slug.com slug.com
34 7

How would you respond to someone of high intersectionality who claims to be systematically oppressed by straight white cis-gendered (not transmen) Christian men? For example, "Are there some benefits of being LGBTQX, not-white, transpersoned, non-Christian, or female?". As you may know, intersectionality is the ranking system of identity politics where groups of people see the world as a battle between the "privileged" and the "oppressors" based mostly on immutable factors. It is also a movement to combine varied non-straight-cis-white-Christian-male groups against a common "enemy". Here's a calculator where you can get a "score" of your intersectionality: [intersectionalityscore.com]

Admin 8 June 22
You must be a member of this group before commenting. Join Group

Post a comment Reply Add Photo

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value evidence and civil discourse - the social network for the fans of the IDW.

Create your free account

34 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

20

I absolutely refuse to use the term “c**” to denote “the opposite of trans.” The term was appropriated from chemistry, and is a redundant, unnecessary, construct often used in a derogatory manner against non-trans people. Everytime we use terms constructed by the authoritarian left, we are in effect advancing their position.

GeeMac Level 7 June 22, 2019

Correct. Although I helped out your declaration a bit ...
“Every time we use terms constructed by ... morons ..., we are in effect advancing their position.”
PLEASE! DO NOT Feed the Morons!!!

Noted 🙂

I agree. I generally simply ignore idiocy of that nature.

13

Having a victim mentality in any form is pure poison. Trying to make abnormality seem normal isn't any better. We all have to play the cards we are dealt. In this country you can make it work no matter which hand you get. Nothing will ever make everything perfect for everyone whether it's through reparations or legislation. So put your head down, work hard and make the best of it.

11

I am not highly educated, but as I understand it, most civilizations that go down this multi gender/homosexual path usually end up in the garbage heap of history.
Then there is the Islamic religion and we know how they deal with this issue.
Maybe these confused groups need to start paying attention the number of countries the muslims are getting control over, usually by doing things like having 4 wifes and having 3 or 4 kids per wife.
Didn't one of our congress women marry their brother?
The gender issue is a distraction from real problems. If you don't like who you are, keep it to yourself!

PAY ATTENTION, or ALL IS LOST!!!!!!

Serg97 Level 7 June 22, 2019

@FaithJones My point exactly! I do not remember if I read Grubb's book or another covering the same subject, but I'm at a point in life that I don't remember a lot of things.

8

This in answer to your posts below and above. There s no limit to your question, and the answers are all simple, when you go back to say, Nietzsche, or the first book in the world which identified the problem of value relativity or postmodernism, which was "Closing of the American Mind," by Bloom, in 1987(avail. free online in a PDF file if you google the book). The common good of Aristotle, which kept all peoples, in all nations, united under one banner of rationality, was intentionally taken away by the Left and the Marxists, so that the clamoring for rights, and the non-common relativity of values and truth, could replace the good. Why did the Marxists want postmodernism, and the emphasis on rights, in a Nietzschean world of value relativity where each group, indeed each individual, was acting on a will to power. Because in seeking rights, the nationalism which kept everyone focused on the same thing, the common good, could be weakened and destroyed. There is no truth when all values are relative and there is no hierarchy. How can anyone say that capitalism is superior to Marxism under postmodernism? They cannot, and in fact capitalism, and those who promote the hierarchy become the problem, to be brought down, to an equal place with all the other participants who have an equal right to everything.

An example this week is the black woman from the south side of Chicago, a political activist, who is suing the city and who knows who else, because she claims that her house, in a very poor area of Chicago outside of Hyde Park, should be priced the same as the rich suburban houses in Evanston and north, which are mainly white. The black woman says that her house, which is perhaps one-fifth the price of the houses in suburbs like Evanston is only priced so low because of white privilege and the fact that no white businesses will come to or invest in her community. Well, the Obamas live nearby in Hyde Park, and Chicago is his town currently, so one could expect some favorable ruling for this woman. Theres absolutely no end to the clamoring for rights. Why haven t the democrats called for reparations to Native Americans, after all, we came and stole their land. We took all of Manhattan, and the Dutch settlers paid them 24 dollars? Believe me, it s coming, and I shouldn t give the Marxists any ideas.

Marxism, last threatened the US, and Europe, in the 1950 s when French intellectuals were attempting to spread its thought to Western schools. This attempt failed because the world looked at the perhaps 150 million people who were killed in Maoist China and Stalinist Russia and nobody wanted anything more to do with Marxism. But French intellectuals at the same time were promoting postmodernism, and this spread like wildfire through Western schools. Look at how postmodernism, has been a destructive force to nationalism, to morality, to any form of hierarchy, to any form of good, when it comes to individuals, or to society. We have experienced the good of the Common Law, constitutional democracy, property rights and the rights of individuals to equal justice(the Magna Carta) and capitalism now for about 850 years, since the time Oxford and Cambridge were started. Of course each of these rights and freedoms came much later in English history. Postmodernism has effectively been in the US schools since about 1970, a very short time, and one can easily see the destruction it brings to everything the US, and the rest of the world, have built up as human history, and civilization, to this point. Much of what every country has, is a legacy to Oxford and Cambridge, and the development of property rights and individual rights out of England. Look at the Common Law. All commercial law is based on one question, "what would the reasonable man think and do based on the circumstances and facts of this case?" Well now there is no reasonable man, there is no common good, there are only rights, and the black woman who has a house in a very poor neighborhood, has an equal right, to have her house priced the same as all those rich folks. When AOC and her Communist comrades, take away all the money from all those rich folks, there won t be any rights anymore either, when it comes to money, or earnings, because everyone will be materially equal. That s what Communism is. It s the inevitable End of postmodernism. AOC will mandate that every being shall be allowed say, 350 square feet of space per person, with an extra 150 square feet for each child. No being will be allowed to earn more than any other being. Then we can all feel really good about our rights. There won t be any. Reparation to slaves? Every being will have equal rights under the Communist state, and every man will be a slave.

7

I would tell them to watch Jordan Peterson videos.

Not sure it would do them any good. It sounds like they're pretty far gone at this point.

7

Hunh ...
There’s a tale both in the Bible and in Sumerian Sources where the God(s) were tired of the endless and ridiculous arguments being put forth by those that they had created (humans / Homo sapiens) So in order to stop the nonsense, humankind’s language was deliberately “garbled” ... reduced to where, even between themselves, all they heard was babble ...

I think the entire question above is “garbled” ... there are six words in there that it seems the entire question is based on that simply make no sense to me ... and I have an extensive vocabulary.

Intersexsomething, Cissomething else, Transsomethingorother, Transsomethingelse, ... some LGBTLMNOPQtheForkCares?

You even include a “Calculator” ... how does one “calculate” nonsense?
If 5 cucumbers x 1 mango + 3 peaches = 1 rhinosaphant what is the answer for 3 bananas + 18 walnuts?

The person who thought that up is about one finger shy of smearing the walls with their own feces.

@jwhitten
How do you figure?
When people first started coming up with this nonsense, I recognized it as nonsense.
I recognize; Male, Female, Heterosex, Homosex, Bisex, Autosex and Nonsex ... as far as I’m concerned, everything outside of that is a fetish ... which are too many to list ...
People are going to be waiting a long damn time before I use any of the artificial constructs shown above.

It’s not “bigotry” on my part. I think people ... Society ... is suffering from a mass delusion ... some new and bizarre hallucination ...

Jim Jones can tell you, there are ALWAYS those who will “drink the kool-aid” and then there are a few like me who think you have all collectively lost your minds as you put that cup to your lips.

You use those bizarre, made up, Alice in Wonderland, terms and you are simply accepting that the “kool-aid” might be acceptable.

@Bay0Wulf I think you misunderstood my comment. I mean the people who sit around and slice and dice the bigotry are a few cheerios shy of a full bowl to start with.

7

Boy! I'm doomed. The only thing going for me is that I have health issues. Beside that, according to the first chart, I'm privileged as fuck. I just realized what a bad person I am! Am I going to be able to look at myself again in the mirror?

Yes, one of the Intersectionality movement's goal is make you feel guilty so that you will be sympathetic to their policy positions. Is there a way to reason with this movement?

You can let them keep on complaining, but never apologize, nor accept giving any compensation, because nothing wrong has been done and there is nothing to compensate. Speak the truth. Be firm. Be the adult. What else can you do?

@Admin

Reasoning with the unreasonable is an exercise in futility. No?

@Judah80 I guess I'd say it's better to try to reason with the pen than the sword. More seriously, many intersectionalists are taught exclusively the instances where they (or similar people in the past) are disadvantaged and rarely are shown otherwise. The idea of this post is to come up possible examples that help people see that society has made progress on equality of opportunity and even offers help for those who are members of underrepresented groups.

