This is quite different from current understandings of leftism as wokeness, and rightism as redpilledness. Wokeness is a very specific lens on the world, and redpilledness the inversion that results from breaking that lens.
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @Plinz
it also seems like both have altered discourse, diverting it from what you termed universalism, most noticeably to me by overloading terminology, and by having a strong shared basis in identity politics assumptions
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mHaGqnOACyFm0h5
Yes, the purpose of waking people into separate, antagonistic identities is the facilitation of a conflict. Social Justice sees antagonistic conflict between sexes, genders, and races, but avoids class. I suspect that it was in part designed to derail Occupy Wallstreet.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Plinz @mHaGqnOACyFm0h5
The woke notion of privilege is almost entirely orthogonal to economic status and social class, and so much more compatible with establishment. You can be a multimillionaire with Ivy league degree and yet less privileged than a homeless person if you have a marginalized identity.
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
hmm, this is an interesting observation. perhaps relatedly - intersectionalism, at least in my naive understanding, opens up a wide range of dimensions and their combinatorics. applied inconsistently or in bad faith, it's a kind of meta bigotry
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mHaGqnOACyFm0h5
I don't think it is possible to apply it consistently, because that would require that there is a single global oppression context. A feature of Social Justice: you can claim restorative justice based on group identity, even if you are personally consistently privileged.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
as the basis of policy or ideology, i agree. it's kind of a crackpot opinion but i feel that way about a lot of things, e.g. legal system, nation states, ... a priori inconsistent as just another lens onto the world, would you say intersectionalism itself is also without merit?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mHaGqnOACyFm0h5
The legal system is built around an algorithm that is designed to increase consistency (interpretation of law based on precedents, and escalation to higher courts for exception handling). Intersectionality does not have a strict definition, so its merits depend on interpretation.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
yeah that algorithm isn't perfect but it's ok, and similarly legislation is also more of a process, so in principle inconsistencies in either should be transient.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mHaGqnOACyFm0h5 @Plinz
but i kind of misspoke, i should have said social contract, or rule of law, since i also meant law enforcement, access to legal services, prison industrial complex, ... lots of systemic effects that create & exploit disparity, and lots of hypocrisy justifying them
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I think that most societal institutions exist for good instead of nefarious reasons. When they don't work well, it is mostly due to regulatory capture, path effects or lack of incentives for error correction, not bad intentions (hypocrisy, bigotry etc.).
-
-
Replying to @Plinz
i can't argue with that, but these institutions often do attract and host the small minority of people who see fit to restrict others' freedoms, which is a problem, and there i do think bad intentions are very common.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mHaGqnOACyFm0h5
Government is an agent that changes the payoff matrix of other agents, so their Nash equilibrium becomes compatible with the common good. That will also require the restriction of individual freedoms.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 5 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.