In saner days, I really liked the idea of Intersectionality — which I understood as "every person is an unfathomably multifaceted system" > "the complexity of that system is unreal" > "you can't confidently assume very much about a person based on a handful of surface features"
-
-
It’s difficult when good ideas mutate into toxic ones... pointing this out is often misunderstood as an attack on the original good idea. Plus: jerks who hated the good idea are also opposed to the toxic version, and now you share an opinion with them, which makes you suspect.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I was under the exact same misconception as you for a while. Sadly, it's hard to find any usage of the term that adds more light than heat. I think it's entirely shibboleth at this point. I look at it and just see epicycles or dark matter - retrofitting metaphysics to bad math.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I think this applies to virtually every idea in that whole genre of campus leftist SJW sociology - ideas with a kernel of truth that are perverted or exaggerated beyond recognition. (Hell, this could describe literally every human idea ever, but these seem noteworthy).
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
So yes, 1) everyone is multifaceted 2) you only ever see one or two sides of them 3) they only ever know 3/4 sides of themselves 4) but we classify them by dominant dimension, why? 1/n
-
The answer is evolution. Is the tiger going to eat me? We put people into boxes quickly and move on because that’s what our brain is good at. Empathy takes work.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.
. I think you’ll like: