Comment by setr

> The jump you referring to is a quote with a reference attached

I mean, your first complaint was asking the question instead of hunting down the about-me; your second complaint is that I need to recursively resolve all references before querying. At what point is it more reasonable to… simply ask? Or expect that a body of text is roughly self-contained, despite the infinite array of information that could have informed that body of text?

FWIW I googled it and found nothing to explain this. It’s not even clear to me that Ahmed engages in this behavior herself, of inverting the “intersection” from nexus between relating subjects, into a giant umbrella term called feminism

To preempt your next request, I’m not buying/reading the book(s).

> anarchism, so like yeah it wouldn't necessarily be a leap to extrapolate that and plenty of people do

The part I find to be a jump is to subsume it under feminism. The study of slavery and labor inequality can help to inform feminism is reasonable;

the study of slavery and labor inquality help to inform feminism, therefore they’re are really the same thing and feminism refers to both is a wild reasoning. It appears to be pure scope creep.

The basic logic seems to be: a relationship exists, therefore it is feminism. And I don’t see why such a definition won’t eventually consume all information ala 6 degrees.