@Admin

So we reason with individuals, discussions between one person and another, or between a few. This can be done publically for the benefit of others or privately for the benefit of just those involved in the discussion. But, your question was how do we reason with the movement, or in my mind an entire group of people. You don't, because the the movement protagonists tend to be unreasonable. Call out BS, point out hypocrisy, do all the things the IDW have been doing to show reason to the fence sitters and reasonable.

@Admin the only reasonable position to take is the NEVER apologize for possessing characteristics or personality traits which they deem to be and define as reprehensible at worst or merely bad and undesirable.

@Admin >> Is there a way to reason with this movement?

Yes, you can give them a sound thrashing and send them to bed without supper.

@Admin, @tigercake >>You can let them keep on complaining, but never apologize, nor accept giving any compensation, because nothing wrong has been done and there is nothing to compensate. Speak the truth. Be firm. Be the adult. What else can you do?

I disagree. Ignore them to the fullest extent possible. Let them whine, bitch and moan all they want. All they're doing is making themselves look bad in the long run. If they simply force you to say something, ask the short one (there's always a short one) if he knows that they tall ones were talking about him behind his back? (And then slip away quickly when the opportunity presents..)

@Admin, @tigercake, @Judah80 Judah80 is 100% right. The problem is 'appeasement'-- in not calling out their crap the moment they spew it. BUT, in your defense, it isn't always easy to spot the crap in the midst of ordinary variance between peoples and attitudes. What is acceptable here isn't over there and so forth. However, by and large, I'd say that most people have a reasonable understanding of the length and breadth of such variation. It doesn't take long before a shit-stirrer stands out clearly from the cloud, if only from the stench.

@Admin

The idea of this post is to come up possible examples that help people see that society has made progress on equality of opportunity and even offers help for those who are members of underrepresented groups.

You can't say it any clearer, in my opinion, than a couple of Jordan Peterson videos. The message is out there, and it's been roundly rejected. Why? Well, because JP's a racist, homophobic, trans-hating, xenophobic, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. It's not a REASONABLE debate, so you can't reason. This whole thing is a negative cycle two worldviews are stuck in. The right's reason triggers the left to react. They react with emotion, which triggers the right, who then respond with reason, which triggers the left who react with emotion. See how it leads to getting stuck? It's inescapable until people recognize what's going on and respond in some different way. De-escalate the secondary emotion, dig a bit for the primary emotion, relearn what it is to reach and receive another's reach, build bridges outside of the negative cycle, reinforce the bridges with disagreements handled with tolerance and grace...

@Judah80 Not necessarily true. While you may not convince the person with whom you are arguing, you may be able to show some observers of the argument the light. But yes the people screaming this twittery are usually lost. But we can't let the insanity go unchallenged.

5

Everybody in our society is privileged. We are all, by historical standards, extravagantly wealthy.

If you were the emperor of Rome, your medical treatment would be given to you by the functional equivalent of witch doctors. There were perhaps a million books in the entire empire, and only one library with more than 100,000 volumes. If you wanted entertainment, unless you were truely wealthy, there was the Hippodrome a few times a year. The rest of the time was pure drudgery, which you shared with a population that was 50% slave. And that was the glory of Rome, one of the better epochs of history.

4

@admin, you clever little devil you. Gotta love this. Thanks! Some observations:

  1. The “calculator “ you cited is so close to the border between serious and satire that I did a full digital double-take.
  2. In the unlikely event that the calculator is serious, God help us all.
  3. I’m in agreement with Stephen Hicks when he compares this SJW approach to a “reverse Thrasymachus,” meaning that all justice belongs to the weak.
    Thanks!

Thrasymachus' "Might makes Right" still holds true for SJWs as it's all a quest for the power so they can change the system to match their ideology. It's hard to argue that a group that includes 90% of liberal college professors is weak. 2 cents.

@Admin Yep. Exactly!

@Admin "It's hard to argue that a group that includes 90% of liberal college professors is weak." Care to further characterize and substantiate this bloc of professors?

@GaryWitt Assuming that the professor's methodology was sound (the Mooney newspaper is suspect), what does that say about their ideology and political goals? Might it say more about the state of the GOP?

