3 ms·

This is why people can't have calm, reasoned discord in 2018. "obviously the movement for intersectional social and economic equality would arise from some gro

This is why people can't have calm, reasoned discord in 2018. "obviously the movement for intersectional social and economic equality would arise from some group other than rich white men?" I'm not rich. I never said I was white (as it happens I am, but that's neither here nor there - why are you trying to start a racial argument?) And why is your statement obviously correct as you put it? "stop demanding other folks conform to your private nomenclature" I didn't demand anything at all. Did you even read what I wrote? My point was the term is applied ambiguously, making the meaning unclear. "this is a fig leaf to push back against what you see as the loss of privileges held by white men in society? Too bad: you're assuredly losing these, as they come at a high cost to everyone else." This is a dramatic, well-crafted response.. to something that was never said in the first place. None of this is even the most ridiculous part of your comment, which is surely the over-arching notion that any opinions you feel over your own privileges and how you've arrived at them are shared by everyone else on the internet who you assume is of the same skin colour and gender. I believe very strongly in actual equality, as do most people describing themselves as feminists that I've spoken to, as I stated. In short - please don't misconstrue my statements in an effort to make me look intolerant and bigotted. It debases a valid discussion, and I personally find it deeply offensive. Now as I don't like to be confrontational about something so serious I would like to end by saying something kind; I'm proud of you that you used the words intersectional, ephemeral and nomenclature correctly in your post.

KirinDave 8y ago
> This is why people can't have calm, reasoned discord in 2018. Oh? > I'm not rich. I never said I was white (as it happens I am, but that's neither here nor there - why are you trying to start a racial argument?) Well, I don't see me saying or implying you were, merely pointing out the incentives of the disenfranchised promote protest where the incumbents do not. > I didn't demand anything at all. Did you even read what I wrote? I did, actually! Let's quickly look at this telltale paragraph: > > The term "feminism" implies that it pertains specifically to female rights. Perhaps "social egalitarian" is a more apt description for someone wanting equal rights for all, to clarify any difference. So I'm left here with one of 2 conclusions: 1) Either this guy is parroting a common anti-feminist praxis. 2) This guy has no clue about the space and discourse, simply not realizing that in fact "intersectional feminism" is simply a historically faithful term for this "egalitarianism" he likes. Personally, I don't believe you accidentally stumbled upon your argument. I think you made it in bad faith. That you immediately came back and demanded that I pretend to acknowledge your figment of neutral tone is confirmation, because what a rational person would do when confronted with a misunderstanding of magnitude 2 is try to work out how their communication went wrong. They would not (as an example) say, "Are you trying to start a racial argument?" But on the off chance that this is all a massive misunderstanding: you're parroting an argument that is often used by people to derail and defuse the actual arguments presented by intersectional feminism by bikeshedding over the name. Please think on this, because in a modern 2018 internet when you do this (in a forum full of posts like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17759924 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17759924) your voice is indistinguishable from theirs. And if you disagree that "Feminism" captures your intent, please point to actual policy and not nitpicking about the name. Nitpicking about names is at best unhelpful.
- headmelted 8y ago
  I'll say plainly that I'm not acting in bad faith, you're just plain wrong in assuming that. Your latter assumption is correct, though - I'm not familiar with the discourse. "Intersectional feminism" is not a term I was familiar with, and having Googled it, it does appear to be what I was referring to. I say this cautiously, as Googling something is hardly going to give me a rounded understanding - but I intend to read up on it more. "That you immediately came back and demanded that I pretend to acknowledge your figment of neutral tone is confirmation" I really do not want to argue with someone over the internet about a topic like this, so it's the last time I'll quote. I just wanted to point something out to you. For the second time, I've demanded nothing of you, and I don't understand why you keep using that word. You've again assumed malice when I really don't see that I've given you reason to. I can't switch tabs right now to read the article you linked as I'm on a mobile and my phone will lose this comment, but I will read it as soon as I'm done posting here. I don't agree or disagree that "feminism" captures my point. My point is that the term covers broad ideas that aren't always internally compatible, as you've pointed out. "Intersectional feminism" does appear to cover my view on the topic (again, not familiar with the term before 20 minutes ago, so.. pinch of salt until I'm more up-to-speed on the topic). Once I've read up, I'll be more aware of the terminology for the future, so thanks for the link. Respectfully though, when you say my voice is indistinguishable from what I can only assume is going to be some fairly rough anti-women and/or LGBTQ speech, I'm going to be offended by it. I don't see where I've been irrational but maybe I'm just blind to it, I asked why race was being brought up as I genuinely don't see why skin colour needed to be mentioned at all. UPDATE: I've read the comment you linked to. I've honestly nothing to say about it, or more to say to you on this topic. Good luck to you.

