Liberals are drunk on a political poison called intersectionality

[Templar 331]

Oh, that's what people think intersectionality is. I'm pretty sure you've got it wrong, intersectionality is (as the name suggests) about where individuals and groups intersect which is pretty close to the opposite of separating.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality

"It is the study of overlapping or intersecting social identities and related systems of oppression, domination, or discrimination. Intersectionality is the idea that multiple identities intersect to create a whole that is different from the component identities."

Seem like the article is pretty accurate to me.

Also I think the in-vogue snarl term is "regressive left" because "cultural marxist" sounded way too stupid.

Seeing as how the "Red Scare" has pretty much tainted anything to do with Marxism/Communism, I'd say "regressive left" is a little be easier to use.

[sheggaro]

This sounds an awful lot like "the issues I care about are the real ones".

Your premise is rooted in the false assumption that the Democrats have a popularity problem. They don't.

Well they are popular in California, but as you know winning California doesn't mean winning the election. And I'm sure you understand how the House and Senate work.

[God Save The King]

Consider the world as viewed through the lens of intersectionality. At the very top of the pyramid of privilege stands a straight, able-bodied, white man — whether he was born rich, attended Harvard, and works on Wall Street, or is a laid off coal miner who struggles with opioid addiction in eastern Kentucky. Below him are straight, able-bodied white women, with straight "people of color" of either gender even less privileged, followed by gay, lesbian, transgendered, and disabled variations on each identity category — with a hypothetical disabled black lesbian perhaps least privileged of all. But of course, this is a matter of controversy, since a transgendered Latina who comes from a poorer neighborhood or a more broken family than her black lesbian rival might contest and take offense at this ranking, insisting that she's actually the one who deserves to be recognized as the least privileged.

That's pretty much the issue with the criticism of "caring about intersectionality". It's not a contest to be the least privileged. It's some award or something people strive for. People don't want to be oppressed. People who tend to criticize this idea of privilege or the oppression that it causes usually just spout buzzwords like SJW or cuck and calls it a day.

To make it overly simple: The idea is that all people should start with the same inherent privilege. There is two approaches to this legal and social. Our legal system should not inherently benefit a group. Some people point to the huge number of blacks and poor people incarcerated compared to the studies that show white rich people are more likely to commit drug offenses.

The social aspect is that people should not face barriers in their lives for anything other then their own ability. Some people point to a wage gap or other metrics here (yes I know the wage gap has been debunked thoroughly).

The deeper aspect of the issue is that the circumstances of your birth should not put you miles ahead of your peers. This one is quite hard.

You can pass anti-discrimination laws. You can ingrain society to accept all people as equal. Those are much easier than resolving the circumstances of birth. How do you even out the difference in opportunity between the extremes. Take son of a multi-billionaire who has the best education, opportunity, exposure. Who has traveled the world, read the greatest pieces of literature, and never had to worry about anything but being the best person they could. Now consider the paraplegic son of a crack-whore who went to an inner-city school plagued with gangs and books over 30 years old. Who had to work in high school to eat, and was kept up at night due to gun shots and police sirens.

Between those extremes are different levels of "privilege". Determining various levels of privilege is hard, as it's not objective. Is a middle class white guy more or less privileged than an upper-class black guy.

Identifying the causes of vast differences in privilege is what some on the left attempt to do. They want to try to resolve the systemic issues facing our society. The ultimate goal is to allow each citizen the same chance to succeed.

It's quite a different goal than band-aid solutions. People who really care about this issue don't want more handouts or welfare programs. They want to target and dismantle the systems that are causing such wide gaps and allow society to heal overtime on its own.

I understand if you believe there is a better way to approach this. I just wanted to help some people understand why this movement is popular and why people care. It's not a game to be the most oppressed, it's trying to identify the complex problems causing system oppression and disadvantage. The core principle is that all children should come into this world with equal footing, and go through life being judged on what they accomplished.

I think it's important to understand all viewpoints. It's how we come together and solve problems.

[JohnBrown1917]

If the Democrats would actually start addressing the country's issues instead of dividing the population based on race, ethicity or gender they might win again. Identity politics are poison.

So both US parties are the same now?

No wonder the 2-party system sucks.

[Elegiac]

Well they are popular in California, but as you know winning California doesn't mean winning the election. And I'm sure you understand how the House and Senate work.