4

Nihilism sucks ass, but it's seemingly an impervious reality. I'm sorry this is an unhelpful contribution to the conversation, but it all seems exhausting at every turn when searching for answers concerning human and societal affairs at large. For every argument or viewpoint addressed(or apparently overcome), another opposing obstacle and new argument arises...In short closing, there is obviously a current & deliberate social massive ideological war being waged against white conservative heterosexual males in the U.S......Is it happening globally- idk?

My aim is to foster the conversation. It can be argued that the Left requires an injustice to rally against and is running out of specific examples of oppression to attack - i.e., for the most part, previous injustices have been addressed with changes in societal norms and legislation. The level of outrage by the Left has also seemed constant over the last 40 years despite gains against discrimination of all types. Since now we are left with much fewer obvious and direct threats to the equality of opportunity, the Left must champion the "racist ghosts in the machine" theory that creates inequality of outcome and resist meritocracy, individualism and capitalism. A big concern is that the Left can self-justify beating up their accused oppressors until they are satisfied with the leveling of outcomes. They will therefore be empowered to promote increasing level of government intervention.

@Admin You articulate on paper extremely well. There is NO doubt about that. It's borderline intimidating to someone like me. You're comments deserve breathing room, and an overnight break to humbly absorb. I will remain cautious in my response tomorrow. In the meantime, try imagining stumbling across an island, or isolated place with some dogs that had been previously caged up in harsh conditions not too long before you arrived.The initial captors are now long gone forever. You feel empathy for the oppressed and caged dogs, and have the capability to free them. So, you do so!....
Then the dogs you just freed (with the best of intentions), are attacking you!....
IDK about you, but I would instantly lock them back up until I could figure out what the hell to do. This is a VERY POOR analogy in the attempt to make the comparison to women's right's oppression and slavery (yet
arguably fitting), and the massive social assault being made on white males who just arrived to the island and saw a problem, and tried to do "the right thing".. Niether you, nor I was alive when the early settlers of modern society began oppressing women and slaves/people of color...I will stop there...I can already see how many will disagree with me....disclosure: Before I go to bed I want to cover my ass a bit..I know what I said comes across as barbaric and brash. And it's like drowning and describing the water- which is pointless!!...you are looking to foster conversation to find solutions. I did nothing. I'm sorry

@Biosphere Rest assured, as adults, we understand that your angry dogs metaphor is simply that and does not equate dogs with any humans. There are several questions that arise... are the dogs justified in their anger towards the newcomers? what if the newcomers continue to treat the dogs in the same manner of the previous group or the dogs are still skittish of any people. Yeah, best to review after sleep, ha!

"Farm Attacks in South Africa"
I'm sure you are familiar with this, if not it will answer your question of the global trend. Now, consider that the EU is replacing their white citizens outright with foreign migrants who are raping and murdering their hosts.

@Admin the hell they will! Their arguements are weak and brittle. You need only have a few facts and the strength of your convictions to break down their BS into echoes of past sins and false constructs built around laughable suppositions. In reality the process can be fun!

@Admin That was well stated! I appreciate your leniency towards me after my interjection of a crude proposition..I guess where I'm coming from is, that as a white middle aged male that would like to see the entire world expunged of racism; I am still experiencing an obvious prejudice against me in my personal everyday & common life experiences living here in the south (North Carolina). This happens to me most everywhere around here, from going to the corner store market, going to work, and beyond. I don't have a problem understanding that people who hate me just because I'm white, are just plain flat out "racist."
My beef is primarily with the mainstream media and our current culture for purposely, tactfully and sneakingly painting me with a broad brush as the bad guy who is a living oppressor from the past. Anyway, I'm drinking again and I should have waited until I sobered up..I'll try another better attempt again soon

@Admin The answer for the left, and anyone else unhappily living in a prosperous nation (i know there is poverty, but our poor are rich compared to world levels) that was born from Christian values, is to GTFO. But of course they would prefer to subjugate the other 97%.

@Facci
Ah, yes. The racial genocide in S.Africa. If we don't acknowledge it, does it even exist? A tree falling in the forest.

4

Intersectionality, assigning implicit moral equivalency (oppressor vs victim) based on stereotypical asumtions surrounding immutable characteristics, is the purest definition of bigotry in existence.

Yes it is. At that point you've pretty much reached the summit and anything said after that by definition must be in a more rational direction...

@jwhitten
The problem with intersectionality is that those proposing it as a “science” haven’t followed their own theory out to its natural conclusion. If you continue to define new categories you eventually end up at the individual.
There are over 7 billion categories of humans as the “snowflake” theory holds. Not one of us is the same.

