4 ms·

I can't speak for "dear fucking g-d" but my it would appear that your position is distinct from that of the mainstream critical theory/intersectionality social

I can't speak for "dear fucking g-d" but my it would appear that your position is distinct from that of the mainstream critical theory/intersectionality social justice crowd.

rosser 8y ago
> ...it would appear that your position is distinct from that of the mainstream critical theory/intersectionality social justice crowd. Not the subset of it I engage with — and that includes people who hold (graduate) degrees in things like "Gender Studies" or "Ethnic Studies", and such-like — which means we're playing some form of "dueling anecdata". To that end, I'd invite you to speculate momentarily on how many people in this discussion have ever engaged in meaningful, substantive discourse with people from the "social justice crowd" (which, btw: ugh, dismissive name-calling, much?) about their positions, and aren't merely regurgitating their own narratives, of whatever other origin.
- ankushnarula 8y ago
  I'm not clear on your point of view - so perhaps you're correct that we're talking past each other. And with regards to "dismissive name-calling" - I wasn't aware that "social justice crowd" was a pejorative. If there's a better moniker that represents the broader set of ideas I'd be pleased to know and use it. As for your claim that you're engaged in "other meaningful discourse" and that I'm "merely regurgitating my own narrative", I'd invite you to notice that your ad hominem attacks are not arguments.
  - rosser 8y ago
    Where am I making an ad hominem? It's my — all too often — repeated experience that there are people who meaningfully talk with "SJWs" and there are people who talk about them. I'm not asserting any specific person here is a member of either set — except myself, based solely and specifically on my own, direct experience. I'm also absolutely not asserting you're "regurgitating" anything. Just, on the basis of the conversations I've had, and the independent reading I've done, there is no way some of the positions being fervently argued in this broader discussion are based on anything except internalizing some (usually agenda-serving) misapprehension of what "SJWs", or feminists, or whatever, are, want, and intend. As for the term, itself, it's been seen as mostly pejorative for as long as I've been aware of it. How about, instead of a bucket you (the general "you") can dismiss people and their beliefs into, ("Oh, look. Another 'SJW'..."), we try something along the lines of, "Hmm. Someone who thinks differently from me. I wonder how..." It's, in my "I've been online for more than 20 years now" opinion, a term that is vastly more often used to shut down discourse than it is to open it up.
    - ankushnarula 8y ago
      Excuse me, but I expressly avoid the term "SJW" because it's a known pejorative. I prefer to use "social justice advocates" - I used "crowd" here but there was no ill intent. And if I didn't apologize earlier for making assumptions about your views, I'm apologizing right now. I'd rather learn what you truly think than insist a caricature upon you. It's the only way to have an honest conservation, I think.
      - rosser 8y ago
        Thank you for the clarification. I think "social justice advocate" is a reasonable term, though "social justice anything" is probably always going to risk evoking a reaction, and not a response; for example, I probably did with your use of "crowd", which might in turn have colored my reply. I hope I'm offering you some food for thought, or at least another insight into a perspective that differs from yours. There are people out there who hold considered, nuanced perspectives on these (and many other) topics. Our contemporary style of discourse makes it very difficult to be one of them. :(
        ankushnarula 8y ago
        I agree there are many nuanced views. And I found our interaction useful in illuminating your views - I suspect they're not entirely dissimilar from my perspective. The discourse does tend to quickly descend into defensiveness & assumptions of bad faith. For my part, I hope to do better the next time around. Cheers.
- beat 8y ago
  Somewhere downthread, someone else said that we'd think differently if we lived among "normal people" rather than in the liberal-oriented big cities. So yeah, speaking of dismissive.
beat 8y ago
fwiw, critical theory is distinct from intersectionality. Intersectionality is more or less a 21st century concept. Critical theory dates to the Frankfurt School's work as far back as the 1930s. And conceptually, they have very little to do with one another, other than being "left". Critical theory is largely a Marxist critique of culture, targeted at all totalitarian systems - fascism, Stalinism, and capitalism (why they say capitalism is totalitarian is worth reading). The term "intersectionality" was first used in the late 1980s, one of the first shots of third wave feminism, but really didn't hit vogue until a decade or more later. Totally separate things.

