what are "identity politics" and why do they make you so angry?

ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Aren't identity politics just groups of people who agree on a course of action or policies and come together to get their issues addressed? How is that different from unions or the Sierra Club? What Paddy is saying and I thought you too, was that we have to abandon "identity politics" for some greater good like better conditions for all workers? It is not true that people who are black will do better when all worker's conditions are better. And so, there is a need for special interest groups to make the whole initiative better.
Click to expand...
Ok, so it seems that the way to victory in bigger issues is to clearly show how supporting those issues helps each smaller identity group.

Still needs a lot of organization, though. Labor unions were spotty in their support for homeowners in that last economic meltdown- and their thanks was the loss of right to work laws in several US States when those who were thrown out of their homes didn't really care if unions kept their protections.

If we Progressives are going to make any headway, we need to circle the wagons and fight together whenever any identity group is attacked.

How to do that?
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Where in this passage does Sanders say "they need to get over it"

I don't read that in this passage from Sanders at all.
Click to expand...
He doesn't... That was sarcasm. I thought the following quotes where he explained as much were obvious enough to pick that up, especially given the added bolded emphasis..
Fogdog said:
What he actually said was "move beyond"
Click to expand...
That's the same thing I've said, scarecrow

"This nation will not be free until all of us are free" -JFK
 
heckler73

heckler73

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Aren't identity politics just groups of people who agree on a course of action or policies and come together to get their issues addressed? How is that different from unions or the Sierra Club?
Click to expand...
Voting blindly in support of policies because of identity leads to problems because it operates under an assumption all individual needs are equal within that class/group/identity.

The irony (as pointed out by Peterson in that video I posted earlier) is the natural conclusion that comes from the process of whittling down these identifiers to the level of the individual, which is "what should be done" and has in fact been done by Western civilization--especially via the focus on capitalism and markets as the 'metronome' of society. It just brings us back around to where we were in the first place; macro-ideologies (i.e. parties) and homo economicus.

Perhaps another way to analogize it is by looking at how a Parliament with 15+ disparate parties in their House, trying to enact legislation, falter more often than not because of the extreme difficulty in maintaining alliances that will please everyone involved without need for compromise of fundamental ideals. Meanwhile, a Nation with a handful of parties or less will have several episodes of majority rule, where policies can be brought into existence with little or no concern outside of needing to listen to some complaints from the opposition members for a few days at most (or the wrath of the populace in the worst case). The implication being less does more, with positive benefit for all, at least 50% of the time. ;) What's the magic number for governance of a Nation-State? Perhaps Ramsey Theory and the "dinner party problem" can shed light on that...but that's an extra-curricular topic.

Is there a need for some identity recognition in politics? Of course! Women's Rights, for example, aren't superfluous...that is an exceptionally broad 'group' with high inclusivity, and that's the rub. It is when the group becomes predominately exclusive--due to hyper-fracturing of identity with a diminishing pool of supporters to garner strength from--that polarization and victimhood games arise, excessively. How those games are played out can be detrimental or beneficial to the Greater Good. However, my observations over the past decade of seeing this hyperbolic SJW phenomenon cumulatively play out, where someone like Captain Cancuck True-doh can be a feminist and theological apologist one day, then hypocritically walk into a mosque and not bat a single eyelash in a selfie over the fact he is condoning the relegation of women to something less than what they were 100+ years ago, tells me it tends to do more harm than not. At the very least, it creates a picture of society (and its respective political structure) which looks like a confusingly arranged Venn diagram. At the median, it creates a highly stratified collection of haves and have-nots, merely by over-extension of resources. Not every cause can be satisfied especially if they have antithetical groups equally parlaying for influence; it's logically impossible. At the extreme? "Punch-A-Nazi"...

The crux of the biscuit, though, is not new. It is a manifestation of the tug-of-war between Universalism (i.e. Human Rights) and Cultural Relativism. It's just an updated version, spiced-up for the Internet generation with more NPCs and better AI.

