientation arbitrates the relevance of an individual's experiences, and acting on that, we're just practicing a kind of race/gender/orientation discrimination of our own, are we not?

On the one hand, the progressive stack is about elevating the previously silenced groups (doesn't exactly apply to individuals, (elevating an individual is not elevating a group) but that's fine), on the other hand it calls for a kind of favoritism and ostracization to actually get results. The strong and defensible version merely states that we should be listening to victims because they probably have relevant information, but just down the hill is the version which states that because one group is oppressor and another victim, we need to favor and disfavor individuals belonging to that group accordingly.

How about assessing working conditions in an office? Let's ask all the people. Should we only ask men when sexual harassment of women is one of the reasons the office is being externally assessed? No, that's freaking stupid. — fdrake

When we're talking about an actual survey, yes we need to get unbiased samples, but this isn't the progressive stack (or at least, it is the "motte" and not the "bailey"). In an educational setting, would it be equitable for professors to employ the progressive stack in the course of general teaching interactions with their class? I'm in favor of calling on students who should participate more, but why not seek to actually treat individuals fairly? If structural power dynamics are deeply at play in such discussions, how does merely inverting and enforcing the power dynamic result in social equity?

Why does it make sense to ask the people who were there and experienced stuff we wanted to find out about in any of the cases above? Well, because we want to know what events are relevant to them, if there are any patterns in those events, and how those events propagate through time - how they might stay as norms and so on. Fundamentally, the analysis of social circumstances begins with testimony of those people in them. Structure comes later. — fdrake

If we're investigating the sexual harassment of women, then we ought to get the testimony of the women who have been sexually harassed. That makes perfect sense to me. What doesn't make sense is that because there is sexual harassment against women, we ought to employ a progressive stack favoring women outside of discussions regarding the sexual harassment of women, to somehow combat it.

If we're looking to discover averages or trends, then sample selection is quite important; in discussions, content is what's important, and race or orientation as a heuristic for determining the merit of content will only work so well.

So what's intersectionality? Really. It's the apparently outrageous idea that since people from different backgrounds often have different experiences, it makes sense to get their testimony about it before trying to find any underlying patterns. — fdrake

This is like the Plushie™ version of inter-sectional feminism. This is where it began to be sure, but you're kidding yourself if you think students or activists are still in the testimony gathering phase; the patterns are in. They include: microaggressions, cultural appropriation, a lack of safe spaces, and systemic or institutional discrimination functioning as a safeguard for the colonial patriarchy. Rather than an investigative tool, it gets used as a social sanction.

Applying intersectional methodology is nothing more than common sense applied to using testimony to study social circumstances. It does not mean that a person is automatically right in their descriptions of those social circumstances.

Also btw, as a cis white bloke, the intersectional feminists and trans folk I've spoken to have always been very receptive to my ideas, and they usually have something interesting to say. Especially postcolonial feminists. Maybe it's you? — fdrake

Feminism has more sects than any religion in my experience. I consider myself a feminist in the sense that I believe in equality of opportunity for everyone, but it's hard to wield the label these days and not catch flak because of it.

I just cannot get past the prima facie discrimination that comes out of the intersectional camp. Maybe it's me. I know that as a cis white het male I'm supposed to be made uncomfortable (because my unearned comfort comes at the expense of other identity groups), but I think there's a bit more to it than my own white fragility sensitivity.

Don't get all fragile and guilt ridden at this stage of the game. Enjoy your upper hand while you still have it. The brown hordes are on the move.

As a rich gay WASP I bask in the knowledge that my exalted position in society rests securely on the overburdened backs of oppressed peasants. (As well it should!) I really wouldn't have it any other way. [aside... "Hey, you fucking peasants, stand still!] And of course neither would the peasants of color and especially the peasant women. They rejoice in their wretched state of servitude, believing that the last shall be first, and that imperialist sexist fascist gay WASPS are over due for their comeuppance. Well, rah rah cis boom bah!

We have heard rumors that the oppressed riff raff at the bottom of the heap (where they belong) are becoming bitter and resentful about we benevolent overlords sitting up here having peak experiences at their expense. Does it matter? We have been good to them. They are not starving, actually. Many of them are from the fried fish belt and desperately need a raw oat and water body cleanse to get rid of all that lard they have been sucking up with their PCB-flavored catfish. Plus they smoke inferior substances and it stinks! Quite disgusting. At least we aren't required to endure seeing all the way down to the bottom; that would be just totally disgusting. Keep them in the dark, please.

