Exh Inteeieo ggogfo

Intersectionality was originally in line with Marxist beliefs and was non Liberal 2.0, but it was ripped away from it over time and the ideology was co-opted by Liberal 2.0ers. I support the original non Liberal 2.0 type of Intersectionality 

Intersectional liberation of women and minorities that was already part of the socialist corpus of theory over a hundred and more years ago. This type of old school, non Liberal 2.0 Intersectionalism was in those dusty old books where it was clearly accounted for. For example, Vladimir Lenin in his works wrote not only about women but also he wrote about national minorities who were in Russia.

The truth is that coalition building that I support has existed consistently for many thousand years is fully ignored. To echo the Old Left ‘s example that these guys are so intent to denounce, that kind of multiracial, cross-gender support was a critical part of their ideology . This is also non Liberal 2.0 Intersectionality

Like there was Russian Slavs who worked closely with Latinos in Cuba and in other parts of Latin America, these Cubans sent military aid to the Angolan blacks who were fighting against European colonialism, with the Chinese fighting on the other side of the world aiding in revolutions across diverse Asian populations, at the same time that women were introduced to more equality that was oftentimes not matched by the West. So that is the type of Intersectionality which is non Liberal 2.0

When used in this context Intersectionality is non Liberal 2.0 and I support it

Um, actually I do support (and am at one with) at least one particular intersectional group space: non binary climate change activists of color  (shhhhhh...don't tell anyone about this, it is our secret)  . I support Transgender pride. So that is non Liberal 2.0 Intersectionality

I support FLINTA  even though it is a mixed bag. FLINTA is non Liberal 2.0 Here I talk about its relative positives since I support it:

FLINTA helps EVERYONE who is marginalized by patriarchal society

FLINTA is for anyone who's not a cis guy, in most cases,. so it makes sense to use it in a number contexts, in other contexts you would have LGBTQIA+ spaces (LGBTQIA+ spaces includes gay and bi cis men,) other times you would have womens spaces (womens spaces includes both cis and trans women,) sometimes you would have mens spaces (mens spaces includes both cis and trans men,) etc. It's just another space in the arsenal of classifying spaces for discussion , meetings and what have you, and I haven't seen the equivalent in english.

So originally Intersectionality was specifically used to describe the experience of African American women, whose experience of racism during the 1980s was different from African American men, and whose experience of misogyny was different than white women’s experience of misogyny . Through “adding those experiences together” it was clear it didn’t make sense to accurately describe their experiences. So that type of 'Intersectionality' is also non Liberal 2.0

The common enemy is and should be capitalism so that type of Intersectionality is non Liberal 2.0.  

Understanding class struggle to be a fundamentally different sort of thing that identity-based struggle (the former seeks to abolish the antagonism, whereas the point of the latter is reconciliation) is non Liberal 2.0 intersectionality also

More non Liberal 2.0 Intersectionality: Though I do see some positives in Intersectionality. Intersectionality shows how people shouldn’t be neatly categorized by only broad labels like race-ethnicity, sexual orientation, sex/gender, religion since a lot of people have unique intersects of identities/modifers thus making Intersectionality individualistic in a way since the more identities/modifers someone has the more unique and thus individualistic they are

Intersectionality shows how these unique mixes of identifies/modifers shows that there are even more diversity in the world due to these mixes of identifies/modifers which also makes it harder for haters to neatly define intersectional people to be bigoted toward since if they can’t neatly or broadly define them they can’t be bigoted toward them

This can help us transition to a post categorizing/labeling society where there will be no need for categorizing/labeling.

I support Men’s Liberation (though I feel that Mens rights are counter-revolutionary, men are not oppressed in regards due to their gender except as noted below and in the screenshot meme section).

I generally believe that Male Patriarchy/Patriarchy is at least somewhat culturally pervasive (to put it mildly, understatement of the century) and it has a negative effect on everyone, and negatively effects women more than men. Gender stereotypes harm BOTH men and women.

We need more civil liberties and gender equality. The patriarchy is still unfortunately a factor and has claimed many victims (mostly women). Gender roles suck. We must defeat the patriarchy 

The patriarchy might (big might) be enforced by women too (at least slightly see below) so the concept of a male patriarchy/patriarchy is not as simple as a oppressor-oppressed dynamic.

Patriarchy misses the point that there is equal vulnerability of average men and that our Patriarchal system excludes men who don’t conform to traditional gender roles. 

As much as I am no fan of intersectionality, it has its uses in this area and when used in this area that type of Intersectionality is non Liberal 2.0. Complicating the patriarchy idea is that Transgender men and gay men are more likely to defy the gendered patriarchal expectations which sadly harm them for daring to be  different in this boring vanilla world, which gives them unique outlooks on this.