|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 19 2016 03:54 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2016 03:40 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2016 03:39 Nebuchad wrote:On November 19 2016 03:21 LegalLord wrote:On November 19 2016 03:15 Nebuchad wrote:
Meh, fair enough, there are people like that in the thread. I wouldn't have thought that was enough to be a SJW honestly.
Perhaps if you expand the meaning too much, the word will lose its meaning x) Turning every issue into identity politics poisons the discussion more than most anything else, possibly even more so than assuming the other candidate is corrupt. People generally blame Trump for the poisonous nature of political discourse this time around but on the matter of identity politics you can find no candidate more culpable for that poison than Hillary Clinton. All right, so let's not turn every issue into identity politics. What would you say are legitimate issues for identity politics? The one special case that I'd consider would be policies for helping out the black community. Pretty sure you also advocated identity politics for rural communities recently, wouldn't you say?
"Identity politics" refers to the Title VII classes (race, sex, religion, gender, etc). I wouldn't put rural interests into the same category.
|
It's not even identity politics, the key mark of an sjw is someone with a perceived notion of "justice" as a guise for anger and bitterness. A lot of the rhetoric is fueled by jealousy/envy and basically leads to a whole lot of complaining and no action. examples include man hating, hating white people, rich people etc. just look at that new Twitter ban for saying the exact same thing but replacing the word white and black. the message targeting blacks got banned, but not whites.
|
On November 19 2016 03:56 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2016 03:54 Nebuchad wrote:On November 19 2016 03:40 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2016 03:39 Nebuchad wrote:On November 19 2016 03:21 LegalLord wrote:On November 19 2016 03:15 Nebuchad wrote:
Meh, fair enough, there are people like that in the thread. I wouldn't have thought that was enough to be a SJW honestly.
Perhaps if you expand the meaning too much, the word will lose its meaning x) Turning every issue into identity politics poisons the discussion more than most anything else, possibly even more so than assuming the other candidate is corrupt. People generally blame Trump for the poisonous nature of political discourse this time around but on the matter of identity politics you can find no candidate more culpable for that poison than Hillary Clinton. All right, so let's not turn every issue into identity politics. What would you say are legitimate issues for identity politics? The one special case that I'd consider would be policies for helping out the black community. Pretty sure you also advocated identity politics for rural communities recently, wouldn't you say? "Identity politics" refers to the Title VII classes (race, sex, religion, gender, etc). I wouldn't put rural interests into the same category.
How convenient.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On November 19 2016 03:55 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2016 03:18 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2016 03:15 Mohdoo wrote:On November 19 2016 03:14 LegalLord wrote:
I blame Henry Kissinger not endorsing Clinton for her loss. As far as I'm concerned that's as valid a reason for her loss as sexism, Hitler, Darth Vader, Bernie Bros, Comey, Assange, the evil Russians, or racists. They all fail to accept that the candidate herself opened the door to this loss by being terrible.
I kind of want to make a joke about a perceived racist succeeding two black AGs ina row and being held up as someone who will clean up after them. But I can't imagine any such joke would be in good taste. In testimony before the committee, former colleagues said that Mr. Sessions had referred to the N.A.A.C.P., the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and other civil rights groups as “un-American” and “Communist-inspired.” An African-American federal prosecutor then, Thomas H. Figures, said Mr. Sessions had referred to him as “boy” and testified that Mr. Sessions said the Ku Klux Klan was fine “until I found out they smoked pot.” Mr. Sessions dismissed that remark as a joke. http://www.nytimes.com/?action=click&contentCollection=Politics®ion=TopBar&module=HomePage-Button&pgtype=article Southerners call everyone "boy." That's certainly not an epithet reserved for black people. They call everyone in a position lower in society than themselves boy. The implication by always calling black men boy is to explicitly clarify and reinforce their lower social standing. Basically you're trying to argue that southern culture isn't racist.
That's not really true. I have a ton of family in the south and consider myself more of a southerner than anything else regionally. And no, I'm not making an argument as to whether there's racism in the South. I'm only commenting on the usage of the word.
|
On November 19 2016 03:23 LegalLord wrote:
Just because you don't care about cultural decline doesn't mean others don't. As I've said, explaining this issue is like explaining to an uneducated person why college is important. Nevertheless, culture matters, even if you don't see that it does.