I suspect, in the sense of a scenario with positive development, an 'identity group' needs to satisfy a certain quantity of points within the broader definition of Human Rights before it can (or should) be viable for address by Government. Otherwise, it is technically fringe and--like specialized charities--needs to seek assistance directly from the general public, instead. For the sake of a simple cartoon, think "death by a thousand cuts"; that is the ramification of dominant focus on "identity politics" in the grand scheme.

Do you give two people $100 to split while neglecting the other 98 because they aren't "special", or do you give everyone $1 "to be fair"? Either way, there is going to be some grievance.
One who seeks to fully satisfy every man, will find it increasingly difficult to satisfy the Self.

And now for something completely different, but totally related.

 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
He doesn't... That was sarcasm. I thought the following quotes where he explained as much were obvious enough to pick that up, especially given the added bolded emphasis..
That's the same thing I've said, scarecrow

"This nation will not be free until all of us are free" -JFK
Click to expand...
nope. To get over something is to accept it and suck it up.

To move on is to go beyond the issue. To keep moving. This is not the same as acceptance.

“But it’s not good enough to say, “Hey, I’m a Latina, vote for me.” That is not good enough. I have to know whether that Latina is going to stand up with the working class of this country, and is going to take on big money interests.” -Bernie Sanders

Bernie didn't counsel candidate Latina to get over it. He said she had to do more than expect votes because she was Latina. He said she had to stand up for the working class, and take on big money. Nowhere does he say she should just ignore her group's politics. Is there a conflict in the need to support all three issues?

The strawman in Sanders argument is where he is saying a candidate would run on the position "I'm Latina, vote for me." Nobody does that..
 
Last edited:
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
heckler73 said:
Voting blindly in support of policies because of identity leads to problems ...Western civilization...victimhood games ... this hyperbolic SJW phenomenon...Captain Cancuck True-doh can be a feminist and theological apologist one day, then hypocritically walk into a mosque and not bat a single eyelash in a selfie...At the extreme? "Punch-A-Nazi"...
Click to expand...
you type a lot of words to try to hide your naked bigotry, white supremacist.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
heckler73 said:
Voting blindly in support of policies because of identity leads to problems because it operates under an assumption all individual needs are equal within that class/group/identity.

The irony (as pointed out by Peterson in that video I posted earlier) is the natural conclusion that comes from the process of whittling down these identifiers to the level of the individual, which is "what should be done" and has in fact been done by Western civilization--especially via the focus on capitalism and markets as the 'metronome' of society. It just brings us back around to where we were in the first place; macro-ideologies (i.e. parties) and homo economicus.

Perhaps another way to analogize it is by looking at how a Parliament with 15+ disparate parties in their House, trying to enact legislation, falter more often than not because of the extreme difficulty in maintaining alliances that will please everyone involved without need for compromise of fundamental ideals. Meanwhile, a Nation with a handful of parties or less will have several episodes of majority rule, where policies can be brought into existence with little or no concern outside of needing to listen to some complaints from the opposition members for a few days at most (or the wrath of the populace in the worst case). The implication being less does more, with positive benefit for all, at least 50% of the time. ;) What's the magic number for governance of a Nation-State? Perhaps Ramsey Theory and the "dinner party problem" can shed light on that...but that's an extra-curricular topic.

Is there a need for some identity recognition in politics? Of course! Women's Rights, for example, aren't superfluous...that is an exceptionally broad 'group' with high inclusivity, and that's the rub. It is when the group becomes predominately exclusive--due to hyper-fracturing of identity with a diminishing pool of supporters to garner strength from--that polarization and victimhood games arise, excessively. How those games are played out can be detrimental or beneficial to the Greater Good. However, my observations over the past decade of seeing this hyperbolic SJW phenomenon cumulatively play out, where someone like Captain Cancuck True-doh can be a feminist and theological apologist one day, then hypocritically walk into a mosque and not bat a single eyelash in a selfie over the fact he is condoning the relegation of women to something less than what they were 100+ years ago, tells me it tends to do more harm than not. At the very least, it creates a picture of society (and its respective political structure) which looks like a confusingly arranged Venn diagram. At the median, it creates a highly stratified collection of haves and have-nots, merely by over-extension of resources. Not every cause can be satisfied especially if they have antithetical groups equally parlaying for influence; it's logically impossible. At the extreme? "Punch-A-Nazi"...

