(I am writing this as a third-person and outsider looking in, not as an advocate for one political end of the spectrum simply because I here argue against another.)
Here is an example of what I will seek to explain next:
“If discrimination is automatically something wrong, then equity is wrong, because equity is a form of discrimination where you don’t give or hold each person equally the same.”
If one was to adress this to the left, they would resort to a third, fourth, or fifth principle.
And this is the topic of my post.
I think a main problem with the left today is that you cannot work out what a topic actually is, means or should mean. Because when you do work out a topic together with the left, and point out contradictions in the left’s views of these issues, they move on to a different topic they believe in, which, by intent, reinforces and articulates their understanding of the first topic. Even though they just before argued as though it should be upheld indefinitely and unequivocally. But then the same thing happens with the new topic the discussion has arrived at.
And so, the result is that none of these issues can actually ever be worked out, but remain a mishmash of intersectionality, vagueness and paradoxes.
The solution I think is to, well, simply not resort to these sprints into other topics, but remain at the one at hand when contradictions about it occur and work it out on its own terms. At least as a first step. Not to say that intersections are always implausible, but they should occur, not be expected.
This is why I don’t like the concept of intersectionality in politics, because to me, all it does is slice up the wholeness and soundness of topics into unrecognizable pieces. At least when intersectionality is used as a criteria rather than an incidental observation.
The Searcher Who Wants to Give 