This is why I try to stay out of these discussions, because it's difficult for me to empathize when I can't understand why it matters to people.
|
This column is pretty spot-on on the "identity politics" debate. To a significant extent, the term has been used here and in the public debate by people complaining about positions, arguments and policies designed to help groups that are not specifically white men -- because apparently if those policies and arguments address issues faced by minority groups, they are to be dismissed as "identity politics" distracting from the "real" issues.
Obviously, this is not to say that white men should be ignored by policymakers, or that only policies and ideas helping minorities specifically should be developed and implemented. But it is clear from how the term "identity politics" has been used that it is frequently employed to dismiss and de-legitimize the addressing of issues and concerns faced specifically by minorities.
edit: with regards to the "SJW" discussion, I agree with Nebuchad. While I absolutely disagree with some of the positions taken by some activists and student groups with regards to the expression of contradictory views in an academic setting (this is a broad statement, obviously, which still requires case-by-case analysis), the term has largely been developed and used (including in this thread) to preemptively dismiss perfectly valid voices and arguments on issues of race, gender, religion, etc. -- simply because those voices happen to take positions that go beyond what some (usually reactionary) people are willing to accept as legitimate criticism on those issues.
|
On November 19 2016 04:00 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2016 03:23 LegalLord wrote:
Just because you don't care about cultural decline doesn't mean others don't. As I've said, explaining this issue is like explaining to an uneducated person why college is important. Nevertheless, culture matters, even if you don't see that it does. This is why I try to stay out of these discussions, because it's difficult for me to empathize when I can't understand why it matters to people.
And I'm not sure there is any way to explain why it does matter. I certainly don't know how to do it, at any rate.
|
On November 19 2016 03:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2016 03:55 Nevuk wrote:On November 19 2016 03:18 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2016 03:15 Mohdoo wrote:On November 19 2016 03:14 LegalLord wrote:
I blame Henry Kissinger not endorsing Clinton for her loss. As far as I'm concerned that's as valid a reason for her loss as sexism, Hitler, Darth Vader, Bernie Bros, Comey, Assange, the evil Russians, or racists. They all fail to accept that the candidate herself opened the door to this loss by being terrible.
I kind of want to make a joke about a perceived racist succeeding two black AGs ina row and being held up as someone who will clean up after them. But I can't imagine any such joke would be in good taste. In testimony before the committee, former colleagues said that Mr. Sessions had referred to the N.A.A.C.P., the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and other civil rights groups as “un-American” and “Communist-inspired.” An African-American federal prosecutor then, Thomas H. Figures, said Mr. Sessions had referred to him as “boy” and testified that Mr. Sessions said the Ku Klux Klan was fine “until I found out they smoked pot.” Mr. Sessions dismissed that remark as a joke. http://www.nytimes.com/?action=click&contentCollection=Politics®ion=TopBar&module=HomePage-Button&pgtype=article Southerners call everyone "boy." That's certainly not an epithet reserved for black people. They call everyone in a position lower in society than themselves boy. The implication by always calling black men boy is to explicitly clarify and reinforce their lower social standing. Basically you're trying to argue that southern culture isn't racist. That's not really true. I have a ton of family in the south and consider myself more of a southerner than anything else regionally. And no, I'm not making an argument as to whether there's racism in the South. I'm only commenting on the usage of the word.
It might vary depending on the state. I didn't say it was particularly illspirited, but for instance it is something people say about men younger than themselves pretty frequently, but no one in their right mind would call a judge boy. That's the impression I've gotten from living in KY and visiting SC a lot.
As a side note, I believe sessions that it was a joke about the KKK. It is pretty easy to see it rubbing people the wrong way though.
|
On November 19 2016 03:56 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2016 03:54 Nebuchad wrote:On November 19 2016 03:40 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2016 03:39 Nebuchad wrote:On November 19 2016 03:21 LegalLord wrote:On November 19 2016 03:15 Nebuchad wrote:
Meh, fair enough, there are people like that in the thread. I wouldn't have thought that was enough to be a SJW honestly.
