From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
The intersectional cultist's toolbox
This is a critique of cult-like behavior among intersectional animalists.
As I've mentioned in previous articles, I believe intersectional animalists, of which I count myself one, have done great work in recent years, questioning old dogmas in order to build a more inclusive and thus more effective movement. But recently I've noticed a disturbing trend in which this intersectionalism has solidified into an unthinking fundamentalism, similar to the aura of infallibility that surrounded the work of Gary Francione, say, five years ago.
If we wanted to play the call-out game, which these intersectional cultists enjoy, I could point out their insistence on the use of ever-shifting academic and politically-correct jargon was, to use their liberal, rather than socialist term, 'classist.' Most people on Earth have no time to research the latest whims of the Tumblr activists. Indeed, when one sees the laundry list of oppressions that must be fought, a list that eventually drifts into the absurd —such as the ableism implied by calling an argument 'stupid' — class supremacy or capitalism is rarely mentioned by this crowd. I could name many people here, but I won't. Not because I'm noble. But because I want to try to avoid making these debates needlessly personal and thus useless.
Instead of playing the call-out game, I'd like to identify what I see as the key tool in the intersectional cultist's toolbox. That would be ad-hominem attacks, which, intentionally or not, create an atmosphere of mutual recrimination and fear that makes dialogue and learning impossible. The most common form these attacks take among this crowd is: "Your opinion is invalid because you are..." Fill in the blank. Your opinion is invalid because you're white; your opinion is invalid because you're a man; your opinion is invalid because you're straight; your opinion is invalid because you're cisgender. And on and on.
You see how that works, right? The intersectional cultists are attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself. That's what ad-hominem attacks are. I'd add, again, that rarely do these intersectional cultists hurl class-based insults at speakers or writers and that's telling. But in an ideal world, I'd like to see no ad-hominem attacks, even of the variety I might be more sympathetic to as a socialist. Because while a person's background and experience has profound influence on their opinions, that's not a reason to dismiss them out of hand.
Besides being fundamentally ad-hominem in nature, a problem with this form of argumentation is that it tends to treat oppressed or exploited groups as a monolith. When an intersectional cultist blasts a writer or speaker for holding the 'incorrect' view on a given subject of particular relevance to, say, Black people, the unstated assumption is generally that there is a unified, Black view on the subject. This, of course, is rarely the case. If white people should defer to Black writers on a particular set of topics, as was suggested to me in the wake of my last article on intersectional cultism, who should they defer to? Fredrik deBoer pointed out in a comment I can't place, and thus quote, there are plenty of Black, left-wing critics of the sort of identity politics these intersectional cultists espouse, such as Adolph Reed and Douglas Williams. But for whatever reason their opinions don't seem to count.
Finally, besides the "Your opinion is invalid because you are...." line of attack, there's an entirely different form of ad-hominem argument which is a favorite of the Tumblr crowd. That's the old, "your opinion is invalid because I've dug into your digital history and found something problematic." This too was directed at me after publication of my last article on intersectional cultists. In particular, someone found an idiotic article I wrote for my college newspaper six years ago. Perhaps I'm inordinately wicked, but I'm of the firm belief that everyone has, will be, and is problematic in different ways, but comparable degrees. Either way, again, let's point out the intention here is to avoid the actual argument at hand by diverting attention to the person making the argument.
So if we must call-out anything, let's call-out ad-hominem attacks. It's a lazy, bullshit method of argumentation which frankly sends people running away from the animalist movement, and left-wing activism more generally, out of fear, exhaustion and disgust. Further, and just as importantly, it creates an atmosphere in which the type of learning the intersectional cultists claim to be in favor of is impossible.
If we wanted to play the call-out game, which these intersectional cultists enjoy, I could point out their insistence on the use of ever-shifting academic and politically-correct jargon was, to use their liberal, rather than socialist term, 'classist.' Most people on Earth have no time to research the latest whims of the Tumblr activists. Indeed, when one sees the laundry list of oppressions that must be fought, a list that eventually drifts into the absurd —such as the ableism implied by calling an argument 'stupid' — class supremacy or capitalism is rarely mentioned by this crowd. I could name many people here, but I won't. Not because I'm noble. But because I want to try to avoid making these debates needlessly personal and thus useless.