Satire alert.

@VagabondSpectre, I've not responded with quote breakdowns because I want to respond to the general points you make rather than try to perform some LOGICAL DESTRUCTION OF AN ENEMY.

It doesn't seem likely to me that a major reason why Occupy failed was intersectionalism. It looks to me that it failed because it had lots of complaints but almost no tangible political goals, and it lost its momentum to move towards those goals by failing to exploit whatever asymmetries of organisation they could. They experimented like the small 60 and 70's communes, which had already failed to produce an anticapitalist politics for similar reasons.

Whenever someone is excluded based on their identity, it makes sense to ask in what contexts are they excluded, and why they are excluded. Even if we grant that the concerns of white cis men are diminished in relevance compared to anyone outside of that category in intersectionalist movements and circles, it doesn't mean that white cis men are excluded from anything else. The 'divisive rhetoric' doesn't so much divide the populace as unite us into causes along identity lines. You can't have it both ways; that the rhetoric is divisive but nevertheless produces a unified front of outraged sheeple from all backgrounds.

Another major point, which I'm surprised that you're not tackling given how you've researched intersectionalism and privilege, is that privilege is a structural property rather than agent based one. The popular sense of privilege is rooted in two different types of privileges: spared injustice privileges and unjust enrichment privileges. Spared injustice privileges are like the disproportionate number of blacks in prison - white people and neighbourhoods are largely spared this injustice. Unjust enrichment privileges are like the rising tide failing to raise all boats when an economy grows - the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and this isn't fair.

So we can't say that me, personally, as a white bloke, mistreats blacks, women and other identity categories just because I'm white. It's more statistically that I have less shit to deal with.

Regardless of how much effort I put into my arguments and how reasonable they appear, the selection criterion referenced in the OP will allow anyone to say 'yes, but this is quite reasonable, we weren't talking about that'. The people who believe in this stuff generally aren't idiots you know, most people aren't.

Also, I dont turn to intersectionality, am I a close minded ass? — DingoJones

That remains to be seen. It's possible to be blinkered in some areas and not blinkered in others. I imagine that you're not particularly blinkered here because you seem to agree with intersectionality when it's presented with some amount of finesse, and not reduced to (what I see as a largely imagined and unrepresentative) 'horde of brown people' and their allies (as BC satirised it).

My point was that you don’t need intersectionality to accomplish your stated goal.
That intersectionality is certainly being used in nefarious ways by the outrage/victim culture should give the”finesse” proponents of intersectionality like yourself more than sufficient reason to lose the label and even condemn it. If they/you cannot do so, it might be more about trams and identity politics than you cared to admit so far.
Intersectionality is being taught in academia as part of the dogma for this nefarious movement. You look at what happened at Evergreen university, intersectionality was certainly part of the dogma from which that toxic culture (on the part of the “SJW”/feminist/activist students and NOT on the people they were attacking) was birthed.

Don't get all fragile and guilt ridden at this stage of the game. Enjoy your upper hand while you still have it. The brown hordes are on the move. — Bitter Crank

Hear hear! They're takin' our peak experiences!!! :lol:

It doesn't seem likely to me that a major reason why Occupy failed was intersectionalism. It looks to me that it failed because it had lots of complaints but almost no tangible political goals, and it lost its momentum to move towards those goals by failing to exploit whatever asymmetries of organisation they could. They experimented like the small 60 and 70's communes, which had already failed to produce an anticapitalist politics for similar reasons. — fdrake

You're right that intersectionality did not kill Occupy Wall-street, but that wasn't my charge (it was disorganization and a lack of coherent demands that did it in). As far as I know the OW movement was about addressing wealth inequality (an issue which arouses my own passions) which is why I scarcely understand their need to divide themselves into categories of identity based relevance. In the video I posted, an objection is raised from the audience along the lines "it shouldn't matter what our race or orientation is, we're all here because we belong to a marginalized class". He was rebuked with laughter and a lecture about privilege being equivalent to identity. Imagine for a moment that the individual who objected has in fact lived an impoverished and disadvantaged life, despite the statistical correlation between race and wealth/access to institutional power. From their already marginalized perspective, "stepping up by stepping back/checking their privilege" is just more arbitrary marginalization, is it not? This is how it becomes divisive...

