ZeugmaLitotes

for anyone else who didn’t know, this is the format!:

https://[blogURL].tumblr.com/search/%23[tag1]%2C%20%23[tag2]

Then you did not read the original black womens theory of intersectionality and do not believe in it! Because not acknowledging all parts of an identity is not applyying it correctly. There is in fact huge contradiction to using that theory and then leaving out a pice of someones intersection.

All idenities intersect here!

One of the very few Black women's studies books is entitled All the Women Are White; All the Blacks Are Men, But Some of Us are Brave. I have chosen this title as a point of departure in my efforts to develop a Black feminist criticism because it sets forth a problematic consequence of the tendency to treat race and gender as mutually exclusive categories of experience and analysis.' In this talk, I want to examine how this tendency is perpetuated by a single-axis framework that is dominant in antidiscrimination law and that is also reflected in feminist theory and antiracist politics.

This is fully free to read online, published in 1989 in the University of Chicago Legal Forum, and cited at least 53,395 times according to Google.

You might wonder, does the seminal paper about intersectionality talk about men as a point of intersection?

The point is that Black women can experience discrimination in any number of ways and that the contradiction arises from our assumptions that their claims of exclusion must be unidirectional. Consider an analogy to traffic in an intersection, coming and going in all four directions. Discrimination, like traffic through an intersection, may flow in one direction, and it may flow in another. If an accident happens in an intersection, it can be caused by cars traveling from any number of directions and, sometimes, from all of them. Similarly, if a Black woman is harmed because she is in the intersection, her injury could result from sex discrimination or race discrimination.

Judicial decisions which premise intersectional relief on a showing that Black women are specifically recognized as a class are analogous to a doctor's decision at the scene of an accident to treat an accident victim only if the injury is recognized by medical insurance. Similarly, providing legal relief only when Black women show that their claims are based on race or on sex is analogous to calling an ambulance for the victim only after the driver responsible for the injuries is identified. But it is not always easy to reconstruct an accident: Sometimes the skid marks and the injuries simply indicate that they occurred simultaneously, frustrating efforts to determine which driver caused the harm. In these cases the tendency seems to be that no driver is held responsible, no treatment is administered, and the involved parties simply get back in their cars and zoom away.

To bring this back to a non-metaphorical level, I am suggesting that Black women can experience discrimination in ways that are both similar to and different from those experienced by white women and Black men. Black women sometimes experience discrimination in ways similar to white women's experiences; sometimes they share very similar experiences with Black men. Yet often they experience double-discrimination-the combined effects of practices which discriminate on the basis of race, and on the basis of sex. And sometimes, they experience discrimination as Black women-not the sum of race and sex discrimination, but as Black women.

And the answer is yes, of fucking course it does, because people experience both having racial and gender identities and discrimination can happen on the basis of such identities, and people can get hit in the intersection in more than one way at the same time, that's literally the whole fucking point of the essay.

It's also free to sign up for Jstor and read her other article, Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color, published in the Stanford Law Review in 1991.

For the low low price of $zero dollars and reading 30 and 59 pages respectively, people could stop themselves from being embarrassingly wrong on the internet.

She was telling me about this guy that was "real country and you wouldn't think it to look at him because he looks like a redneck but he knows all the plants and mushrooms growing around him."

And my initial reaction was that of course the guy who lives out in the county and has his whole life knows all the plants and fungi, but she thought that country people in general don't know plants. Now I might have a biased sample, having grown up way out in the country in a family fairly obsessed with plants, but why would you assume people surrounded by plants would know less than your average city person?

Source

If you’ll all pardon my Americentrism for a moment, the amount, visibility, and flamboyance of Pride merch available in clothing, home goods, and comestibles stores is a DIRECT reflection of how safe it is to be queer in public in the United States.

How? Simple. Out groups aren’t profitable. If you’re not “acceptable” in the current social climate, big franchise businesses will not market to you. (Prime example - Look how quickly Target dropped all their Pride merch after having been wall-to-wall rainbows every June for almost a decade prior.)

