But if you go after "extremists" while using terms widely employed and varied, that muddies the waters. Reverse problem of calling all right-wingers nazis (using actual extreme/despicable view to refer to many). Both strategies end up diminishing who's in the liberal camp.
-
-
-
I have written long essays defining my terms and objections. I oppose intersectionality based on it's defining features. I oppose identity politics where it opposes universal liberalism.
-
This is what definitional sectarians say and it's just a bad strategy for liberals to take. We agree more than we disagree, though.
-
I do need words to criticise the value systems and epistemologies I need to criticise. If other people are using 'intersectional' in a completely different way to what Crenshaw meant, I can't stop using it the right way to placate them. I need to talk about it.
-
Why don't you think the usage of the concepts are more nuanced than these strict binaries? Again, I've pointed you to literature that employs idpol and intersectionality in liberal ways. And they aren't just making up wholly new definitions. That's the argument of a sectarian!
-
There will always be nuance to be found in individuals. I argue against sets of ideas and set out why. What do you suggest I do? Stop saying 'intersectionality' because of people who use it but are actually advocating universal liberalism?
-
No, merely acknowledge that you don't have to be promoting one or the other and that some sets of ideas try to reconcile them.
-
But I am promoting universal liberalism. All the way. If this is what you mean by 'sectarian', I am one.
- 7 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.