Whenever someone is excluded based on their identity, it makes sense to ask in what contexts are they excluded, and why they are excluded. Even if we grant that the concerns of white cis men are diminished in relevance compared to anyone outside of that category in intersectionalist movements and circles, it doesn't mean that white cis men are excluded from anything else. The 'divisive rhetoric' doesn't so much divide the populace as unite us into causes along identity lines. You can't have it both ways; that the rhetoric is divisive but nevertheless produces a unified front of outraged sheeple from all backgrounds. — fdrake

It's hard to not sound like a whiny entitled piece of work by lamenting the exclusion of white men from intersectional feminist spaces (which seems to include more than just academic round-tables), but I am indeed whining. I'm whining about the division it creates using outrage as its operant motivator. Many young white men don't see a unified front, they see a hierarchical pecking order with themselves as bottom fodder. Where passionate and dedicated activists go overboard with the precepts of intersectional feminism, they do real damage to the reputation of any legitimate causes they represent, their entire movement, and they fan the flames of division (which in recent years as made a stark contribution to the rise of the alt-right, their now ironically existent bogeyman).

Another major point, which I'm surprised that you're not tackling given how you've researched intersectionalism and privilege, is that privilege is a structural property rather than agent based one. The popular sense of privilege is rooted in two different types of privileges: spared injustice privileges and unjust enrichment privileges. Spared injustice privileges are like the disproportionate number of blacks in prison - white people and neighbourhoods are largely spared this injustice. Unjust enrichment privileges are like the rising tide failing to raise all boats when an economy grows - the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and this isn't fair. — fdrake

Having a full discussion about these issues is a very large undertaking because of their loaded complexity, but to put in brief: institutional power structures service and disservice individuals far less rigidly on the basis of race or sex than inter-sectional theorists would have us believe. This is a thread I wrote regarding the issue of racism in police violence against blacks, which would constitute a spared injustice privilege for whites in the eyes of an inter-sectional feminist. That specific alleged privilege is loaded with complexity, engenders outrage when accepted, and is difficult to explore and discuss (exploring and discussing the entire gamut of privilege would be unending). I actually reject that discriminatory institutional practices are the main perpetuators of demographic inequalities in contemporary western society. For example, for white inmates and impoverished white families, there is no institutional lever they can pull to elevate themselves; the concept of white privilege to them, is quite alien. In a nut shell, I think the main error is confusing raw statistical outcomes with intent or design in institutional practices. I contend that impoverished white families are having about as hard of a time escaping poverty as impoverished black families are having, and the main forces which actually keep them poor have very little, if anything, to do with race or gender or identity. By assuming from the get go that all statistical disparities are caused by discriminatory institutional practices we're disregarding the many other circumstantial factors which contribute to contemporary statistical outcomes, in all their exhaustive complexity.

So we can't say that me, personally, as a white bloke, mistreats blacks, women and other identity categories just because I'm white. It's more statistically that I have less shit to deal with. — fdrake

But how do we export this statistical truth into a worldview? (Or in the case of the progressive stack, as race based rules of engagement?).

Regardless of how much effort I put into my arguments and how reasonable they appear, the selection criterion referenced in the OP will allow anyone to say 'yes, but this is quite reasonable, we weren't talking about that'. The people who believe in this stuff generally aren't idiots you know, most people aren't. — fdrake

And yet, there are idiots out there, and they tend to be relatively loud. What's worse is the loud idiots find one another through social media and reinforce eachother's idiocy. Worse still, the cacophony of their combined idiocy causes other idiots who take them seriously to rise in idiotic protest of their own, which eventually polarizes both sides into the very caricature the other ridicules them as.

I'm not saying that outrage is inherently bad, and I'm also not saying it's the fault of inter-sectional feminism that there's so much outrage flying around (it doesn't help), I'm simply saying there's too much outrage, and that has got to be affecting us somehow.. Disagree about specifics as you will, you cannot deny that the amount of polarized outrage observable in recent years is a worrying trend. The major cause of the polarizing outrage seems to be hand held media which corrals and reinforces us into segmented ideological compartments, and via the ensuing degradation of discourse it's our democratic health that becomes the victim. As the frequency and intensity of our outrage increases, we're less able to take satisfactory action, and the less emotional patience we have to listen and communicate effectively. It's as if we're being stoked into a growing and irritable mania, where dissent and deviation from our own understanding is less tolerable than ever before...

