That was why I said 'we' about the universal liberals. I certainly don't claim not to be biased towards universal liberalism. That would make it hard to argue for. I thought that was a good attempt at steelmanning the IdPol position & their concerns abt the UniLib one. No? https://twitter.com/rgigger/status/998157270297948161 …
I did not say that either. But the people who think we need to take an identity politics approach are very critical of universal liberalism. See Kimberlé Crenshaw on this specifically.
-
-
Maybe I’ll just have to read more about what the specific arguments are here.
-
I think though that you are focusing too much on prominent activists rather than just ordinary, not super political citizens that are just sick of racism, want it to end, and feel that it needs to be called out.
-
I am talking about the rationale which underlies the two approaches. I have said nothing about any prominent activist. Please stop now.
-
What I’m saying here is that there are vocal activists out there who fit the descriptions that you are making but I don’t think that those descriptions fit many ordinary people. Does it offend you that I’m saying that?
-
No. That is true. It is just only tangentially relevant to my discussion of two rationales for two approaches to anti-racism. Most people don't make them. The thread I was responding to involved two people who did & this was their difference which comes up time & time again.
-
You need to be gone now. If you find my points difficult to understand, I'm sorry, but I'm wasting no more of my life explaining why I don't mean things I have never said.
-
Thanks for taking the time to talk to me. I in no way meant to offend, accuse, or tax your mental health. I learned a lot from the exchange. I’m sorry that you found it so frustrating.
End of conversation
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.