Yes. As in; we understand due to the electoral systems in place that neither the House nor the Senate are proportionally representative of actual popular political preferences.

[Belize]

If the Democrats would actually start addressing the country's issues instead of dividing the population based on race, ethicity or gender they might win again. Identity politics are poison.

Haha, yeah, those darn Democrats wanting to ban Muslims and kick all the Mexicans out, and wanting to regulate women's bodily autonomy!!

Oh wait.

[Wells]

Well they are popular in California, but as you know winning California doesn't mean winning the election. And I'm sure you understand how the House and Senate work.

The Democrat's problem isn't popularity or support, its logistics. A shocking number of competitive offices at local level and up go uncontested by the party because local parties are financially starved.

Poor local elections means poor state elections, reducing access to Congress. Democrats do more or less fine with the Executive. Everything else in the US starts locally.

[sheggaro]

Haha, yeah, those darn Democrats wanting to ban Muslims and kick all the Mexicans out, and wanting to regulate women's bodily autonomy!!

Oh wait.

Yeah they only prophesize the extinction of white people in the US and look forward to it, even though that is complete nonsense.

[Wells]

Yeah they only prophesize the extinction of white people in the US and look forward to it, even though that is complete nonsense.

This is hyperbolic to an embarassing level.

[Belize]

Yeah they only prophesize the extinction of white people in the US and look forward to it.

Yeah... No...

Your generalizations don't help your case there buddy. Unless you agree that all Republicans are white supremacists that have Klan memberships and own 15 guns in preparation for the race war.

Don't take a small subsection of a political ideology and apply it to a whole, it makes you look kinda retarded.

[Elegiac]

This is hyperbolic to an embarassing level.

I dunno, as a white person I kinda look forward to the extinction of the white race and the final death of unseasoned chicken.

[sheggaro]

This is hyperbolic to an embarassing level.

Maybe, but Democrats keep saying things like white people are going to be a minority etc etc, all based on flawed census reports (one drop rule).

If I marry a Hispanic woman and have a child with her, my child is not white even though it looks white, acts white and well is white, genetically speaking?

Some of the more delusional members of the Democratic party are going to have a rough awakening..

[Belize]

I dunno, as a white person I kinda look forward to the extinction of the white race and the final death of unseasoned chicken.

Man, what's wrong with a good oven baked chicken with the skin still on? What'd you need spices for. shiet.

[Wells]

Maybe,

No, not maybe

but Democrats keep saying things like white people are going to be a minority etc etc, all based on flawed census reports (one drop rule).

Apparently stating basic demographic facts is now the same as hoping people die out.

[Elegiac]

Maybe, but Democrats keep saying things like white people are going to be a minority etc etc, all based on flawed census reports (one drop rule).

Which suddenly translates to supporting white extinction, how?

- - - Updated - - -

Man, what's wrong with a good oven baked chicken with the skin still on? What'd you need spices for. shiet.

We invaded like ninety percent of the world for spices and don't use any.

Make colonialism worth it, season your chicken.

[Deleted]

So, by bitching about how an entire group of a large spectrum of politicals ideas that mesh into a "General Group", are poisoned by an idea of.. how a large group of fractions form to become one....

Wait......

[Belize]

We invaded like ninety percent of the world for spices and don't use any.

Make colonialism worth it, season your chicken.

Fair point.

[Nadiru]

We invaded like ninety percent of the world for spices and don't use any.

Make colonialism worth it, season your chicken.

We invaded 90% of the world looking for black pepper and India, everything else was a fluke.

[Northy]

One's skin color is more important than the quality of thoughts and ideas inside their head. This is why the left is turning into a silly sideshow.


[Infracted]

[Sunseeker]

Intersectionality is easily one of the best ideas to emerge out of third wave feminism. It's amazing how much people complain about it. Granted, they don't understand it and no amount of effort to explain it to them will change that. They respond not so unlike creationists on evolution.

Your post can be summed up with the words in bold.

I always enjoy threads by Theo where Conservatives have written articles about what Liberals should do in order to win at the polls, while completely misrepresenting their platform and throwing around 4-dollar-words they know nothing about.

It's like asking fucking Satan how to get into Heaven. IE: don't do anything he says.