P.S. I'm not trying to obliterate dissent toward my own ideas in this thread by responding in a meticulous manner, but given the direction the content has taken, I would be too easily misconstrued or fail to make my point otherwise.

Oh, I see! I also see, I think, why I didn't understand the stack the way you do. Because your understanding doesn't seem to be reflected by the video. Maybe you should have used another example. Nevermind though, I'll do my own research! — Πετροκότσυφας

The video was a random example of the progressive stack's use I submitted in an effort to satisfy the "concrete" criterion of your request. I wouldn't call it research, but I fail to see how the video did not reflect my given definition of the progressive stack.

Thanks for your contributions to the thread so far! If the results of your own research prove relevant to the thread, please share them!

Having a full discussion about these issues is a very large undertaking because of their loaded complexity, but to put in brief: institutional power structures service and disservice individuals far less rigidly on the basis of race or sex than inter-sectional theorists would have us believe. This is a thread I wrote regarding the issue of racism in police violence against blacks, which would constitute a spared injustice privilege for whites in the eyes of an inter-sectional feminist. That specific alleged privilege is loaded with complexity, engenders outrage when accepted, and is difficult to explore and discuss (exploring and discussing the entire gamut of privilege would be unending). I actually reject that discriminatory institutional practices are the main perpetuators of demographic inequalities in contemporary western society. For example, for white inmates and impoverished white families, there is no institutional lever they can pull to elevate themselves; the concept of white privilege to them, is quite alien. In a nut shell, I think the main error is confusing raw statistical outcomes with intent or design in institutional practices. I contend that impoverished white families are having about as hard of a time escaping poverty as impoverished black families are having, and the main forces which actually keep them poor have very little, if anything, to do with race or gender or identity. By assuming from the get go that all statistical disparities are caused by discriminatory institutional practices we're disregarding the many other circumstantial factors which contribute to contemporary statistical outcomes, in all their exhaustive complexity. — VagabondSpectre

I broadly agree with what you're saying here. Intersectionality without paying attention to class misses an important source of variation in opportunities which cuts across and intersects other important identity categories. Viewing political activism solely through the lens of group identity without any attention to political economy is pretty bad, and is precisely the image I have in my mind of the 'outraged victim mentality' referred to in the OP.

In a nut shell, I think the main error is confusing raw statistical outcomes with intent or design in institutional practices.

In the vulgar form of 'any injustice results from an institutional disparity' I agree, but I don't really think this is representative of intersectional thought. The entire point is to avoid reductionism of an account which renders that account unrepresentative for some groups of people.

But that doesn't mean I believe there isn't a place for focussing on social issues that don't, at least at face value, relate to political economy meaningfully. I definitely think it's important to challenge norms when they're discriminatory or even just unpleasant for some of those involved.

Also ironically, I generally see people getting butthurt over intersectional discourse as part of this politics of outrage. Some nebulous group of people without a modicum of objective social power dislikes my universal humanitarian outlook because it problematises 'universal' views on humanity is destroying discourse/society/politics! Is there really a better example of finding strange things to be a victim of?

I do agree, but I believe there is something unique in the relationship between negativity/outrage and social media. I'll try not to bore you with causal explanations such as the psychological impact of negative and positive emotions from an evolutionary perspective (arguably, avoiding the "bad" is necessary while chasing the "good" is not) (Hey that wasn't so bad!), but it is fairly evident that the most popular bandwagons (or at least those which travel fastest, furthest, and crash hardest) tend to be fueled by anger and outrage. — VagabondSpectre

Is it? How would one measure such a thing to make it evident? And from a political perspective, if politics is about power, and anger makes a "bandwagon" popular quickly, makes it travel further, and have a bigger impact then . . . what exactly is wrong with it?

Would you rather a political agent travel slowly, affect a handful of people, and not have much of an impact? Or is it the particular policies that the anger is directed at that are actually the problem -- as in, you'd rather these (effects -- policies, actions, what-have-you) be slow, local, and disappear?

