If one accepts that the ultimate arbiter of the rightness of one’s actions is the view of others, who are, by definition, correct, then one cannot legitimately disagree with them. One has outsourced one’s moral judgement to the crowd, making the distinction between shame and guilt obsolete.

submitted by Chipit from (areomagazine.com)

all 6 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]latuspod 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

One of the biggest issues with intersectionality, or Critical Social Justice, is the fact that there is little cost for its adherents. Like the article said it is incredibly easy and costs the adherents nothing, it is very capitalistic while at the same time calling for the destruction of capitalism. On Matt Taibbis podcast I came across Adolph Reed who was a guest and he had a very interesting perspective about intersectionality being a play by neoliberal corporations. The whole idea seemed a little conspiratory for me but it was interesting and probably holds some amount of truth when you look at major companies social media output and commercials. Woke Capitalism for people who hate Capitalism.

[–]latuspod 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Another important point in the article is the fact that the left, and intersectionality in particular, only value 2 of the moral foundations. This is the only reason that I remain hopeful that all this nonsense will blow over. We are starting to see more and more people cast out of the left for holding incorrect views. It is refreshing to see so many people from all sides of the political spectrum stand up to this lunacy.

[–]Chipit[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Jonathan Haidt has an interesting talk on TED on where differences from liberals and conservatives originate from. It touches on your moral foundations issue, for anyone who's interested.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Hey Chipit, the article only complains/explains intersectionality and gives no answers or solutions. Is it the one statement you quoted that contains the value of this article? So, the answer to intersectionality is to build you own personal morality? This way you will not have your morality highjacked by the crowed. Yet, morality is taught to you by your, "culture/family within it" as he stated in the beginning. I am not sure there is any value in this article other than supporting the status quo of conquered because divide rephrased as "intersectionality".

At the end of the article, "Perhaps, therefore, a better analogy than the triumph of Christianity or the Reformation is the French Revolution, and its worship of Reason. It excited urban intellectuals and seemed to herald a new age but fizzled out as it could not speak to the totality of human experience. Perhaps, intersectionality too heralds not so much a new dawn as a false start."

So, the author likes reason as the way, but says reason cannot speak to the masses. The author should have been quoting Wilhelm Reich to support this conclusion. And showing the mechanism of propaganda that, "to say a lie loud enough and long enough it becomes real". Now that there are so many loud voices (Internet) and we cannot tell which is fake and which is not fake...we get "intersectionality"? It is a well written article but of very little value to me.

[–]Chipit[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Well thanks for informing everyone about your feelings.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks for your feelings about my feelings and letting everyone know.