3 ms·
Probably in this case OP is referring to identity politics and intersectionalism. Basically, the more categories of historically marginalized people groups an
by TimTheTinker 6y ago
Probably in this case OP is referring to identity politics and intersectionalism.
Basically, the more categories of historically marginalized people groups an individual belongs to, the more acceptable that person is, the more of a voice they’re allowed to have, and the more laudable it is to favor that person (and the more unacceptable it is to fail to favor that person regardless of the circumstances).
This doctor apparently “failed” to favor the right people. The progressive calculus around the case is all about “who”, and it intentionally excludes what, when, where, why, or how.
- pksebben 6y agothis is a straw man. where in the article / materials related to the case is race brought in to question? are we treating Indian-Americans as a majority group now? that's nonsense. You paint a picture of the "progressive calculus" that's quite obviously not informed by any actual exposure to it. I can only imagine the image you've adopted was gathered from outsider perspectives on what the word progressive means.
- TimTheTinker 6y agoI never mentioned “race”, and neither did the DA in her court filings, as far as I know. The problem she had with his decision was that he was “favoring” certain people in an unfair and illegal way — a conclusion that could only be reached by disregarding every question about the incident except “who”. That approach finds its origin in modern progressivism, where the only truth that matters is “who”.
- pas 6y agoI'm reading this thread and things are not getting clearer, sorry. The DA (she) charged the pharmacist (him), because he favored non-blacks. What is the "who" refer to? What's modern progressivism? What's its origin?