My suspicion is the latter. But then if that were the case then outrage and anger are not your object of criticism -- it's what the anger and outrage are doing.

I would say that we're less able to identify what is politically meaningful where previously sympathy for victims and the ensuing outrage did help us to identify issues of merit. Now that all sides are victims, there's less sympathy to go around, and we're more liable to being hijacked by the polarized narratives which surround us. — VagabondSpectre

I understand that you believe this -- But why would you say this?

Polarization isn't the result of a lack of ability to identify issues. That would be uncertainty -- but polarization comes about because people have convictions of which they are certain, and said convictions are in opposition to one another.

So we have two common identities in the states right now which want different things, and the different things they want annul each other. To use a common point of dispute, and your terminology of victimhood -- abortion can be seen as an issue where the innocent are harmed; the innocent in one case are unborn babies, and in another are women. Neither side deserves to be harmed for what they are: the difference lies in how we look at the two groups, and that manner of looking aligns pretty strictly with the two popular US identities.

But that isn't an inability to identify what is politically meaningful. In fact, both sides know exactly what is meaningful, and exactly what they want.

It's probably true that as individuals we're no more or less outraged than before, but group dynamics have changed thanks to hand-held social media; mobs form in a different manner. When a few million people are simultaneously incensed, even if each of them can only take a very small action, cumulatively it can amount to crucifixion. On the other hand, when were inundated with enraging click-bait, we have less time to take specific action. The result, I think, is that we're able to identify fewer issues of meaningful ethical concern, and of the issues which we do become concerned about (typically the most sensational) our responses come in inconsistent proportions. — VagabondSpectre

What are some common responses in light to a social media campaign? No-platforming and firings seem to be the most extreme things I see.

But this pales in comparison to, say, riots, assassinations, and civil war -- all of which have a history of happening in the United States before social media.

How groups interact have changed, sure. But what does that have to do with outrage?


Lastly I'd just note that anger springs out of love. If someone you love is harmed then anger is an appropriate response.

We can say more than that. Difficulty of circumstances are defined by the conditions of the individual. In this respect, there's not much required for someone to have greater difficulty than another person.

All it takes is failing to overcome a circumstance in question. The reasons for this could be many: drug addiction, lack of family support, poverty, sexism, racism, personal interests, personal enemies to name but a few. Any one might make a situation unilaterally too difficult to overcome. Belonging to a social group who is favoured or one which is oppressed doesn't prevent this.

White privilege was never a reason to expect any given when person will do better or have less difficulty than someone of another race. It's just a description of a cultural state, that people who are white often have certain social resources.

Being rich doesn't necessarily mean you'll have less difficulty than someone who is poor. A rich person might act in a way which brings them more difficulty than a homeless person, they might be addicted to drugs, roam the street and refuse to use money to help mitigate hardships. Most of the time though, this doesn't happen. The rich person usually used wealth to mitigate hardship or help overcome their circumstance. Despite some rich people having difficulty, there is still a relation to describe.

White privilege is no different. It does not mean any white person will have less difficulty. Rather, it identifies certain distributions of resources, social events and significances, such that white people are less likely to face or do not face certain difficulties. It's never been a reason an individual overcomes their difficulties or not. Privilege is not a causal reason.

The mistake a lot of people make (and one you are making here) is to think privilege is a causal reason. A lack of privilege is not a reason someone has difficulties. Nor is belonging race, sex, gender, etc., a reason someone has difficulty.

Causal reasons for difficulty are far more material. It's illness, lack of community, poverty, actions of other people to exclude people of a race, sex or gender, etc., lack of services, an environment in which people harm each others and a host of other events we could name. Privilege is just description of certain social relations and states formed out of those causes.

In the vulgar form of 'any injustice results from an institutional disparity' I agree, but I don't really think this is representative of intersectional thought. The entire point is to avoid reductionism of an account which renders that account unrepresentative for some groups of people. — fdrake

In my perhaps biased experience of intersectional feminism, it has been most significantly lacking in its descriptions of the specific mechanisms of structural power and discrimination it alleges perpetuate inequality. At best it relies on an appeal to widespread bigotry by presuming that the cumulative impact of widespread discriminatory actions by individuals from groups occupying more positions of power is what leads to statistically disparate outcomes for non-males and non-whites. Where discriminated identities are compounded (the intersection of multiple identities) so too is discrimination compounded (hence the progressive stack). As far as I have gathered, this is the exact lens of inter-sectional feminism, and while it is not necessarily wrong, when haphazardly wielded as broad explanatory tool it does at its core make the assumption that unfair discrimination based on identity is at the heart of all statistical disparities.