Why not just bypass all that crap, and treat people as individuals without hyphens.

@Cheetolini Works for me.

4

There a few ways to approach this argument. One is to attack the vicitimization mentality itself as unproductive and destructive to those that claim that to be oppressed in the first place. One is to demonstrate that everyone has elements of privilege, but also everyone works a great deal for what they have and what they provide. Another way is to show how systems and policy approaches (such as mass public schooling or the War on Drugs to name few examples) much more so than immutable groups have systematically created barriers to opportunity for the poor in certain areas, and how poverty is exploited and used to further politically connected's goals much more so than one's group identity.

And yet another way to damage this argument/approach is to show that in other countries and places around the world, this very same group tends to be dissadvantaged on the same statistics other groups are here, and that majority populations in general tend to enjoy a slightly easier climb up the opportunity ladder due to incentives and legal apparatuses built into the respective systems. See South Africa or places in the Middle East for Christian or "White" oppression. Political power is the most dangerous weapon, and reverence of that, rather than one's identity, matters far more. But even so, in a country where everyone's rights are respected the same and laws are enforced largely the same across the board, everyone is privileged and everyone is better off better oneself. If that means moving out of the poverty traps set by the welfare state and the prison-school pipeline and starting a new life, than so be it.

Would showing people that roles are reversed in other countries strengthens the intersectionalist's point that they are being oppressed?

@Admin It could be at the very least then it shows it to be more of a majority/minority dynamic than some kind of universal "white christian privilege" or otherwise. This can help create an argument for removing democracy as a primary form of government, relegating it to a secondary role. After all, tyranny of the majority is democracy's specialty the world over.

Yet, then, if we concede that perhaps minorities even here are suffering from some form of oppression, we have identify it as something concrete. Not just "white people being around minorities or making them feel bad." That clearly doesn't have an effect. You can even ask minorities here and they don't understand the intersectionality theory oftentimes themselves. But, if we can identity oppressive systems such as the public school districting system, zoning and remodeling laws, welfare laws that encourage birth into poverty, the Drug War as an approach to dealing with dangerous drugs, private prison and traffic ticket incentives etc, civil asset forfeiture, etc, then we can actually make a dent and even the playing field.

It's not like there are Black Codes anymore or actual prohibitions on movement or mobility economically. What there are is ghettos of city's making and incentives that promote the poverty get rich quick lifestyle.

@Admin I don't understand the question. what countries might those be? certainly not the theocratic monsters of the middle east?

Another way is to simply shoot 'em between the eyes and do the rest of the world a huge favor.

3

Being the question asks how I would respond I'll answer it as such. Mind you, this is not answering what is the "proper and fitting" way to respond. But hey, if I'm asked then I'm giving my answer. Here it is...

(After laughing my ass off...in an incredulous tone): GTFO of here with your whiny ass complaints about being oppressed from leveling up on your freakish and deviant style. You wanna know what real oppression is? Wear my WHITE MIDDLE AGED CHRISTIAN DIVORCED MAN SHOES for a year and see what real government oppression via an anesthesia-free colonoscopy in search of your wallet twice a month feels like!!! It's called "divorce rape." That along with gynocentric government rules handing my beloved children to a hypergamist and biological liar (aka woman/women) I have basically danced on the edge of the cliff of suicide like a million or so men have been, are, or will shortly be doing. You'll call me a "deadbeat dad" (a slur in my mind) and I'll knock your teeth out...with enthusiasm. Then I'll make you attempt to say "BEAT DEAD DAD, I'm sorry" as the blood and saliva drool down your chin. .... Because here's how I see you, ya punk. You're the corrupt and oppressive county level government trafficking children and subjugating honorable men. My fist is my dignity and your face is every individual aggrandizing themselves in the family court system. And because your little "intersectional" group sucked up all the legal oxygen in our society, families have been left to rot. So...no sympathy for you!! And here's your teeth back."

That's what "I" would say...for myself, a million men (many who have taken their lives), and for all the people in society at least trying to be normal and live meaningfully. Spare me the freak parades.

Arrrrggghhhh!!! That felt good to rant! 🤣🤣🤣

Good for you having your say! Refreshing.

@chuckpo Thanks! I wasn't even drunk.