Instead of playing the call-out game, I'd like to identify what I see as the key tool in the intersectional cultist's toolbox. That would be ad-hominem attacks, which, intentionally or not, create an atmosphere of mutual recrimination and fear that makes dialogue and learning impossible. The most common form these attacks take among this crowd is: "Your opinion is invalid because you are..." Fill in the blank. Your opinion is invalid because you're white; your opinion is invalid because you're a man; your opinion is invalid because you're straight; your opinion is invalid because you're cisgender. And on and on.
You see how that works, right? The intersectional cultists are attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself. That's what ad-hominem attacks are. I'd add, again, that rarely do these intersectional cultists hurl class-based insults at speakers or writers and that's telling. But in an ideal world, I'd like to see no ad-hominem attacks, even of the variety I might be more sympathetic to as a socialist. Because while a person's background and experience has profound influence on their opinions, that's not a reason to dismiss them out of hand.
Besides being fundamentally ad-hominem in nature, a problem with this form of argumentation is that it tends to treat oppressed or exploited groups as a monolith. When an intersectional cultist blasts a writer or speaker for holding the 'incorrect' view on a given subject of particular relevance to, say, Black people, the unstated assumption is generally that there is a unified, Black view on the subject. This, of course, is rarely the case. If white people should defer to Black writers on a particular set of topics, as was suggested to me in the wake of my last article on intersectional cultism, who should they defer to? Fredrik deBoer pointed out in a comment I can't place, and thus quote, there are plenty of Black, left-wing critics of the sort of identity politics these intersectional cultists espouse, such as Adolph Reed and Douglas Williams. But for whatever reason their opinions don't seem to count.
Finally, besides the "Your opinion is invalid because you are...." line of attack, there's an entirely different form of ad-hominem argument which is a favorite of the Tumblr crowd. That's the old, "your opinion is invalid because I've dug into your digital history and found something problematic." This too was directed at me after publication of my last article on intersectional cultists. In particular, someone found an idiotic article I wrote for my college newspaper six years ago. Perhaps I'm inordinately wicked, but I'm of the firm belief that everyone has, will be, and is problematic in different ways, but comparable degrees. Either way, again, let's point out the intention here is to avoid the actual argument at hand by diverting attention to the person making the argument.
So if we must call-out anything, let's call-out ad-hominem attacks. It's a lazy, bullshit method of argumentation which frankly sends people running away from the animalist movement, and left-wing activism more generally, out of fear, exhaustion and disgust. Further, and just as importantly, it creates an atmosphere in which the type of learning the intersectional cultists claim to be in favor of is impossible.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network
Paul Watson has remarked about so-called purist vegans who ask "what about cows?" when a lion killed by hunters receives public attention. Such an attitude from a vegan didnt exist 15 years ago. It was what you would expect from hunters or other exploiters, not those concerned about nonhuman animals.
But how do we know there people are sincere?
A so-called anti-speciesist who sees no problem with people using a pig corpse in a derogatory fashion is not an animal activist. And probably never was.
Efforts to attack the animal rights cause from within using "fifth column vegans?" Not far fetched at all.
Gary Francione is one prime suspect, Nathan Winograd is another. James McWilliams was singled out by a Grist article not too long ago.
Intersectionality appears to be similar to what hunters, furriers, vivisectors, whalers liked to say against animal activists: "activists are racist/sexist, they hate people. Humans come first."
Francione himself has implied this along with the old vivisector slur: "animal activists are crazy." But he uses the term "moral schizophrenia" instead.
Why are we helping the oppressors of animals?
Why are we focusing on the rights of a single species who oppress every other species?
It would be like putting mens rights before womens or white problems before the oppression faced by PoC. It makes no sense. We must stop aiding the oppressor, before we help humans they must stop oppressing animals.
I have come to the conclusion we must put non-humans first.
Our interest in intersectionalism should be to advance social revolution.
Capitalism is the primary cause of animal exploitation, enslavement, and murder. Socialist societies kill and consume half the animal per capita as do capitalist societies. So even socialists with no interest in compassion would cause less cruety than do capitalists.
Moreover, centrally planned economies remove profits from animal animal agriculture, thereby eliminating incentives to exploit our fellow creatures.
Revolution is the only possible hope for animals.