It's easy to see how the mis-application of this lens can go wrong. Where specific discriminatory actions, trends, and institutions cannot be identified, students of inter-sectional feminism are incentivized to invent them (micro-aggressions and cultural appropriation to name a few); wearing dreadlocks can amount to cultural theft, and asking about someone else's culture can amount to denigration, etc... (Through the intersectional looking-glass, any transgression becomes dire). As a hypothesis, inter-sectional feminism is very appealing to the progressive minded, but when applied as an untreated lens it obscures more than it reveals. In practice it cannot avoid reductionism, and it is forced to carry out investigations without the benefit of a broader imagination (the cause of X disparity must always come in the form "Y group has more power, therefore Y group employs that power to perpetuate X disparity"). As a hypothesis and heuristic we may use it to direct our inquiries in a hopefully right direction, but we cannot rely on it as answer. Statistical representations of whole populations need a lot of interpretation and analysis to be well understood or explained, let alone remedied, and while inter-sectional feminism is very good at presenting statistical outcomes, it is very poor at finding solid causal mechanisms that go beyond the scope of assumed human discrimination.

But that doesn't mean I believe there isn't a place for focussing on social issues that don't, at least at face value, relate to political economy meaningfully. I definitely think it's important to challenge norms when they're discriminatory or even just unpleasant for some of those involved. — fdrake

I'm not against challenging norms, especially norms perpetuated by discrimination, but not by any means. Take the norm of American presidents being men as example: I wish that people would give political candidates fair consideration regardless of their gender, but I do not wish for people to vote female candidates for the sole reason that they want to achieve parity in gender outcomes in the office of the president. When Hillary Clinton said that one of her merits is that she's a woman, to vote for her because she is a woman, she was appealing to the idea that unfairness in previous outcomes demands arbitrary correction; that instead of voting for her because of her ability to do the job, we can and should vote for her because the circumstances of her birth. A rather silly move if you ask me.

Also ironically, I generally see people getting butthurt over intersectional discourse as part of this politics of outrage. — fdrake

You're right, those left butthurt in the wake of intersectional feminism have been long festering, and overtime various evolutions/schisms within that group have resulted in the creation of the alt-right (it was bred in places like youtube where pundits trot out and "take down" the silliest examples of "regressive" politics, which has by now largely been co-opted by older political memes (which in the case of the alt-right were the neo-nazis and "ethno-nationalists")).

Some nebulous group of people without a modicum of objective social power dislikes my universal humanitarian outlook because it problematises 'universal' views on humanity is destroying discourse/society/politics! Is there really a better example of finding strange things to be a victim of? — fdrake

I'm not sure what you mean by objective social power. To the extent that any collection of citizens has social power, wealth not withstanding, inter-sectional feminists and the associated movement do have social power, but what is objective social power?

Can I urge y'all to watch this video. It might cast a different light on the structure of victimhood.

Is it? How would one measure such a thing to make it evident? And from a political perspective, if politics is about power, and anger makes a "bandwagon" popular quickly, makes it travel further, and have a bigger impact then . . . what exactly is wrong with it?

Would you rather a political agent travel slowly, affect a handful of people, and not have much of an impact? Or is it the particular policies that the anger is directed at that are actually the problem -- as in, you'd rather these (effects -- policies, actions, what-have-you) be slow, local, and disappear?

My suspicion is the latter. But then if that were the case then outrage and anger are not your object of criticism -- it's what the anger and outrage are doing. — Moliere

This is a bit of a false dilemma. Just because anger, hate, and outrage propel us the fastest doesn't mean it's the most desirable or effective means of political locomotion, or that any alternative would be slow and ineffectual. Sometimes we move too fast, especially in anger, and we break things or do things we regret. In extreme circumstances a quick and angry response might be just what is required, but often times it is wiser to take the time to understand the problem before crashing into it at high speeds (which can often make problems worse).