3

I don't think everyone who's "highly intersectional" is solely out to get white men. A lot of thinkers on the left actually acknowledge that patriarchy is bad for not only men, but society as a whole, and this is why they want to see patriarchal structures dismantled (https://juniaproject.com/three-ways-patriarchy-bad-men/). In a similar way, Marx didn't really make moral statements about capitalists. He more thought of them as members of a an economic class, and such they were obligated to act in their own class interests or lose their position in that class. More about Marx's thoughts on morality here: [isreview.org]

In conclusion, I think a lot of people on the left aren't interested in attacking individuals with different politics so much as the institutions that perpetuate trends they see as harmful (for example, the policy of single family zoning is really hot in the news right now bc of the housing crisis). The line can get a bit blurry in the case of a person that represents an institution or a brand, like in the case of Jeff Bezos, Ben Shapiro, or Steven Crowder. Basiclaly in my opinion, the majority of the left isn't out to kill every single white Christian man in the world simply for their identity.

As an observer, I'd certainly disagree, though I see some truth hidden in the emotive extremes. The blind attacks on 'institutions' (nicer way to say groups the left doesn't like) are lazy. Eradicate Christianity because it upset somebody, destroy the group 'men' because it upset somebody, obliterate heterosexuality because it upset somebody. Dismantle the family because some people did family poorly.

Okay, intersectionality isn't designed to get white men. That would actually require a deeper level of thought. The left's intersectionality is a desperate self-obsessed fight for power over all, and the only thing saving the left from each other is the mutual hatred for the non-left. Me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me...

I agree there are some bad ideas within each of the groups the radical left hates and has set its sights on. I strongly disagree that the models of those groups are bad. In fact, I'd argue the models of those groups are truly great and extraordinarily positive--even necessary--unless you can define another model that is at least as functional. That's the other part of the left's laziness. All they do is tear stuff up. They don't bother to propose another model at a level that's more complex than 'socialism is better than capitalism (fantasy, btw).

The non-left wants from the left SOME actual work showing another way. The left is like a Miss America contestant with 30 seconds to respond to the topic. 'I want world peace'. Great, dumbass. What does world peace look like, and how are we going to achieve that? Well, LEFT, what does family-less society look like, and how do we achieve it? What does a world without religion look like? How will you achieve it? What is the system that replaces it? How do you force people to abandon their beliefs in favor of yours, because ONLY violence on a massive scale will even pretend to meet your goal.

This fly by the seat of your pants remaking of 'the patriarchy' (an absurd notion), what does it actually look like? What's better? Oh, I know, 'we like just want world peace through the subjugation of men, you know?'

We know what the left wants. We've heard all of the pageant talking points. The non-left simply rejects your premises and ill-considered, half-baked, problem-creating interference. Let's pretend this is the adult table and we're talking about real stuff and that real stuff needs real serious solutions. Until then, you're a bunch of angry teenagers bitching because you don't want to take out the garbage.

BTW, the left's solutions turn into oppression. That's BECAUSE they're half-baked.

@chuckpo no one is trying to get rid of Christianity or men, they're simply trying to get people to understand the historical trends that have led to the problematic aspects of these groups. And it's not like people on the left think that all Muslims or all Buddhists are perfect either.

@xXShadowThornxX, there is no problem with those groups that aren't the problems of every other groups containing human beings. It's a fallacy, and it's bigoted.

Islam is an interesting contradiction for the left. The left uses Muslims as a weapon against Christians, yet ignores that Muslims promote most of the same things the left hates about Christians--often worse. The funny thing is if y'all succeed you're going to bring in hoards of a group that will set up stricter moral judgments and laws than you have with Christians, and they'll take you over and drag you all the fuck right. Can you not see that?

@chuckpo who is saying the American government needs to have more muslims? No one is saying fundamentalist muslims are better than fundamentalist Christians. Look at how much hate the left has against Saudi Arabia.

@xXShadowThornxX, I think its not debatable that the left has embraced Islam. Are you disputing it?

Wait, so you're saying moderate Christians are okay? Wow.

@chuckpo ummm, yes? Depends on what you mean by embraced. Can you define that?

@xXShadowThornxX actually I have had several leftist friends say they are more fearful of conservative Christians than radical Islamists.

@ronhark that doesn’t mean they’ve embraced them. That’s like saying I’m less afraid of dying by strangulation than fire.

@xXShadowThornxX they most certainly have, although it is more for political reasons than anything else. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." These are the same folks who will not denounce radical Islamic terrorists, but instead lament the rampant "Islamophobia" that may come from such attacks. When you can show me where these folks mock Islam in the same brutal ways they mock Christianity, then I might reconsider.

@chuckpo They can't see that. Muslims are part of the protected groups. I try to get my SJW relatives to read the Koran - but they won't even do that! So I started calling all my Roosters "Muhammed". After all, they have multiple wives and a chip on their shoulder. I am up to Muhammed 16.

You speak of Marx as if he was noble! Utopia is only a dream. Men at our core are evil not good. Thus men never create utopia.we only create pain and murder. All power begets hunger for more power. Power always corrupts.

@xXShadowThornxX If you think the left doesnt want to destroy Christianity I have to wonder what planet you live on. I fear the day we put another Democrat in the white house. They will come after us with guns blazing. Only ones left wil be those who hide in dark closets. You see I can't call a male she and her at work or anywhere else. Im sorry they don't know their own biology but I won't lie to appease them. That will get me locked up soon enough. We haven't left our foundation.America has left us!

3

I think I might get down to basics and ask them where they think rights come from first. If they say from God, we have a basis to talk; if they say anything similar to government, state, or mention an evolutionary process we have no basis to talk. If they aren't gifted inalienable rights from Creator God they have no rights, just permission until permission is taken away by government, state, or someone stronger. Those people they assume they are being oppressed by, the ones who uphold certain inalienable rights for all, may be all that is standing between them and becoming a serf. Under genuine oppression as it has happened in the past, they wouldn't be complaining out loud; not for long.

3

I would tell them that if they choose to place themselves into this tiny box inside a false construct that they have surrendered their individuality and are disconnected from the diverse opportunities provided by the most fluid, abundant and accepting culture in all human history. Then walk away quickly. This entire overlapping BS can be done with any type of of set that has a majority element. It is voodoo graphing. The farther you are from the majority element the more unusual you are.....nothing else!

3

I think I was actually waiting for this post to end with a ...
Bibbity! Bobbity! Boo!

3

there is absolutely no advantage to suffering with mental illness and in this case we are talking about a mental illness known as "gender diaspora". Homosexual people are grossly misunderstood when they are referred to as being "gay". There is hardly a more miserable group of people than those who suffer with homosexuality. This fact is clearly revealed in statistics on suicide relative to "gender and other self identity" issues.

iThink Level 8 June 22, 2019

Correct. I would add that Homosexuality and the other associated sexual dysphoria are learned conditions, not the result of birth, therefor, not immutable.

3

Some relevance:

Maybe we should all create satyres of the far left.

@tigercake We don't really need to, they do a great job on their own.

3

I would only respond to someone of high interesectionality if they were causing an issue with their belief. For example insisting that I give them preference because of their belief of oppression, or demanding sympathy. If I were discussing the issue with them I would insist that they had to prove to me that they have actually been oppressed by straight white men. Not just out competed by straight white men. I try to avoid irrational people, but, sometimes...it just isn't possible.

People with high intersectionality scores often claim that the system that results in unequal outcomes is racist, misogynistic, homophobic, etc. They therefore feel no need to offer specific examples of oppression... just call the system "rigged". It's related to "Critical Race Theory" [britannica.com]

@Admin Baloney. It's just a variation of "Big Man, Little Man" guerrilla warfare tactics.

@Admin, people claim a lot of stuff. In the end, it's a world view you can't talk them out of. But, they can't talk you out of yours either. So, either there's tolerance--however tenuous--or there's a fight. Honestly, go with either, and I'll catch up. It seems like sjw = antifa = fight. Okay. I'll get my things.

It's funny to me the psychology/counseling profession has chosen a side. They're clearly social justice warriors with all of the hatred the group promotes. However, it's hard to find justification for the world view in almost every theory outside of feminist theory. This is simply NOT how the profession would approach 'helping' a system (systems can be couples, immediate family, family of origin, community, education, etc.). All of this bash them until they bleed because they're oppressing you stuff is new, and honestly ill-considered. They've lost sight of 'mental health', because they're immersed in political ideology. Counselors--educated people--are those people who got pulled into Nazi Germany's cause. They're the Stanford prison experiment. They can't see it. And, they'll aggressively, violently defend amassing power by taking yours.

Anyway, I use the psychology field as the example, because if the people who are supposed to most care about others can fall victim to the ideology of hatred and start promoting division and violence, what in the hell can we do about it, but ride it out and hope they regain themselves?

