13 ms·

I disagree that it is not logical to point out the religious aspects of some of people that subscribe to intersectional ideology. I hope you can hear me out sin

I disagree that it is not logical to point out the religious aspects of some of people that subscribe to intersectional ideology. I hope you can hear me out since you had such a vocal objection, and that you can point out flaws in my reasoning. You might agree that creationists when expressing something resting on their faith might have some scientific methodology issues. I think we might agree that it is not illogical to point out that some research done by creationists have a religious overtone. Research outside their creationist dogma might not warrant such scrutiny. Can you after watching the following two videos, which contains core thoughtleaders in intersectionality like DiAngelo, that intersectionality does not have a religious overtone? [1,2] If not, why not? If so, why is it then illogical to point out that the authors are expressing something that to at least some degree seem to rely on intersectional dogma and that this has a religious overtone? [1] https://youtu.be/FH2WeWgcSMk https://youtu.be/FH2WeWgcSMk [2] https://youtu.be/A0W9QbkX8Cs https://youtu.be/A0W9QbkX8Cs

rosser 8y ago
> I disagree that it is not logical to point out the religious aspects of some of people that subscribe to intersectional ideology. I hope you can hear me out since you had such a vocal objection, and that you can point out flaws in my reasoning. Primarily that you seem to be making a category error in saying that because people within the movement have acted in bad faith, intersectionality itself — or, possibly worse, the legitimate concerns it's trying to explore — is bullshit. I'm not here to debate the movement with you, but if your notion of it is something other than "people marginalized along multiple axes have an especially hard time of things", and particularly if it's something more nefarious than that, then you're quite possibly operating from someone's "they're coming to take your $whatever!" narrative, instead.
- asabjorn 8y ago
  That is not what I claim. Like the creationists adherents of intersectionality are capable of holding conflicting ideas in their head with good intent. If we that don’t agree to these beliefs should accept it as science is an entirely different question. However, can you at least see how arguing from belief regardless of how true you think it is does not make a convincing argument for someone that doesn’t share those beliefs? It is ok that intersectionality is a political movemennt, go ahead. Just don’t pretend that arguing from belief is science, and use that to argue that a belief is a fact.

rosser 8y ago

> I disagree that it is not logical to point out the religious aspects of some of people that subscribe to intersectional ideology. I hope you can hear me out since you had such a vocal objection, and that you can point out flaws in my reasoning. Primarily that you seem to be making a category error in saying that because people within the movement have acted in bad faith, intersectionality itself — or, possibly worse, the legitimate concerns it's trying to explore — is bullshit. I'm not here to debate the movement with you, but if your notion of it is something other than "people marginalized along multiple axes have an especially hard time of things", and particularly if it's something more nefarious than that, then you're quite possibly operating from someone's "they're coming to take your $whatever!" narrative, instead.

asabjorn 8y ago
That is not what I claim. Like the creationists adherents of intersectionality are capable of holding conflicting ideas in their head with good intent. If we that don’t agree to these beliefs should accept it as science is an entirely different question. However, can you at least see how arguing from belief regardless of how true you think it is does not make a convincing argument for someone that doesn’t share those beliefs? It is ok that intersectionality is a political movemennt, go ahead. Just don’t pretend that arguing from belief is science, and use that to argue that a belief is a fact.