Hey now, it’s not the size of the boat but the motion in the ocean.
The right wing is not “the entire American population”.
The Constitution probably counts. 
Article I, Section 9, Clause 8:
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
That only applies to Persons holding Offices of Profit or Trust under the United States. Not sure if that means elected officials or any Federal employee, but it definitely doesn’t apply to all citizens across the board.
Lmao.
Because reality has a well-known left-wing bias.
I’m not convinced. What many people on the right know of what the mainstream media say is what the right-wing media tell them the mainstream media are saying. I am reminded, for example, of the January 6 hearings, which the right-wing media loudly discouraged their audience to actually watch on any other networks because they only wanted their own (horribly misleading) interpretation heard. And many of their audience did exactly that.
I used to have a gold flange, but time is cruel to us all.
No, but I am familiar with Candace Owens noted for her opinion that dinosaurs are “fake and gay”, thinks all of the Moon landings are hoaxes, and that the Earth is probably flat.
She’s exactly who I’d point to as a reasonable person demonizing the concept of intersectionality . . . if I didn’t want to be taken seriously.
Yeah, Owens is objectively a terrible person who says stupid things and should not be taken seriously by anyone about anything.
Cadance Owen’s chief failing is that she’s the largest antisemite out there today.
It’s a good thing I didn’t do that, you sorry excuse for a human. I pointed to her as an example of someone demonizing intersectionality who is not a white man.
Since I think intersectionality (the academic concept) is a good thing, I’m not sure why you’d think anyone I point to as demonizing it is someone I think is reasonable. So either you’re actually so stupid that you misread my post as saying she’s reasonable, or you’re a bad faith piece of shit trying to paint me as a conservative.
(Actually, I shouldn’t leave out the third option: you’re both bad faith and monumentally stupid)
Yeah, obviously. Can you point to a post where I’ve said otherwise, or are you just falling for @toomanycrowspeckinghisbrain’s lies?
Here’s the post I was responding to, that noted piece of shit liar and waste of oxygen @crowmanyclouds conveniently cropped out.
I have read that post and it seems like you brought up Candace Owens for some reason.
And I’m not seeing any dishonesty in their post. Just idiocy in yours.
…what?
What do you mean by “some reason”?
I did bring her up for a reason. HMS said that the source of demonization is “indisputably cishet whites and mainly men” and asked for other examples. Cadance Owens is another example.
What nefarious reasons are you alluding to here?
To be clear, this is the dishonest part:
I didn’t point to her as a reasonable person demonizing the concept of intersectionality. I don’t think any reasonable people do that, and of all the unreasonable people who do, she is the most unreasonable
And I pointed out that you picked a total nut for your example.
I agree, she’s a total nut. Everyone who demonizes intersectionality is a total nut. What’s your point, and why did you lie and say that I brought her up as a reasonable anything?
Can you point out where I “fell for lies” or are you still mad I won’t fall for yours?
Tell us the one about how DT is posting in “good faith” again, Unca Babale. I want to get to point out again that the whole reason this intersectionality discussion came up is because DT played it as a distraction from her overt lying about feminism and trans people and to feign victimhood, just like she’s doing now with autism.
Replying here because it’s not really suitable for ATMB, and we were discussing the topic in this thread earlier.
I’ve been thinking about this, and I don’t believe the issue is simple misunderstanding. I think it’s defensiveness. I, and to a lesser extent @Babale, are outsiders criticising a group most of the other posters see themselves as belonging to. And criticism from outsiders is not taken well in general. Tends to lead to circling of wagons and fear that admission of any shortcomings will be used to attack the group as a whole.
So the impulse is to assume the worst possible meaning of what I said, and deny it. Would more careful language on my part help? Surely it would, but it would still be an uphill struggle to be understood, and to stop people jumping off on wrong assumptions. It’s a lot of work, and quite frankly I’m not always willing to put that effort in. Only because @Babale started a discussion here did I continue.
Communication is hard enough when everyone is trying to understand, let alone when the other person is paranoid about admitting anything out of fear it will be used against them or their ingroup.
I’ve been reading the intersectionality thread, and I now think I understood you correctly the first time; but that I disagree with you about terminology and about what intersectionality actually is. That thread would be the place to discuss it, but I’m trying really hard not to start posting in that thread, or really further on this subject, because I’ve got too much else to do right now; though I have been reading it, because despite what you seem to be saying I am trying to understand the perspectives in that discussion.
I really don’t think the problem is my defensiveness, however. I think our experience with progressive voices has been very different – perhaps because of where we’re finding them.
Fair enough.
Terminology debates are generally not interesting. I don’t think there is even a word for what I was describing, since it’s not really an intentional part of social justice beliefs, but rather something that emerged from applying them in the real world, and the fact that ideas inevitably get simplified in transmission.
Glad to hear you’re trying to understand. And I wasn’t meaning to single out you in particular, but I’m definitely having a much harder time than usual getting to a place of mutual understanding. Makes me wish there was a bashing-head-against-the-wall emoji. 