I understand that you believe this -- But why would you say this?

Polarization isn't the result of a lack of ability to identify issues. That would be uncertainty -- but polarization comes about because people have convictions of which they are certain, and said convictions are in opposition to one another.

So we have two common identities in the states right now which want different things, and the different things they want annul each other. To use a common point of dispute, and your terminology of victimhood -- abortion can be seen as an issue where the innocent are harmed; the innocent in one case are unborn babies, and in another are women. Neither side deserves to be harmed for what they are: the difference lies in how we look at the two groups, and that manner of looking aligns pretty strictly with the two popular US identities.

But that isn't an inability to identify what is politically meaningful. In fact, both sides know exactly what is meaningful, and exactly what they want. — Moliere

Of course, abortion is a meaningful political issue, but it's already been thoroughly identified as such. I'm more worried about awareness of the steady stream of issues which the body politic is meant to confront; our ability, as a group, to expediently and rationally identify and address them.

Polarization can occur for many reasons (you've merely defined polarization, not explained how it can come about). Disagreement can turn to polarization when for whatever reason both sides have sufficient emotional stake in their positions, and in the course of defending against attacks from the other side they are driven deeper into commitment or extremity. On the subject of abortion, as you say, there is outrage on both sides, certainty on both sides, which has largely been brought about thanks to the emotional arguments each side uses. The uncompromising certainty held by either side pretty much guarantees that reconciliation toward truth (in whichever direction it may lay) is not possible. In this case outrage fuels the certainty and division that seems to otherwise prevent consensus.

What are some common responses in light to a social media campaign? No-platforming and firings seem to be the most extreme things I see.

But this pales in comparison to, say, riots, assassinations, and civil war -- all of which have a history of happening in the United States before social media.

How groups interact have changed, sure. But what does that have to do with outrage? — Moliere

A civil war is a pretty high bar to set before accepting that outrage has changed. The other examples you mentioned, riots and assassinations (at least assassination attempts), are also contemporary problems I associate with a change in outrage. Earlier I said it may be true that we're no more or less outraged than before, but it is surely true that as groups we're able to focus our outrage in novel ways. Riotous protests and demonstrations have been occurring for several years (antifa and the right/alt-right mostly), and there have been assassination attempts on politicians by nut jobs from both sides of the isle in recent years (the pipe bomber most recently). I submit that the tendency of social and news media to favor that which outrages (because it gets more clicks and views) has altered our previous balance of emotions toward a state of stress, irritability, and resentment (being inundated with enraging click-bait which has been selected because it reinforces our preexisting biases, is a main culprit).

People react to new environments differently, some more extreme than others, but in general I do see a rise in stress (at least the "on-line" cross section of westerners), increasing polarization, shrinking will for empathy and bi-partisanship; general cantankerousness. The inspiration for writing this thread came from one of the main conservative reactions to Dr. Ford's testimony: they were outraged that such an unfair witch-hunt was allowed to happen instead of even batting an eye at Kavanaugh's blatant lies and questionable character. It fit their polarized narrative, it gave them outrage of their own, and that's really all it took; meaningful issue successfully disregarded...

Causal reasons for difficulty are far more material. It's illness, lack of community, poverty, actions of other people to exclude people of a race, sex or gender, etc., lack of services, an environment in which people harm each others and a host of other events we could name. Privilege is just description of certain social relations and states formed out of those causes. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I have to be honest and say that I think you're on a theoretical island of your own. Merely equating disproportional outcomes with words like white privilege without any explanatory force behind them is an inversion of typical inter-sectional feminist theory: "privilege is why whites have disproportionately better outcomes". I can understand what you mean in your descriptive approach, but I don't see how it delivers anything useful, because to remedy the disproportional outcomes, we really need to understand legitimate causes.

People who say "privilege is why" are using this descriptive sense. They mean in the social context some people have been put in difficultly by an unstated material cause, which is producing a society with this relation of privilege. In making this point, they are only describing someone on difficultly in relation to this social order.

In some cases, when we want to identify a cause, people can make a mistake of only giving this description. Sometimes this happens when people are trying to explain the issue. They'll just say "It's privilege" because they already know associated material caused nested with that outcome. Confusing to those outside, who don't know those associated states and causes, but not wrong.

