Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week


This week’s Lexicon entry has nothing to do with current events because there really isn’t anything new out there that some other commentator or dumbass hasn’t already covered. Good thing you have me so you can check off both boxes in one fell swoop!

Instead, I want to talk about a concept popular within Leftist circles, a little thing the kids like to call intersectionality. As much as I would like to say this is about determining who goes first at intersections, I’m afraid I can’t. Intersectionality is something far less useful, yet far more stupid.

intersectionality

What the Left thinks it means – the study of how systems of oppression/privilege overlap

What it really means – figuring out ways to make people into much bigger victims than they actually are

The Center for Intersectional Justice (and I swear this is a real thing), defines intersectionality thus:

The concept of intersectionality describes the ways in which systems of inequality based on gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, class and other forms of discrimination “intersect” to create unique dynamics and effects.

Think of it as one big Venn Diagram, only a lot less orderly.

The idea behind intersectionality is where there is overlap, there is more opportunity to be a victim. A white lesbian quadruple diabetic amputee has a different number of touch-points than a black gender fluid left-handed bisexual with a speech impediment because…reasons! And with more touch-points of oppression comes more victims and, oddly enough, more privilege in Leftist circles. But intersectionality is supposed to address privilege, so…

Fuck if I know!

Along with intersectionality comes a process for Leftists to determine a victimhood hierarchy called a progressive stack. In short, the more victimized/marginalized you are (or are perceived to be by other Leftists), you get to speak before others who are less victimized/marginalized. Which further makes victimhood a positive…which defeats the purpose of fighting inequality since the Left is making inequality a means to elevate others…

I got nothing.

Like, literally. I got nothing.

There is no making sense of intersectionality or the progressive stack because it’s not about logic. It’s all about fee-fees. Leftists thrive in a world where feelings don’t care about your facts. Why else do you think 6’8″ 350 pound bearded men wearing pink taffeta can demand to be called Susan and Leftists don’t bat an eye? It’s because it doesn’t matter if the man has more between his legs than a male porn star because he feels like a woman and, thus, we have to respect that.

And the more you can claim you’re being oppressed, the more secure your position within Leftist circles.

The only problem (well, aside from being batshit insane) is the Left keeps shifting the meanings of key words to suit the situation. Try to get them to define a woman that doesn’t get dropped faster than a TikTok fad. Yet, gender and gender identity are part of intersectionality. So, how can these two concepts be so ill-defined in Leftist circles and still be parts of the intersectionality puzzle?

If you think logically, they can’t co-exist. If you think Leftically, they co-exist like they belong on a lame-ass bumper sticker on a Prius.

This same exercise can be repeated with race (which Leftists say is a social construct), gender identity (which Leftists say you develop as a toddler), and gender (which Leftists say is also a social construct), just to name three. And believe me, you don’t want to go down this rabbit hole any more than you have to. Leave that to me so you don’t burn any brain cells you might actually need.

Where intersectionality gets really fucked up is when you consider it makes personal pain into a tangible real world (or as real as Leftists feel) benefits. As you accumulate more and more sources or potential sources of oppression, the more valuable you are to a Leftist because it makes you easier to exploit. And if you think that’s harsh, there really is no better term to use here because, well, it’s fucking exploitation.

But wait, there’s more! With this exploitation comes an ego boost to generations who are already narcissistic from the jump. So, there is an instant dopamine boost from being a victim because you get attention and sympathy. If you have actual oppression in your life, what is the motivation to overcome it? If you fix yourself or your situation, you become less valuable to Leftists, which means you don’t get as much attention to feed your ego. You might even identify as an oppressed class because the Left’s definitions are looser than the world’s least profitable casino.

I’m lookin’ at you, Rachel Dolezal and Shawn King.

This notion is reinforced by progressive stacking. The way the stack works is the most oppressed gets to speak first. Implicit in that is the idea the most oppressed has the most important viewpoint and should be listened to by virtue of that oppression. The problem is that’s not true. After all, Puddin’ Head Joe and Kamala Harris say equally stupid shit on the regular, regardless of the order in which they speak.

Although this is theoretical stuff, we shouldn’t judge intersectionality and progressive stack until we see it in action, right? Well, it works as well as you might expect, which is to say it doesn’t.

But you know what does work? A little thing called the Golden Rule. Treat everybody else like you would want to be treated. And unlike intersectionality (and the people who push it), it actually works. Give it a try, Leftists, and let me know what you think.

In the meantime, we need to remember not everyone who claims to be a victim is a victim. Yes, this means we have to do some digging and not just believe, but when you consider how the Left uses oppression as a bargaining chip, it’s worth it. In these matters, Ronald Reagan’s “Trust, but verify,” could be the best stance to take.

Well, aside from pointing and laughing at the Leftists pimping pain, that is.

Author: Thomas

I'm a writer and a ranger and a young boy bearing arms. And two out of the three don't count.