The crux of the biscuit, though, is not new. It is a manifestation of the tug-of-war between Universalism (i.e. Human Rights) and Cultural Relativism. It's just an updated version, spiced-up for the Internet generation with more NPCs and better AI.

I suspect, in the sense of a scenario with positive development, an 'identity group' needs to satisfy a certain quantity of points within the broader definition of Human Rights before it can (or should) be viable for address by Government. Otherwise, it is technically fringe and--like specialized charities--needs to seek assistance directly from the general public, instead. For the sake of a simple cartoon, think "death by a thousand cuts"; that is the ramification of dominant focus on "identity politics" in the grand scheme.

Do you give two people $100 to split while neglecting the other 98 because they aren't "special", or do you give everyone $1 "to be fair"? Either way, there is going to be some grievance.
One who seeks to fully satisfy every man, will find it increasingly difficult to satisfy the Self.

And now for something completely different, but totally related.

Click to expand...
yep, the video was completely different. Not totally related but OK, I'll go there with you. This thread pertains to US politics, not the imposition by the UN through the Universal Human Rights Declaration to stop genital mutilation in a few countries in Africa. Which, by the way, is forced upon women at an early age. It's hard to understand why anybody should be concerned about the men and older women who want to do that to the child before she is able to understand. Why not wait until the child is old enough to decide for herself? The answer is obvious, of course. Few women would opt for that by choice. The practice would die out in a generation if it were delayed until the child reaches the age of consent and is allowed to decide for herself. So, when bringing up the topic of cultural relativism, I would ask, relative to who?

What some liberals, @Padawanbater2 for instance have interpreted Sanders as saying is: groups of people must set aside their own issues for the greater good of "the working class" and "finance reform". This is an old line that has been repeated to minority groups for a century or more. It's more like "wait for your turn". And after nothing improves -- for instance, African Americans continue to be disqualified for home loans when white Americans with same finances qualify,-- they are told to "get over it". The historical lesson is that the majority doesn't really care until the minority makes their voices heard, usually through protest or obstruction, sometimes through violence. I've heard elders in my family say of the 1960's, "we didn't have a problem with black people until they started protesting". Sounds very familiar to what Paddy says.

What Sanders said echoes a really vile history in the US regarding the treatment of minorities. Can anybody say racism is over? No wonder he lost the southern black vote. That said, I don't think Sanders really said "get over it", I think he said "don't run solely on the politics of (fill in the blank), but run on wider issues too. Pretty obvious advice. Something one can expect from one's grandfather. :roll:

The US is a better place today than before civil rights legislation. By that law, everybody has equal rights to pursue the life they want to live. This is a practical and legal matter and not one of relativism.
 
Last edited:
F

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
yep, the video was completely different. Not totally related but OK, I'll go there with you. This thread pertains to US politics, not the imposition by the UN through the Universal Human Rights Declaration to stop genital mutilation in a few countries in Africa. Which, by the way, is forced upon women at an early age and it's hard to understand why anybody should be concerned about the men and older women who want to do that to the child before she is able to understand what they want to do. Why not wait until the child is old enough to decide for herself? The answer is obvious, of course. Few women would opt for that by choice. The practice would die out in a generation if it were delayed until the child reaches the age of consent and is allowed to decide for herself. So, when bringing up the topic of cultural relativism, I would ask, relative to who?

What some liberals, @Padawanbater2 for instance have interpreted Sanders as saying is: groups of people must set aside their own issues for the greater good of "the working class" and "finance reform". This is an old line that has been repeated to minority groups for a century or more. It's more like "wait for your turn". And after nothing improves -- for instance, African Americans continue to be disqualified for home loans when white Americans with same finances qualify,-- they are told to "get over it". The historical lesson is that the majority doesn't really care until the minority makes their voices heard, usually through protest or obstruction, sometimes through violence. I've heard elders in my family say of the 1960's, "we didn't have a problem with black people until they started protesting". Sounds very familiar to what Paddy says.