The biggest issue is a lot of people just don't do description of people in the social context. One of the reasons people get confused by notions of privilege is they relate only in terms of a justification or causal state. They take everything about giving a reason for a state, social organisation or event. Description of an event, a person, how someone is treated, how someone understood, is a rejected catergory of inquiry.

The appeal to intentionally is a great example of this tendency. Supposedly, something will only count as discriminationatory if it's intended. Only if someone is rejected for being black can there be an issue with racism. Social inquiry gets reduced to reasons for rather than being descriptive of people in social relations.

If use description, intentionally is only one form of an issue. Various issues are going regardless of intention. Any material cause which produces difficulty for a social group will manifest a relation with respect to that group.

If economic and cultural situations are producing, for example, a society in which black communities have massive rates of incarceration, then the racial social relation is produced regardless of both intention and whether a response is justified.

Thinking in just terms of reasons or intention just doesn't make sense. It leaves out some of the most aspects of social relations. To do so is like trying to think about poverty only in terms of people who we've already employed.

Disagreement can turn to polarization when for whatever reason both sides have sufficient emotional stake in their positions, and in the course of defending against attacks from the other side they are driven deeper into commitment or extremity. On the subject of abortion, as you say, there is outrage on both sides, certainty on both sides, which has largely been brought about thanks to the emotional arguments each side uses. The uncompromising certainty held by either side pretty much guarantees that reconciliation toward truth (in whichever direction it may lay) is not possible. — VagabondSpectre

There comes a time when an issue is no longer debatable -- where there isn't some compromise that will satisfy everyone involved enough to keep on getting along. There isn't some true belief with respect to how we should set up this or that law. There are convictions, and some of them cannot be reconciled. You either cross the picket line or you don't -- you either support the North or the South -- you either vote for Kavanaugh or you do not.

I submit that the tendency of social and news media to favor that which outrages (because it gets more clicks and views) has altered our previous balance of emotions toward a state of stress, irritability, and resentment (being inundated with enraging click-bait which has been selected because it reinforces our preexisting biases, is a main culprit).

People react to new environments differently, some more extreme than others, but in general I do see a rise in stress (at least the "on-line" cross section of westerners), increasing polarization, shrinking will for empathy and bi-partisanship; general cantankerousness. — VagabondSpectre

I think that the favoring is more because this is how we feel now. I mentioned the civil war because that was clearly a violent political moment where there could not be compromise, but it happened without social media or the internet or even very fast communication.

I don't disagree with you in saying there is a rise in stress, irritability, resentment, and a drop in empathy. It's more that I don't think social media is the culprit, but just another vehicle through which the same emotions have always fueled political discord. We just happen to live in a time when compromise is being viewed with more suspicion.

And I'd submit that this isn't necessarily bad. Change is violent. These moments are indeed scary. I feel fear when I think of the future. But, then, I also do not feel the need to compromise. I feel anger, and anger is a gift which overcomes fear.

Not that I want to live the entirety of my life full of rage. Anger can also be corrosive. But philosophers tend to view anger with suspicion, where I say that it has plenty of good to offer. Especially when you come to realize that it's not a lack of understanding on either side of an issue, but rather a disagreement on values.

There comes a time when an issue is no longer debatable -- where there isn't some compromise that will satisfy everyone involved enough to keep on getting along. There isn't some true belief with respect to how we should set up this or that law. There are convictions, and some of them cannot be reconciled. You either cross the picket line or you don't -- you either support the North or the South -- you either vote for Kavanaugh or you do not. — Moliere

And that time when an issue is no longer debatable is usually brought up immediately to rally one's side. Looking for compromise would be demeaning appeasement. It's a good tactic nowdays.

There comes a time when an issue is no longer debatable -- where there isn't some compromise that will satisfy everyone involved enough to keep on getting along. — Moliere

You are wrong. So wrong that this issue is no longer debatable.

But fortunately, we agree about some other things, and it is this conflict between our agreement on X and our disagreement on Y that keeps us peaceable. Polarisation is when we either agree or disagree about everything, then there is us, or there is them, and the conflict is no longer internal, as I agree with you about some things and agree with your opponent about some things, but if i disagree with anything, I disagree with everything. The latter is a recipe for war.