Hacker News Reader

Comment by zozbot234 | Hacker News Reader

It's not just furthering the culture war; they've even funded an organization (SeRCH) that's all about peddling unscientific, unencyclopedic woo-woo (about their "intersectional scientific method" and "hyperspace") to vulnerable minority folks who are trying to get involved with real, actual science. An outrageous betrayal of Wikipedia's core mission.

View on HN

That's part of the culture war, "intersectional" in this context is an academic term rooted in the postmodern philosophy at the center of far left ideology. Intersectionality in the sense of Foucault posits that ways of knowing, like science, are socially constructed (along with other norms you may have heard about, like gender identity) and since they are socially constructed they are culturally relative. Since cultures are all equal in value under the ideology of intersectionality, traditional ways of knowing are considered equal to those held up by Western society, like science.

You see, science is actually eurocentric, so supporting other ways of knowing is choosing the side in the culture wars that says we trust science because it's white and society is racist, therefore we must find a new "intersectional" scientific method

I'm so sorry I explained this. I don't have the energy to find citations since my posts on HN always get flagged but I assure you that funding choice is absolutely part of furthering the culture war lol

That's a pretty severe mischaracterization of intersectionality in general. Intersectionality refers to the fact that you can't analyze human experiences as linear terms (being black, being a woman) and that you must consider the effects of being some combination of categories. As an example, intersectionality claims that being both black and a woman brings separate challenges than the additive combination of being black and being a woman.

That's all there is to intersectionality, any conclusions you make beyond that are your interpretation of intersectionality, not the general consensus of the "far left".

>That's all there is to intersectionality

That's really not "all there is" to intersectionality. You are repeating the motte-and-bailey of far-left ideologues wherein you fall back on the official/original definition of the term, conveniently ignoring that its meaning has changed over time, and has been coopted.

To be clear: I'm being charitable in my interpretation, and assuming you are not intentionally doing this.

https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-intersectionality/ clarifies how the notion of intersectionality is generally interpreted in a Foucaldian way by most people who engage with it. This "interpretation" is not just parent post's but widespread enough to call it a consensus.

You're going to quote James Lindsay, the guy who refers to critical theory as 'race marxism'? This source is so biased Ma'at's feather never had a chance.

Lindsay is an academic and his arguments are out there for you to rebut if you wish. Attacking his character doesn't dismiss his ideas even though the left wishes as much.

It appears many do not know the actual definition of ad hominem. The definition of the term is out there to be looked up.

Don’t play coy. Intersectionality is a framework for dismantling the status quo. From wikipedia:

> Crenshaw used intersectionality to display the disadvantages caused by intersecting systems creating structural, political, and representational aspects of violence against minorities in the workplace and society.[15] Crenshaw explained the dynamics that using gender, race, and other forms of power in politics and academics plays a big role in intersectionality.

It’s not just the idea that multiple identities can be at play at once. It’s a tool in the postmodern toolbox.

Nobody even needed intersectionality to explain the idea that humans can’t be reduced to a single identity (that’s just common sense) until 3rd wave feminists convinced us as much in the first place.

Lots of businesses have a front of the house (customer-facing roles) and a back of the house (warehouse, etc.). In the South, many businesses only hired white people in the front of the house, and only hired men in the back. You argue that it's "just common sense," but it was widely accepted that these practices were neither neither racist nor sexist because the business does hire some women (in the front) and some black guys (in the back). But if you were a black woman, you were shit out of luck.

It might be obvious now, but it took intersectional thought for people to begin to acknowledge these less overt forms of discrimination.

> It might be obvious now, but it took intersectional thought for people to begin to acknowledge these less overt forms of discrimination.

It really didn't. I was raised in conservative evangelicalism and was never exposed to "intersectional" thought, but it was obvious to me that someone in multiple disadvantaged categories had it worse than someone who was only in one of them.

It was also obvious to me that any hiring system which a priori debarred a given category of people at the start was discriminatory.

Intersectional thought undoubtedly has helped some people figure these things out, but it really isn't necessary to understand these problematic behaviors and situations.

Is there any evidence that common sense is either common or sensical?

That's false I fear. Intersectionality hasn't much to do with Foucault. It's a framework for analyzing multiple levels of discrimination occuring at the same time (say for someone having both a physical disability and mental illness). You could have just linked to wikipedia ;) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality

IMO there's quite a bit to criticize in that approach, but calling it postmodernist relativism doesn't really fit.

Foucault is often considered the father of the ideas that underpin intersectionality, at least in the academic sense.

Check out his wikipedia and read the section Influence and reception, specifically Critiques and engagements > Social constructionism and human nature: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault

Here’s a sample of real life I’ve found through SeRCH Foundation (the entity that WMF is reportedly channeling my money to) website: https://conversations.vanguardstem.com/a-practical-guide-to-...

This [intersectional] approach requires both student and mentor to acknowledge that true professional development, incorporating belonging, requires affirmation, not assimilation.

(The other striking example of affirmation, not assimilation I’ve seen in a textbook for future school teachers enrolled in SFSU credential program. There was a chapter in the textbook on how to recognize signs of a student belonging to a youth band culture - and how to respect and affirm it. No, I am not kidding.)

“Youth band culture” should be “youth gang culture”, sorry for stepping on a “false friend of the interpreter”: “gang” is “banda” in Russian.

> socially constructed (along with other norms you may have heard about, like gender identity) and since they are socially constructed they are culturally relative.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/social-construction-natur...

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/social-institutions/

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-social/

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/social-ontology/

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-knowledge-soci...

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/social-ontology/

This post checks out. Roughly. The problem isn’t with the idea that there can be other ways of knowing out there to explore, it’s with the total rejection of science because it’s somehow innately white and thus undeniably racist. Even if you believe knowledge is entirely socially constructed, to dismiss one construct simply because of the perceived social identity (remember race is a construct, too) of it’s progenitors is where it leaves the realm of academia and becomes part of the culture war zeitgeist.

Rather ironically, it would imply that Muslims in the medieval age weren't doing "science", and therefore the Wikipedia article on it[1] is inaccurate and should be removed.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_in_the_medieval_Islami...

Foucault and Duchamp are the two boogeymen of the 20th and 21st centuries.

Can you provide links to any of this? I'm also unable to find any org called SeRCH, perhaps I mis-spelt it.

edit: I repeat my request more strongly. I've looked more and even "intersectional scientific method" gets almost nothing except a couple of posts on twitter claiming the same and a website https://battlepenguin.com/politics/wikipedia-is-a-source-of-... which doesn't back anything up - are you affiliated with either of these?

I am wondering if you are deliberately spreading FUD

Parent post is on target. Here is the website for the SeRCH organization:

https://www.vanguardstem.com/serch

and where is the 'unscientific, unencyclopedic woo-woo'?

And where is the evidence it's related to wikipedia?

> And where is the evidence it's related to wikipedia?

To WMF. Right there on their webpage. They are proud of it:

https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2021/09/08/wikimedia-fo...

Brill. It's only taken an hour to get the first solid piece of info. Now, where's the "unscientific, unencyclopedic woo-woo" and hyperspace?

can you offer more information? I am interesting about this, but quickly search did not display anything related.

theserchfoundation.org They reportedly have a YouTube channel with long boring videos about their silly stuff.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com