they are used as tactics
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Problems vs. Solutions and criticizing (e.g.), BLM
- Thread starter icehorse
- Start date
they are used as tactics
No, they are categories of perspectives. And of course since they are used often, in each case the context will be a little different. So we need to zoom out and look at the principles that underlie these perspectives.
So I can clarify a bit (this is useful, thanks):
I've heard that the source for most or all of these ideas is in post-modernism. Here's a definition:
So, for example, we could say that identity politics (IP), is based on undermining reason. Those who promote IP are saying that individual expertise (or the lack thereof), is meaningless, all that matters is the collective group. It's actually quite Borg-like. Intersectionality is just an off-shoot or subset of IP.
Augustus
…
Critical race theory is an offshoot of Critical Theory which is an offshoot of the Marxist tradition (Marxist critique rather than Soviet communism)
Tambourine
Well-Known Member
No they are not.
So you don't actually know anything about their origin.
You just heard it through the grapevine, and because you heard "post modernism", and heard that "post modernism" is bad and wrong, you concluded from this ironclad set of premises that everything about these ideas must be bad and wrong.
We could also say that your argument is based on hearsay and prejudice, not accurate observation or reliable evidence.
We could, therefore, conclude that your argument is invalid.
Dude, you're harshing everyone's mellow. Chill out and stop with the wild, childish speculations.
Tambourine
Well-Known Member
You are welcome to supply rational arguments and empirical evidence in order to address my points, in case you ever get around to it.
Or you can continue regurgitating buzz words based on prejudice and half-knowledge.
Your choice, really.
Dude, you're beating your head against a concrete wall. They're not interested in your opinions. They'll actually question the existence of identity politics, while ignoring you because you're white.
You can keep doing this or stop bothering.
Tom
Tambourine
Well-Known Member
Why enter a discussion or debate, when you aren't interested in a discussion?
Tambourine
Well-Known Member
Yea, looks like you made your choice.
For a brief moment, I was hoping you would actually be interested in facts based debate or rational argumentation, but I guess talking to you was a waste of time from day one.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
I have asked you to clarify and you have instead made things more ambiguous and nonsensical.
In what way are any of the things you have mentioned linked to post-modernism? In what ways and in what contexts are they used by BLM? Why are they "bad"?
Be specific. Don't obfuscate.
I'm not interested in an endless game of having to prove common knowledge to you.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
It is quite literally what you wrote. I asked you what was bad about the things you listed and how they were used, and your answer was just "they are linked with postmodernism".
That's not an answer. That's just nonsensical garbage.
These are not trivial ideas. I'm not going to write a thesis for you. You have to do a little bit of the dot connecting for yourself. You gonna meet me halfway, or are you going to play "prove the sky is blue" games?
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
So, "meeting you halfway" means "taking everything you say as meaning something and being reasonable despite the fact that you are completely unable or unwilling to expand upon your meaning or reasons".
Bit of advice: if you break down like this just from somebody asking you to explain your position, your position probably isn't very sound.
I'm going to proceed as if you're not being a jerk:
Did you agree with the definition I provided in post #342?
Would you agree that an example of a common claim based on intersectionality would be something like: "Because she is a black, lesbian, her opinions, based on her lived experience, must be given extra weight." ?
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
You're the one who suddenly started acting like I was being in bad faith.
I don't care about the definition of postmodernism, because it's absolutely and completely irrelevant to what I have been asking you. What I have been asking you is "What are the tactics used by BLM that you consider counter-productive?" and "Why do you find them counter-productive?"
So far, you seem unable to answer either question in a clear and concise way.
No, because that has almost nothing to do with intersectionality. Intersectionality is the study of how differently disadvantaged groups overlap: for example, if black people are disadvantaged in a particular culture, and gay people are disadvantaged as well in the same culture, then intersectionality examines what it is like for people who are both black AND gay and how these systems of disadvantage (which can have entirely different root causes and effects) interact, and what we can do to alleviate the effects of multiple layers of oppression.
What you seem to be talking about is the concept of "privilege", which is when individuals of certain advantaged groups may not acknowledge or recognize the disadvantages of those in other groups due to their own personal experiences lacking those experiences, and concluding that those disadvantages must therefore either not exist or be a result of failings of individual character. As such, the "lived experiences" of privileged groups are often given less weight on matters of disadvantage than the actual groups who are the subjects of disadvantage.
Also, I have never met anybody, BLM or otherwise, who says flatly that being a "black lesbian" means their opinions are given extra weight in all cases. However, it does stand to reason (yes, REASON) that a person who is black and gay will have experiences that more accurately reflect what it is like to live as a person who is black and gay than the opinion of someone who is neither.
What's your take on thickness vs. profit in the fuseki?
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
I wrote a whole post. Are you going to debate in good faith or continue to waste my time?
It seems to me that you're the one not debating in good faith, hence my silly detour. So, can we lighten up a bit and see if we can understand each other, and stop with all the snark?