[Mod Note: excised from the conservative principles thread]

neo-Intersectionality is going to destroy that movement.

Yeah I'm not going to derail this thread but this intersectional stuff is deeply divisive and polarizing. It's getting mainstream. Did you see how much money gillette lost lecturing men on their toxic masculinity?

Unfortunately this video doesn't show the best part thats in tuckers highlight package. They try to explain the rules of a Q&A where they are going to have people sort through the lines and sort oppression narratives and try to accommodate and organize them accordingly. You can actually see her angst as she know's its going to be a disaster but at the same time everyone is totally clueless of the ramification of having a society think that way

What's old intersectionality?

It was more about ethnicity, gender, and race, rather than specific annoyances, classified by the pet peeves of a person.

Are you confusing intersectionality with microaggressions? Because intersectionality has always been about social location (i.e. race, gender, etc.) and never about individual pet peeves.

hence neo-intersectionality.

Sorry, I don't see how there's a "hence" to my post that would get you to "neo-intersectionality," which seems like a term someone just randomly made up? I've never seen it before. It's still not clear what it's supposed to mean. My point was that there is not actually any new theoretical form of intersectionality as a concept, so it doesn't make much sense to talk about neo-intersectionality.

Maybe it's not supposed to mean much more than just "social justice activist ideology I dislike." If so, OK.

I mean, if you think being bothered by people whispering is social justice, sure. It was a facetious joke to tease about how everything bothers everyone, and we need to be mindful about that.

I understand jokes. Some times.

Honestly it doesn’t seem like a huge ask to request people look up words like “intersectionality” and “narrative” and use them correctly in their posts.

You are claiming Intersectionality has a well defined definition? Anyways:

They were in a gathering talking about points of order in a political discussion talking about social activity, and how they are being discriminated because of those social issues (i.e. whispering). I used neo, because it's applying that that definition, but not using gender specifically, in some cases.


I am getting a laugh at the pain I've cause at the purported misuse of neointersectionality.

I think the concept is pretty well-defined, yes. It's a theoretical lens and there's not necessarily a single authoritative definition, but the point of the concept is clear.

For a little history, see here:

Or, see the original paper:

So when I say that intersectionality has always been concerned with race, gender, and other facets of social location this is what I meant. The concept has always been used in this way and is well understood to exist in that scope. Hence Crenshaw's comments in the Columbia article.

other facets of social location...

I think this phrase is well coined. neointersectionality

It's just expanding to more and more aspects of social location. Not sure what the fuss is about a new word being coined. (I didn't search to see if this is the first use.)

That's still incorrect though, just as a matter of fact. I mean my general philosophy is that it's usually pointless to quibble about terms and definitions as long as they are understood. So sure, if you want to coin the term neo-intersectionality that's fine with me. But the argument that there is already some such thing with a known definition is wrong, AFAIK, and I don't see any good basis for not just referring to intersectionality, which is already understood to apply broadly to multiple facets of social identity.

I think people are conflating their perception that social justice activism/ideology is gaining wider adoption with the idea that the theoretical constructs have changed. The first part is true. The second part isn't true with regard to intersectionality as a concept.

This is the second or third time (maybe fourth?) that well named as had to quote the definition of intersectionality despite it being claimed as the downfall of western civilization, cause of extremism, or whatever boogman it's become.

I don't kind having the argument again, but it's worth pointing out how far people are out over their skies.

I think it has a *correct* definition. It’s not just a catch-all word you can use as a pejorative.

So this is gibberish. WN is doing his best to tease out some sense from it, but he can’t.

Of course, that was the real point all along. Feminism (like anything having to do with women) is something you find frivolous and silly and abusing the language is your way of mocking it.

Learn what pejorative means:


Pejorative was not the right word. Now learn silly:

Don't talk to me about definitions dude. It's not my fault you see intersectionality as a pejorative. Those people were being silly in the video, I made a silly joke. Maybe not a good joke, but I do not care if you are offended that I joked about intersectionality due to not using the term as correctly as you demand. You do not use racist, white supremacy, or racism correctly....and everyone has to deal with it.

Bolded is dishonest. You know he doesn't see it as a pejorative. He sees that you used it as a pejorative. Quit lying.

While we’re on the topic, I’d like to point out that “narrative” isn’t supposed to be a catch-all pejorative either. Also, it doesn’t necessarily mean false! You can have a narrative account of actual true events.

Hence the adjective?

He understood your usage to be pejorative. He doesn't think intersectionality is a fundamentally pejorative term. He even thinks it's a useful term!

Also, can we get your correct definition of racism?

I'm going to point out something about ambiguity:

While I understand this could be considered from the context of the conversation, and could be referring to when jaun used it, or he could be talking about it's general usage. It's not really clear.

The pedantic conversation about ambiguous writing works both ways. None of us are as precise as we should be, it's just you and a few others expect almost perfect precision to understand what the opposing view point is saying.




I do not get to decide what the correct definition of racism is, anymore than you do. EDIT: The point is, Trolly's and others use racism/racist/white supremacy too broadly to define individuals, or statements from individuals.

if you don't know the correct definition how do you know others definitions are wrong?

cite where I've said some person used the wrong definition. Here we go with the ambiguity again, and the need for perfect precision.

However there is a key word:

For instance, if someone came on the forum and advocated for a particular immigration restriction, it's expected someone on this forum will call that person a racist/white supremacist, and it will probably be done rather quickly. Supporting a particular immigration restriction is not necessarily racist, but the connection is made. That's misuse of the term, no matter which definition you use.