What Sanders said echoes a really vile history in the US regarding the treatment of minorities. Can anybody say racism is over? No wonder he lost the southern black vote. That said, I don't think Sanders really said "get over it", I think he said "don't run solely on the politics of (fill in the blank), but run on wider issues too. Pretty obvious advice. Something one can expect from one's grandfather. :roll:

The US is a better place today than before civil rights legislation. By that law, everybody has equal rights to pursue the life they want to live. This is a practical and legal matter and not one of relativism.
Click to expand...

Paid by the word.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
yep, the video was completely different. Not totally related but OK, I'll go there with you. This thread pertains to US politics, not the imposition by the UN through the Universal Human Rights Declaration to stop genital mutilation in a few countries in Africa. Which, by the way, is forced upon women at an early age. It's hard to understand why anybody should be concerned about the men and older women who want to do that to the child before she is able to understand. Why not wait until the child is old enough to decide for herself? The answer is obvious, of course. Few women would opt for that by choice. The practice would die out in a generation if it were delayed until the child reaches the age of consent and is allowed to decide for herself. So, when bringing up the topic of cultural relativism, I would ask, relative to who?

What some liberals, @Padawanbater2 for instance have interpreted Sanders as saying is: groups of people must set aside their own issues for the greater good of "the working class" and "finance reform". This is an old line that has been repeated to minority groups for a century or more. It's more like "wait for your turn". And after nothing improves -- for instance, African Americans continue to be disqualified for home loans when white Americans with same finances qualify,-- they are told to "get over it". The historical lesson is that the majority doesn't really care until the minority makes their voices heard, usually through protest or obstruction, sometimes through violence. I've heard elders in my family say of the 1960's, "we didn't have a problem with black people until they started protesting". Sounds very familiar to what Paddy says.

What Sanders said echoes a really vile history in the US regarding the treatment of minorities. Can anybody say racism is over? No wonder he lost the southern black vote. That said, I don't think Sanders really said "get over it", I think he said "don't run solely on the politics of (fill in the blank), but run on wider issues too. Pretty obvious advice. Something one can expect from one's grandfather. :roll:

The US is a better place today than before civil rights legislation. By that law, everybody has equal rights to pursue the life they want to live. This is a practical and legal matter and not one of relativism.
Click to expand...
This conversation has very much helped me coalesce my views.

It also provide insight into why Bernie didn't connect with large groups of people.

That said, it will still take many of those large groups to effect real or lasting change in this country.

Coalitions of identity groups are the power centers of the future.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
This conversation has very much helped me coalesce my views.

It also provide insight into why Bernie didn't connect with large groups of people.

That said, it will still take many of those large groups to effect real or lasting change in this country.

Coalitions of identity groups are the power centers of the future.
Click to expand...
Interesting conclusion.

I too see coalition as better than monolith both for political parties and for governance.

It's a lot of work to govern this way. And frustrating when a necessary objective needs cooperation to be achieved. @heckler73 's analogy of death by thousand cuts is relevant. On the other hand, the constitution was designed to give protections of minorities from the many. For good reasons.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Interesting conclusion.

I too see coalition as better than monolith both for political parties and for governance.

It's a lot of work to govern this way. And frustrating when a necessary objective needs cooperation to be achieved. @heckler73 's analogy of death by thousand cuts is relevant. On the other hand, the constitution was designed to give protections of minorities from the many. For good reasons.
Click to expand...
The Senate leadership's 'nuclear option' vs Democratic objections to their choice for Supreme Court confirmation is a hatchet chop at the roots of minority protection from tyrannical rule by the majority du jour.

This plays right into the hands of corporatist politicians and the ultrawealthy minority they represent.

The Democratic Party is still utterly tone deaf to the very people they've taken for granted as core constituents for decades, and I believe this is absolutely a consequence of leadership who feels more more beholden to their financial backers than the 'little people'.

Someone will turn the tide, and they'll do it by appealing to the needs of the vast majority of people in this country who are underrepresented. Bernie came tantalizingly close and shows the way forward.

How soon this will happen is another conversation. At the moment, the Democratic leadership simply isn't listening.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top