4 ms·

Actually these people redefined sexism and racism as "doesn't count when applied to the sex/race I dislike". I wish I was joking but this is the state of the ar

Actually these people redefined sexism and racism as "doesn't count when applied to the sex/race I dislike". I wish I was joking but this is the state of the art in academia.

msla 8y ago
> Actually these people redefined sexism and racism as "doesn't count when applied to the sex/race I dislike". I wish I was joking but this is the state of the art in academia. This is a great place to talk about something I've observed about academic ideas like these, which I'll call the difference between Academic and Vulgar, by analogy to "Vulgar Libertarianism" and "Vulgar Socialism": There's a difference between Academic Positions and Vulgar Positions, where Academic Positions are defined as being the ones academics write papers about and Vulgar Positions are the ones average people who support those Positions use in day-to-day discourse, especially in discussions with others. This is a convenient feature: Academic Positions are nuanced and logically defensible, whereas Vulgar Positions are simple, pugnacious, and useful in street-fight debates where you primarily want to shut down the person you're opposed to. Intersectionality has a Vulgar form: "Check your privilege!" In the Academic sense, that statement is, at most, a gentle reminder to examine the totality of a situation before judging it. In the Vulgar sense, it's a way to shut someone down by stating that they're "privileged" and are, therefore, unworthy of having a judgement at all. In the Academic sense, saying someone is "privileged" is nonsensical, or perhaps tautological, in that everyone has some position where they're privileged and some positions where they're disadvantaged, so saying that a person is privileged is not very meaningful. In the Vulgar sense, "privilege" absolutely does adhere to individuals, and people with "privilege" must never disagree with those without. Anyway, the Academic form is the only one officially acknowledged to exist, whereas the Vulgar form is the lived experience, the one which drives actions and policies. Therefore, the Vulgar form is never seriously discussed, because when you mention its features, the person you're discussing it with will deny that their philosophy has those features, as, indeed, the Academic form does not. This isn't motte-and-bailey because there are plenty of people who honestly don't hold the Vulgar position and who would argue against it if someone expressed it to their face. This isn't a tactic, it's the inability of the academic world to communicate their ideas in a nuanced fashion, and the unpalatability of nuanced ideas to people who just want a fight.

Actually these people redefined sexism and racism as "doesn't count when applied to the sex/race I dislike". I wish I was joking but this is the state of the art in academia.

msla 8y ago

> Actually these people redefined sexism and racism as "doesn't count when applied to the sex/race I dislike". I wish I was joking but this is the state of the art in academia. This is a great place to talk about something I've observed about academic ideas like these, which I'll call the difference between Academic and Vulgar, by analogy to "Vulgar Libertarianism" and "Vulgar Socialism": There's a difference between Academic Positions and Vulgar Positions, where Academic Positions are defined as being the ones academics write papers about and Vulgar Positions are the ones average people who support those Positions use in day-to-day discourse, especially in discussions with others. This is a convenient feature: Academic Positions are nuanced and logically defensible, whereas Vulgar Positions are simple, pugnacious, and useful in street-fight debates where you primarily want to shut down the person you're opposed to. Intersectionality has a Vulgar form: "Check your privilege!" In the Academic sense, that statement is, at most, a gentle reminder to examine the totality of a situation before judging it. In the Vulgar sense, it's a way to shut someone down by stating that they're "privileged" and are, therefore, unworthy of having a judgement at all. In the Academic sense, saying someone is "privileged" is nonsensical, or perhaps tautological, in that everyone has some position where they're privileged and some positions where they're disadvantaged, so saying that a person is privileged is not very meaningful. In the Vulgar sense, "privilege" absolutely does adhere to individuals, and people with "privilege" must never disagree with those without. Anyway, the Academic form is the only one officially acknowledged to exist, whereas the Vulgar form is the lived experience, the one which drives actions and policies. Therefore, the Vulgar form is never seriously discussed, because when you mention its features, the person you're discussing it with will deny that their philosophy has those features, as, indeed, the Academic form does not. This isn't motte-and-bailey because there are plenty of people who honestly don't hold the Vulgar position and who would argue against it if someone expressed it to their face. This isn't a tactic, it's the inability of the academic world to communicate their ideas in a nuanced fashion, and the unpalatability of nuanced ideas to people who just want a fight.