It’s really telling that nobody seems willing or able to dispute what I’m saying without adding text, omitting text, or inferring subtext that’s not there. Disagree if you like, but if you can’t do it without layering it with your own misinterpretation, that’s kind of a tell.
I’ll highlight a couple of clarifying points:
- I directed my comments toward the “demonization” of intersectionality as a concept. Not mere disagreement, disputation, or concern, but specifically “demonization”.
- I accurately described the source of demonization. It is indisputably cishet whites, and mainly men. If you find some other people demonizing the concept of intersectionality, I’ll be glad to reconsider, but everyone knows this is accurate. As to why they do this, that’s of course a subjective judgement, but it’s not at all a stretch theory to suggest it’s about loss of dominance. That’s what all racial grievance is about.
- While I wasn’t targeting anyone on-board, because I don’t see any outright demonization in that thread, the fragility I alluded to definitely showed itself and is continuing to show itself. Everything’s got to come to a screeching halt and spawn an ATMB thread in order to be absolutely certain that no white feelings were microaggressed. People have to insist they knew what I really meant, and that it targeted them personally, rather than grapple with the obvious fact that this kind of over-the-top fragile behavior is one reason why the topic exists in the first place.
I’ve also got to mention that some of the rationales here are disturbingly MAGA-like. “When you challenge me, you are calling me an evil inhuman monster.” It’s inevitable that there will be some inferring of intent because that’s part of human conversation, but come on, that’s not what this is.
To be clear this is an attempt to soothe any injured feelings and clarify that no insult was made or intended. It’s not an admission of error or apology, because there’s no error nor anything that requires an apology.