Barring for a moment that we at bell end of a 5 century racially genocidal and gendercidal dual process of Europeanization and the Matthew principle eating the world as much as the real, today we have out and about many card-carrying intersectionality gatekeepers who will remind you that your analysis “lacks intersectionality” when you mention that black men, as members of the black community, struggle within a context of structural vulnerability. Think about that for a moment, because what I should have as my point here should be plain, assuming you’ve actually read Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, Patricia Hill Collins, etc. Black people, particularly Black men, will constantly be portrayed as “weird” or “obsessed” or “dying on a hill” if they actually uphold the dual perspective of class-relation, capital-relation and racial relation, not to mention that the colonial-relation is sui generis, particularly of those who are the offshoot of miscegenation between white Europeans, indigenous Americans and African slaves, now obscured and mashed up into the nebulous term “American”. Was Crenshaw “weird” and “obsessed” to report on the structural vulnerability that made Black Americans withdraw from political action that would bring greater scrutiny on their communities? By doing this, were they “giving power” to Black men, thus condoning those actions of domestic violence, rape and various other atrocities? The term “Black-on-Black crime” has become wildly popular in the Intellectual Dark Web, if it’s any indication that now Blackness has become complicit in its own destruction, so the narrative goes. Is criticizing “maleness” and “masculinity” a-culturally and a-structurally, as if masculinity were an essence, justifiable today even if on pain of effectively “whiting out” the Blackness of Black men? Are Black men just the white women and white men of Black people? Is to look at someone’s behavior without cultural and structural as a factor in analysis a “legitimate” form of intersectionality, because atomistic, individual-to-individual personal intersections are the ground floor of the conceptual framework of intersectionality? We could simply decide for ourselves, perhaps, and at the same time François Laruelle confides that as far as ethics goes, which includes that which is excluded at all levels, opposite politics, we are all victims; this is the starting point of his ethics on generic humanity: no one is illegal. But are the people, particularly white people, who gatekeep intersectionality theory, something not crafted by a Frenchmen but rather a Black woman, prepared to commit themselves to the full implications of the kind of marrying of individualism and collectivism, or let’s say: individuality and collectivity. You can hear their silence immediately when you cite Crenshaw as pointing to the behavior of Black communities who self-regulate, self-govern, etc. according to their own shared understanding about how they are always-already stereotyped and pathologized. And again: is this conferring power to Black men, legitimating and ordaining their recreations of the cycle of violence? One gatekeeper would come down on me that I am justifying Black men’s violence, of all graphic natures and heinousness, merely by mentioning this political event, as someone “dreaming up problems about nothing real”, had I not had Crenshaw’s reporting. And when does the titular question even actually effect anything more than mere vibrations in the air? It’s certainly mentioned, as people parrot it, thinking that being able to produce strings of words and sounds is necessary and sufficient for expressing moral content. If the gatekeepers of intersectionality have not even adequately familiarized themselves with the literature so as to make effective dialogue possible, why should we ever think that any of their claims on sexual racism and sexual violence actually possibilize “respect for the victims” if their exclusions are based on nothing consistent with the doctrines to which they feign to represent? Is feeling moral necessary and sufficient for being moral, irrespective to the viable probabilistic or propositional contents of propositional attitudes? How can you judge a community from the presumption of the culture of individualism and at the same time use the concepts of Black authors whom would confound that individualist decisional matrix? Yet is it also a universalism that enables this atomistic, individualistic ethics? Whichever you decide, should you be a gatekeeper, you have a decision to make or withdraw from: no one is illegal or asking the other question, neither of which are synonymous with whataboutism. But I give you too much credit: you haven’t done the reading, but you also want to cite Black authors whom confound your own analyses, if you were to attend to them all, as if that suffices for making moral judgments.