This is the data from which I derive the view that we are now at what I call the 'peak narrative' of intersectionalism:
"Charting The New York Times' Narrative"
source: Chris Menahan, InformationLiberation
"Charting The New York Times' Narrative"
source: Chris Menahan, InformationLiberation
As much as its adherents would want and perhaps imagine it to be so, a utopian ideal of an end to all of life's sufferings, stresses and strains can never be the outcome of applied intersectionality. The goal of its radical followers seems to be to dismantle the functioning institutions, but the ideology is completely absent on ideas with what to replace them (an opportunity, should such a catastrophe occur, a would-be tyrant of any ideology would relish). Whatever social and political direction liberal democratic civilisations take in consequence of this intersectionalist barminess, it is starting to look very much as though it will be played out in the coming months or years. It is my opinion that we are at a zenith of intersectionailist influence from the BS narrative in the mainstream and,
if the ideology is to be rejected and liberal meritocracy and blind justice are to regain traction in the mainstream, then perhaps for many, this story will be one of a few pivotal stories in the coming months
that are 'penny drop', counter narrative moments:
"Caroline Lucas apologises for proposing all-white female emergency cabinet"
source: The Independent
The veneer of the intersectionalist criticism (more accurately an accusation) is the observation that
Lucas's stated selection of representatives for an (albeit hypothetical) emergency cabinet were all epidermically 'white', and that this therefore somehow formed part of
Lucas' selection criteria; her exclusion of non-'white'
representatives is apparently racist. However, although her stated selection criteria means that she excluded representatives based on their sex (warranting an unstated criticism that it is sexist), what reason is
there, after she excluded those representatives from consideration, to assume that she excluded the remaining representatives under
consideration for any criteria other than her evaluation of their competence? Where is the
evidence in her political history that she is a white supremicist, ethno exclusionist
racist? Intersectionalists will likely make ideological claims like
'implicit bias'.. a psuedo-science idea that has been robustly
demonstrated in the reputable scientific literature to have scant
evidence or no
evidence or even evidence that is counter to the claim (sources: is.gd/b1IQxC , is.gd/OIpWwA , is.gd/O4IQHl
). In reality, I doubt that anyone (in the mainstream political class at least) criticising the lack of non 'white' representatives actually think she is a white supremacist
racist, nor that anyone who knows Carloine Lucas's worldview will
believe that those accusing her of this really think it is true. It
demonstrates the disingenuity of intersectional thinking as a means to
brow beat individuals without the capacity or inclination to challenge their ideas into submission and, when required, also into
silence.
The criticism of a lack of
representatives of a designated skin colour in her selection is an expectation to pre-judge the suitability of representatives based on their race in her
selection process. Where a cabinet has a
limited size, this may also pre-judge representatives as
unsuitable based on their race. So, when this ideologically driven mess is unravelled, what's really going on here?
OK.
Lucas calls for
an emergency cabinet that she selected by not considering to judge the
suitability of some elected representatives at all.. because of her
'pre-judgement' that, based on their sex, they are not suitable. The
intersectionalist left criticize her idea; but rather than point out the blatant sexism as other critics point out, their criticism is that it
does not make pre-judgements based on race as well..
"Not prejudiced enough, Lucas".
Lucas apologizes for this (?!) and BOOM, thus she is doomed.
You cannot satisfy the intersectionalists, it is never enough, there is no limiting principle, you are forever appeasing whoever is claiming power over you.
By apologizing to them she has shown them that they have power over her. They don't care about the apology, they want it only because it gives them power.
She is now caught in a never ending hole of acquiescing to whatever way they want her to think, the only escape is to reject their ideology, which will mean a self awareness of her own collectivist thinking that she must also reject.
"Not prejudiced enough, Lucas".
Lucas apologizes for this (?!) and BOOM, thus she is doomed.
You cannot satisfy the intersectionalists, it is never enough, there is no limiting principle, you are forever appeasing whoever is claiming power over you.
By apologizing to them she has shown them that they have power over her. They don't care about the apology, they want it only because it gives them power.
She is now caught in a never ending hole of acquiescing to whatever way they want her to think, the only escape is to reject their ideology, which will mean a self awareness of her own collectivist thinking that she must also reject.
The immoral and prejudicial idiocy of intersectionalism - an
ideology propagated into corp media, big corp and the political classes
by a part of academia that has been exposed as ideologically corrupt (see: is.gd/XqWkyX or listen: is.gd/QkIMkq) - has now been demonstrated in the mainstream in a way that is easy to understand. This unfortunate story may yet be a net positive.
No comments:
Post a Comment