@Admin If you believe the system is rigged it certainly would be a good excuse not to try very hard. Maybe that is why the belief is so appealing. It is easy.

2

I would say: Call me when you are fed up with being a victim and ready to take charge of your life!

2

Bigot.

Could you elaborate?

@Admin Sure. Bigotry lies along each axis of those intersections. The fact that someone would even sit down and try to come up with some bullshit "system of oppression" based on people possessing some specific set of different ideologies and / or immutable characteristics is, on its face-- *according to the actual denotative definition-- bigotry.

In fact, you might even go so far as to call them a "Bigot's Bigot". As they are putting in the work to create an entire panoply of divisiveness-- essentially making them the "transcendental bigot".

Where others toil to seek enlightenment and ultimate truth, they simply toil to divide and rend asunder, sort of like the definitive temper tantrum from the consummate toddler (no offense meant to any actual toddlers).

Why would someone even waste their time with that kind of nonsense is beyond me? Maybe they just need a hug.

(Or a reach-around 😉 )


big·ot·ry
/ˈbiɡətrē/

noun: bigotry; plural noun: bigotries
intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
"the difficulties of combating prejudice and bigotry"
synonyms: prejudice, bias, partiality, partisanship, sectarianism, discrimination, unfairness, injustice; intolerance, narrow-mindedness, fanaticism, dogmatism; racism, racialism, sexism, heterosexism, homophobia, chauvinism, anti-Semitism, jingoism; Jim Crowism
antonyms: tolerance

big·ot
/ˈbiɡət/

noun
a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
"don't let a few small-minded bigots destroy the good image of the city"
synonyms: dogmatist, partisan, sectarian, prejudiced person; racist, racialist, sexist, homophobe, chauvinist, jingoist, anti-Semite; informalmale chauvinist pig, MCP

2

I think everyone would benefit from reading this article rather than debate the aggrieved nonsense in the OP. [vox.com]

You've changed your avatar. Now I see why you call yourself 'wily'... 😉

Interesting article. I never knew where the term came from. Even the original iteration of the idea seems weird to me. It assumes intent. I don't think white males banded together to oppress everybody else. I am a small introverted female who was forced by financial necessity to go toe to toe with males in order to earn a living as a single mom in the 1980's. I worked in trades. Plumbing, welding, electrical etc. Men did not actually try to force me out, they were just formidable competition. There was some automatic gender discrimination. I got more job interviews after I left the "i" off the end of my first name. I did have one HR rep tell me that men got paid more because they had families to support . (like I didn't?) In spite of this I did manage to claw my way to the top of my field and managed to finish my career as a professional. It never occurred to me that I was being oppressed on purpose.

@Farmergramma You recognize that you were discriminated against. Does the intent matter? While you have become successful, on average such discrimination is an obstacle that will lead to less people like you being successful. And I'm sure we could find plenty of examples, some that were intentional and some that were not. But both are a result of real power imbalances--the focus of Crenshaw's work--that lead to adverse legal outcomes due to identities that people cannot and should not be expected to control.

@WilyRickWiles Yes I was discriminated against. But that was in the 1980's. Now it is no big deal for women to be in trades. I did my small bit to prove that women can fix stuff just as well as men can. Yes. Intent does matter. Our culture was just beginning to shift work roles at that time. As a culture shifts it's mores, things change. Of course random discrimination is a barrier to success but it certainly does not prevent determined people from succeeding. There are millions of successful minority and female people. Using discrimination for lack of success is a cheap excuse. The key is to train all people to understand that bias can exist. and we have done a pretty decent job of that. I have no issue with pointing out the bias. I have a serious issue with legislating forced change and affirmative action type programs. This does nothing but pass the discrimination on to someone else. I am a fan of meritocracy. As I have told many women, all you have to do to compete with men is to perform twice as well as the average man. Fortunately, this is not hard!

1

I remember telling a joke when someone mentioned they watched The Handmaids Tale which went something like this: Of course when Trump won we at the patriarchy meetings where going to implement the sexual slavery of women however when we saw you marching down the streets in pussy we though better of it. I mean at any moment these women could have reported us for sexual harassment while we were raping them.

The point was to show the paradox in the idea they can appeal to the powers of society while claiming that same society is oppressing them. If that were true not only would the institutions not care about their complaints they would further victimise them.

1

This is a ridiculous question.. Full stop.. Period. Typical leftist pathetic question

tbona72 Level 5 June 23, 2019
Write Comment