DoUcHeBaG.
You know all sorts of crazy-ass shit you use to prop up your sense of yourself as an intellectual. The fact that it’s transparent nonsense has never bothered you before, and it doesn’t bother you now. Your attitude would make you an insufferable 13-year-old. In a grownass man, it’s tragic.
For the record, you’re not the first person on this messageboard who just insisted that if I watch multiple videos I would have to agree with them. The first person who did that was a Carlos Casteneda lunatic. I didn’t watch his videos, either.
I really have no idea what this means. But you squeezed in a lot of big words, so kudos!
Would it help if it was in meme form?
Given your problem with “big words”.
FTR I think Babale came out poorly in that exchange. He offered dubious anecdotal evidence of his claim that Progressives are self-defeating morons, and rather than getting into the weeds of that particular anecdote, LHOD made the entirely reasonable move of granting for the sake of argument that Babale’s account was accurate, and request that Babale defend the proposition that the behavior described was in any way typical of leftists.This refocusing on the broader claim seems like the exact opposite of a “deflection”. LHOD asked for a cite to any progressive thinkers that actually said the things Babale claims are typical of progressives, and got back no cites, some “one true Scotsman” argument making a distinction between “progressives” and “progressive thinkers”, and a rude emoji.
Thirty true Scotsmen.
Shouldn’t that be “people of Scot”?
I’ve been through this charade with LHOD before, and I’m not particularly interested in going through it again. If someone else wants to discuss that incident, or others, in good faith I’m certainly happy to do so, and provide additional evidence in whatever area they think is lacking.
No True person of the land called Scotland by it’s current colonialist inhabitants?
I didn’t see this response before for some reason (sometimes it doesn’t get flagged or whatever) so…
It means that one is more material than the other. It’s not a difficult concept.
For your analogy to apply, those Muslims or Orthodox Jews would have to present as Evangelical Christians whenever out in public, including going to church services.
Understanding the difference between “There is an active ongoing effort to put measures in place to hurt trans people in every way possible” and “trans people are in prison right now just for being trans” really isn’t difficult for people who aren’t disingenuous sacks of shit.
…says the disingenuous sack of shit who has repeatedly demonstrated an inability to argue in good faith.
You sure do seem to struggle a lot with simple concepts.
Because it doesn’t matter if academics are writing careful treatises on intersectionally, when the average person’s understanding is that it’s socially acceptable to criticise and blame some groups but not others.
It’d be great if posters didn’t escalate aggression. I won’t opine on whether any of these are against the rules in Great Debates, but it’s certainly counter to productive discussion. Leaving off who posted what, because I don’t really care–the point is either we make this board an informative place to learn and teach, or it becomes another shitty site of clashing egos.
You’re absolutely right! Liberals don’t do that.
Progressives, on the other hand…
This is a bullshit claim.
I’m sorry, you must be confused.
Sure you haven’t.
Your sneering condescension is neither accurate nor welcomed
Please, do better.
“It doesn’t matter what the group in question actually does, what matters is how people who aren’t part of the group perceive them,” is a pretty wild take.
It certainly is acceptable to criticise and blame some groups but not others when some groups are doing bad things and others are not, even when some bad actors persist in pretending both groups are exactly the same.
Or remember that old adage:
Never wrestle with a pig. You just get dirty and the pig enjoys it.
But you can still enjoy bacon the next morning.
I mean what people who support these ideas and would call themselves progressive/supporters of social justice do. People who are part of the group, but not ‘progressive thinkers’.
It’s like the difference between Marxism and what actually happened when communism was implemented, only with less genocide.
Of course it matters.
If there are dumb people thinking they’re following careful thinking, but they’re misunderstanding it, the first recourse is to educate those people, and the second recourse is to isolate the ineducable.
If the best thinkers in a topic are making terrible errors, the entire school of thinking should probably be rejected.
In this case, the progressive thinkers who write about intersectionality are overwhelmingly not of the “pyramid of oppression” approach (which is itself an incredibly ill-defined thing, but I’ll posit its existence for now).
Sure, there are some assholes who weaponize intersectionality in order to be self-righteous assholes, and there are other people who misunderstand intersectionality and let the assholes weaponize it. Those who understand the concept of intersectionality should try to educate the latter group, and isolate the former group.
Where is that happening in practice?
Where is this happening in practice?