Thread by @willchamberlain

What if @benshapiro isn't alt-right - but instead is just a lazy, flippant public intellectual?

@TheEconomist apparently didn't read his book. I did. Let's take a look at his discussion of Kimberlé Crenshaw and intersectionality.

A thread.

econ.st/2FGIQDz

Here's the relevant excerpt from THE RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY (p.199).

In Shapiro's words, Crenshaw:

1) coined intersectionality to describe a coalition of victims
2) said the level of difficulty in someone's life is tied to the number of victim groups they are a member of

3) argued the more you have been victimized, the more your opinion about institutional bigotry ought carry weight
4) conceded the goal "is to bully those who aren't members of these intersectional groups."

The problem? This bears almost no resemblance to Crenshaw's thinking.

Let's just look at the paper where Crenshaw first coined the term, back in 1989 (which you should read!)

Intersectionality is an *analytical method*. It's a call to think about *the interaction* of different "isms," if you will, rather than treating them as discrete.

For example, Crenshaw points to a court case where black women were bringing a class action discrimination case.

The court dismissed the suit on the grounds that even though "black people" and "women" were protected from discrimination, "black women" - as a class - were not.

Crenshaw's argument is:

1) there is a blind spot in the way people think about bigotry - people don't consider the *intersection* of racism/sexism/etc
2) that blind spot manifests itself in the law
3) we need a new analytical method

That was a really good point at the time!

Crenshaw explicitly repudiates the idea that this is a "theory of everything."

It's an *analytical lens* through which to view certain legal/social phenomena.

Not some rallying cry to bully people into checking their privilege.

Back to @benshapiro.

Let's review the excerpt from THE RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY again. Notice anything missing?

I do.

Where's the footnote in the first paragraph?

It couldn't be that he's just pulling this all out of his ass, could it?

The only footnote in this excerpt is to a Washington Post op-ed written by Crenshaw in 2015.

Weird that Shapiro wouldn't cite the 1989 article where she coined the term.

Even weirder is that it's not clear he even read the op-ed he cited!

Crenshaw's op-ed:

1) explains the GM case she talked about 20 years ago
2) explains that intersectionality is an "analytic sensibility, a way of thinking about identity and its relationship to power."

It's right there, @benshapiro! There's no need to straw man her arguments!

What of Crenshaw "acknowledging" that the "actual goal" is to "bully those who aren't members of these intersectional groups" (whatever that means)?

Turns out she said nothing of the sort.

Her point is that people who experience discrimination can also be privileged!

That seems like a good point - and one that is PARTICULARLY relevant given the events of the last few days.

Jussie Smollett may well have experienced discrimination. Who would say he isn't privileged?

But back to @benshapiro.

If he had made these claims on a podcast, in an interview - whatever. Mistakes happen.

He made them in his BOOK. Which went through a slew of revisions.

Did no one catch how awful this presentation was? Did he simply not care?

This dude's supposed to be a public intellectual.

He's out here writing books that completely distort the views of authors he dislikes.

If I were to hand THE RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY to an intelligent liberal, they'd laugh in my face. And rightly so.

Ben needs to hold himself to a much higher standard.

If you are going to *win* the war of ideas, you need to accurately characterize your opponents' ideas first.

Otherwise you look like a clown - and you make everyone who supports you look like a clown as well.

FIN