Sure, capitalism sucks and being viewed as an exploitable marketing demographic isn’t a fun concept.

HOWEVER.

The grim truth is that being normalized enough to be considered profitable by corporations IS A GOOD THING in terms of the barometer of social acceptance.

Same thing goes for smaller businesses that throw kitschy Pride events or even just put a token rainbow flag in the window or somewhere inside the shop. That’s a level of acceptance that DID NOT EXIST thirty years ago, and I can tell you because I was there.

The fact that we can scoff and bitch about being an exploitable marketing demographic nowadays means we have made GIGANTIC strides since the 1990s. It also speaks to the fact that the drive and the conversation surrounding LGBTQ+ rights and acceptance are continuing. And getting louder.

You can be cynical about it if you want. But I will take a store that puts out lip-service rainbow merch over a world that pretends we don’t exist any day of the week. Because that will always mean something.

Yet, when they start being included, they are like “well, that’s just capitalism taking advantage of us, so it doesn’t count.” Like, you can’t use your EXCLUSION from something as evidence of general societal marginalization and then claim that once you’ve started to be included, it is politically meaningless. You don’t really get to have it both ways. That’s moving the political goal posts.

I get that we shouldn’t consider Target pride merchandise as like the pinnacle of queer politics or even the pinnacle of queer inclusion. I get that inclusion in capitalist intuitions is a very ambivalent form of social progress. But the truth is, capitalism is a big part of what creates our social reality right now (unfortunately).

Capitalism makes TV shows, and movies, and books, and ads, and greeting cards, and toys, and clothing, and, and…

When every single aspect of commercial social reality excludes queerness, that DOES create a real sense of social alienation. I don’t love that capitalism is responsible for creating so much of our collective social reality. But granting that it does, I think we’re forced to accept that our inclusion in it IS politically and socially important.

You don't have to be a jerk about it. The most effective yet civil way of dealing with harmful "humor" is just pretending you don't get the joke and asking them to explain. "I don't get it, what's girl math? What's a girl dinner? What do you mean by you're just a girl? Can you explain the joke to me?"

1. LLM-generated code tries to run code from online software packages. Which is normal, that’s how you get math packages and stuff but

2. The packages don’t exist. Which would normally cause an error but

3. Nefarious people have made malware under the package names that LLMs make up most often. So

4. Now the LLM code points to malware.

And since I'm waiting I decided to contribute an over-simplified analogy to explain this.

Analogy: You're in charge of running a kitchen. You and your staff create recipes and sell the meals you make. Inevitably though your recipes will call for things like "a stove" and "a blender" which you and your staff would not want to create from scratch.

Luckily "a stove" and "a blender" are things you can acquire and not try to make from scratch. You and your staff, as humans, are capable of recognizing real appliances, and getting them from real sources.

(There is actually an existing threat where "a stov" is a malicious thing, created by someone who knows "a stove" is in hot demand and is trying to take advantage of someone who might typo when ordering "a stove". There are some safe-guards in this space, but not 100% guarded.)

But now there's Cooking AI that can run your kitchen for you 🙂. It can write your recipes, order the necessities, and assemble the dish for you 🙃. Your boss fires you and your staff and just uses the Cooking AI.

The AI, in its infinite wisdom, starts writing recipes that call to be cooked on "a hotcob". It writes recipes that call for the ingredients to be assembled in "a produceslicer". These are not real things. And usually when the AI tries this, the process will error out because it fails at the process of acquiring the hotcob or the produceslicer.

But the kinds of people already profiting off supplying "a stov" take notice. AI likes to request these appliances frequently. The retailer offering "a stov" starts offering "a hotcob" and "a produceslicer". Now these AI-automated chefs succeed because their recipe order comes together!

"A hotcob" adds liquid mercury to all the dishes. "A produceslicer" hacks your wifi and steals all of the business's information. This is allowed because the AI chef welcomed these things in, signed for them, and hooked them up.