4 ms·

> White supremacy has entered the political discourse and it does not deserve equal time. I'm curious to hear your thoughts on feminism and black nationalism.

by yarou 10y ago

> White supremacy has entered the political discourse and it does not deserve equal time. I'm curious to hear your thoughts on feminism and black nationalism. Do you consider these viewpoints to be "morally equivalent" to white supremacy?

eli_gottlieb 10y ago
Feminism: it's great. Black nationalism (American variety): feeeeeh.
Dylan16807 10y ago
What kind of question is that? Only the most ridiculous strawman of feminism could compare to __ supremacy. (I won't address "black nationalism" because the term is too unspecific.)
kaitai 10y ago
That's quite a grab bag. Should we throw in radical veganism, Zionism, and libertarianism too? How are you going to measure the "moral equivalency" or non-equivalency of these positions? So, to get started, these are all objects in some category, but I'm not sure what the defining features of this category are. They all have beliefs about groups of people, sort of (libertarianism going for "all individuals" often, veganism involving animals on par with people with respect to certain rights). Several involve thoughts on government (black nationalism, Zionism, libertarianism) and others don't (white supremacy, feminism, veganism) so that can't quite be it. Some explicitly put down other groups ("supremacy" is a giveaway) and others don't (feminism doesn't, black nationalism often doesn't, depends on the flavor of veganism and Zionism). Even if you leave out my additions, what makes feminism, black nationalism, and white supremacy comparable? Why did you put them together? One's racist, one's separatist, and one is about equality; they don't have the same relationships to governance; going back to category theory how are you going to construct morphisms between these to compare them?
- yarou 10y ago
  You can categorize them as identity politics. Which is what I was trying to get at - I don't think that identity politics are useful anymore in the modern age we live in. What's inconsistent to me is if one accepts the moral superiority of one type of identity politics over another. Either you accept them all or you categorically deny them all.
  - Dylan16807 10y ago
    > Either you accept them all or you categorically deny them all. "Identity politics" is not about what people say, it's about how they organize. It neither validates nor invalidates one's arguments. I reject your assertion.
- ocdtrekkie 10y ago
  That's an opinion. I've seen quite a few feminists committed to blanket assumptions of what's wrong with men, or that feminism requires women be chosen over men, as opposed to having equal opportunity. It is entirely possible to see certain feminists in much the same vein as I'd evaluate a white supremacist. Bear in mind, there's a "feminist" out there who's advocated for reducing the male population of the earth by 90%. Obviously a radical example, but my point is, you can treat these widespread viewpoints as cut and dry as you've placed them.

by yarou 10y ago

eli_gottlieb 10y ago

Feminism: it's great. Black nationalism (American variety): feeeeeh.

Dylan16807 10y ago

What kind of question is that? Only the most ridiculous strawman of feminism could compare to __ supremacy. (I won't address "black nationalism" because the term is too unspecific.)

kaitai 10y ago

That's quite a grab bag. Should we throw in radical veganism, Zionism, and libertarianism too? How are you going to measure the "moral equivalency" or non-equivalency of these positions? So, to get started, these are all objects in some category, but I'm not sure what the defining features of this category are. They all have beliefs about groups of people, sort of (libertarianism going for "all individuals" often, veganism involving animals on par with people with respect to certain rights). Several involve thoughts on government (black nationalism, Zionism, libertarianism) and others don't (white supremacy, feminism, veganism) so that can't quite be it. Some explicitly put down other groups ("supremacy" is a giveaway) and others don't (feminism doesn't, black nationalism often doesn't, depends on the flavor of veganism and Zionism). Even if you leave out my additions, what makes feminism, black nationalism, and white supremacy comparable? Why did you put them together? One's racist, one's separatist, and one is about equality; they don't have the same relationships to governance; going back to category theory how are you going to construct morphisms between these to compare them?

yarou 10y ago
You can categorize them as identity politics. Which is what I was trying to get at - I don't think that identity politics are useful anymore in the modern age we live in. What's inconsistent to me is if one accepts the moral superiority of one type of identity politics over another. Either you accept them all or you categorically deny them all.
- Dylan16807 10y ago
  > Either you accept them all or you categorically deny them all. "Identity politics" is not about what people say, it's about how they organize. It neither validates nor invalidates one's arguments. I reject your assertion.
ocdtrekkie 10y ago
That's an opinion. I've seen quite a few feminists committed to blanket assumptions of what's wrong with men, or that feminism requires women be chosen over men, as opposed to having equal opportunity. It is entirely possible to see certain feminists in much the same vein as I'd evaluate a white supremacist. Bear in mind, there's a "feminist" out there who's advocated for reducing the male population of the earth by 90%. Obviously a radical example, but my point is, you can treat these widespread viewpoints as cut and dry as you've placed them.