KirinDave 8y ago

> This is why people can't have calm, reasoned discord in 2018. Oh? > I'm not rich. I never said I was white (as it happens I am, but that's neither here nor there - why are you trying to start a racial argument?) Well, I don't see me saying or implying you were, merely pointing out the incentives of the disenfranchised promote protest where the incumbents do not. > I didn't demand anything at all. Did you even read what I wrote? I did, actually! Let's quickly look at this telltale paragraph: > > The term "feminism" implies that it pertains specifically to female rights. Perhaps "social egalitarian" is a more apt description for someone wanting equal rights for all, to clarify any difference. So I'm left here with one of 2 conclusions: 1) Either this guy is parroting a common anti-feminist praxis. 2) This guy has no clue about the space and discourse, simply not realizing that in fact "intersectional feminism" is simply a historically faithful term for this "egalitarianism" he likes. Personally, I don't believe you accidentally stumbled upon your argument. I think you made it in bad faith. That you immediately came back and demanded that I pretend to acknowledge your figment of neutral tone is confirmation, because what a rational person would do when confronted with a misunderstanding of magnitude 2 is try to work out how their communication went wrong. They would not (as an example) say, "Are you trying to start a racial argument?" But on the off chance that this is all a massive misunderstanding: you're parroting an argument that is often used by people to derail and defuse the actual arguments presented by intersectional feminism by bikeshedding over the name. Please think on this, because in a modern 2018 internet when you do this (in a forum full of posts like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17759924 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17759924) your voice is indistinguishable from theirs. And if you disagree that "Feminism" captures your intent, please point to actual policy and not nitpicking about the name. Nitpicking about names is at best unhelpful.

headmelted 8y ago
I'll say plainly that I'm not acting in bad faith, you're just plain wrong in assuming that. Your latter assumption is correct, though - I'm not familiar with the discourse. "Intersectional feminism" is not a term I was familiar with, and having Googled it, it does appear to be what I was referring to. I say this cautiously, as Googling something is hardly going to give me a rounded understanding - but I intend to read up on it more. "That you immediately came back and demanded that I pretend to acknowledge your figment of neutral tone is confirmation" I really do not want to argue with someone over the internet about a topic like this, so it's the last time I'll quote. I just wanted to point something out to you. For the second time, I've demanded nothing of you, and I don't understand why you keep using that word. You've again assumed malice when I really don't see that I've given you reason to. I can't switch tabs right now to read the article you linked as I'm on a mobile and my phone will lose this comment, but I will read it as soon as I'm done posting here. I don't agree or disagree that "feminism" captures my point. My point is that the term covers broad ideas that aren't always internally compatible, as you've pointed out. "Intersectional feminism" does appear to cover my view on the topic (again, not familiar with the term before 20 minutes ago, so.. pinch of salt until I'm more up-to-speed on the topic). Once I've read up, I'll be more aware of the terminology for the future, so thanks for the link. Respectfully though, when you say my voice is indistinguishable from what I can only assume is going to be some fairly rough anti-women and/or LGBTQ speech, I'm going to be offended by it. I don't see where I've been irrational but maybe I'm just blind to it, I asked why race was being brought up as I genuinely don't see why skin colour needed to be mentioned at all. UPDATE: I've read the comment you linked to. I've honestly nothing to say about it, or more to say to you on this topic. Good luck to you.