I can't speak for "dear fucking g-d" but my it would appear that your position is distinct from that of the mainstream critical theory/intersectionality social justice crowd.

rosser 8y ago

> ...it would appear that your position is distinct from that of the mainstream critical theory/intersectionality social justice crowd. Not the subset of it I engage with — and that includes people who hold (graduate) degrees in things like "Gender Studies" or "Ethnic Studies", and such-like — which means we're playing some form of "dueling anecdata". To that end, I'd invite you to speculate momentarily on how many people in this discussion have ever engaged in meaningful, substantive discourse with people from the "social justice crowd" (which, btw: ugh, dismissive name-calling, much?) about their positions, and aren't merely regurgitating their own narratives, of whatever other origin.

ankushnarula 8y ago
I'm not clear on your point of view - so perhaps you're correct that we're talking past each other. And with regards to "dismissive name-calling" - I wasn't aware that "social justice crowd" was a pejorative. If there's a better moniker that represents the broader set of ideas I'd be pleased to know and use it. As for your claim that you're engaged in "other meaningful discourse" and that I'm "merely regurgitating my own narrative", I'd invite you to notice that your ad hominem attacks are not arguments.
- rosser 8y ago
  Where am I making an ad hominem? It's my — all too often — repeated experience that there are people who meaningfully talk with "SJWs" and there are people who talk about them. I'm not asserting any specific person here is a member of either set — except myself, based solely and specifically on my own, direct experience. I'm also absolutely not asserting you're "regurgitating" anything. Just, on the basis of the conversations I've had, and the independent reading I've done, there is no way some of the positions being fervently argued in this broader discussion are based on anything except internalizing some (usually agenda-serving) misapprehension of what "SJWs", or feminists, or whatever, are, want, and intend. As for the term, itself, it's been seen as mostly pejorative for as long as I've been aware of it. How about, instead of a bucket you (the general "you") can dismiss people and their beliefs into, ("Oh, look. Another 'SJW'..."), we try something along the lines of, "Hmm. Someone who thinks differently from me. I wonder how..." It's, in my "I've been online for more than 20 years now" opinion, a term that is vastly more often used to shut down discourse than it is to open it up.
  - ankushnarula 8y ago
    Excuse me, but I expressly avoid the term "SJW" because it's a known pejorative. I prefer to use "social justice advocates" - I used "crowd" here but there was no ill intent. And if I didn't apologize earlier for making assumptions about your views, I'm apologizing right now. I'd rather learn what you truly think than insist a caricature upon you. It's the only way to have an honest conservation, I think.
    - rosser 8y ago
      Thank you for the clarification. I think "social justice advocate" is a reasonable term, though "social justice anything" is probably always going to risk evoking a reaction, and not a response; for example, I probably did with your use of "crowd", which might in turn have colored my reply. I hope I'm offering you some food for thought, or at least another insight into a perspective that differs from yours. There are people out there who hold considered, nuanced perspectives on these (and many other) topics. Our contemporary style of discourse makes it very difficult to be one of them. :(
      - ankushnarula 8y ago
        I agree there are many nuanced views. And I found our interaction useful in illuminating your views - I suspect they're not entirely dissimilar from my perspective. The discourse does tend to quickly descend into defensiveness & assumptions of bad faith. For my part, I hope to do better the next time around. Cheers.
beat 8y ago
Somewhere downthread, someone else said that we'd think differently if we lived among "normal people" rather than in the liberal-oriented big cities. So yeah, speaking of dismissive.

beat 8y ago

fwiw, critical theory is distinct from intersectionality. Intersectionality is more or less a 21st century concept. Critical theory dates to the Frankfurt School's work as far back as the 1930s. And conceptually, they have very little to do with one another, other than being "left". Critical theory is largely a Marxist critique of culture, targeted at all totalitarian systems - fascism, Stalinism, and capitalism (why they say capitalism is totalitarian is worth reading). The term "intersectionality" was first used in the late 1980s, one of the first shots of third wave feminism, but really didn't hit vogue until a decade or more later. Totally separate things.