Perhaps if you expand the meaning too much, the word will lose its meaning x) Turning every issue into identity politics poisons the discussion more than most anything else, possibly even more so than assuming the other candidate is corrupt. People generally blame Trump for the poisonous nature of political discourse this time around but on the matter of identity politics you can find no candidate more culpable for that poison than Hillary Clinton. All right, so let's not turn every issue into identity politics. What would you say are legitimate issues for identity politics? The one special case that I'd consider would be policies for helping out the black community. Pretty sure you also advocated identity politics for rural communities recently, wouldn't you say? "Identity politics" refers to the Title VII classes (race, sex, religion, gender, etc). I wouldn't put rural interests into the same category.
Is this another word with an american definition and a world definition?
|
Here's a really good interview of the new liberal bogeyman, Steve Bannon. This section jumped out at me for obvious reasons:
On that precise point, the New York Times, in a widely circulated article, will describe this day at Trump Tower as a scene of “disarray” for the transition team. In fact, it’s all hands on: Mike Pence, the vice president-elect and transition chief, and Reince Priebus, the new chief of staff, shuttling between full conference rooms; Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and by many accounts his closest advisor, conferring in the halls; Sen. Jeff Sessions in and out of meetings on the transition team floor; Rudy Giuliani upstairs with Trump (overheard: “Is the boss meeting-meeting with Rudy or just shooting the shit?”), and Bannon with a long line of men and women outside his corner office. If this is disarray, it’s a peculiarly focused and organized kind.
|
On November 19 2016 02:29 Doodsmack wrote:
And yes, alt right white nationalism is at the core of Trump's support, and perhaps policy, considering the position of Bannon. Bannon's stated world view is one of protecting the supremacy of Judeo-Christian culture.
Protecting the right to life, liberty and property, the non-agression principle, free speech, separation of church and state, equality against the law, due process and innocent until proven guilty, small government (or at least not HUGE government). Yes, those are the values many Trump supporters voted for. I like them as well, and consider them superior to other cultures.
It's about values, not race, by the way.
|
On November 19 2016 04:11 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2016 03:56 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2016 03:54 Nebuchad wrote:On November 19 2016 03:40 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2016 03:39 Nebuchad wrote:On November 19 2016 03:21 LegalLord wrote:On November 19 2016 03:15 Nebuchad wrote:
Meh, fair enough, there are people like that in the thread. I wouldn't have thought that was enough to be a SJW honestly.
Perhaps if you expand the meaning too much, the word will lose its meaning x) Turning every issue into identity politics poisons the discussion more than most anything else, possibly even more so than assuming the other candidate is corrupt. People generally blame Trump for the poisonous nature of political discourse this time around but on the matter of identity politics you can find no candidate more culpable for that poison than Hillary Clinton. All right, so let's not turn every issue into identity politics. What would you say are legitimate issues for identity politics? The one special case that I'd consider would be policies for helping out the black community. Pretty sure you also advocated identity politics for rural communities recently, wouldn't you say? "Identity politics" refers to the Title VII classes (race, sex, religion, gender, etc). I wouldn't put rural interests into the same category. Is this another word with an american definition and a world definition?
Title VII is the major federal anti-discrimination statute in the US that protects people on the basis of things like race, sex, color, religion, and national origin. So really what I'm saying is that "identity politics" is the appeal/pandering to people on the basis of their identity -- race, sex, religion, and sexual orientation -- as opposed to catering to economic interest groups like unions or farmers.
|
The identity politics debate basically has gained prominence since control of the institutions has turned around. Decades ago racists love to use identity politics because they were in control of institutions and thus had a grip on it, nowadays identity is seen as a tool of empowerment for minorities and racists have figured out that the marketplace of ideas and some kind of pseudo-egalitarianism is a way better tool to discriminate. Kind of how leaking tons of bullshit has become a better method of censorship than withholding information. Nothing really has changed, it's just that places have been swapped.
|
On November 19 2016 04:15 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2016 04:11 Nebuchad wrote:On November 19 2016 03:56 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2016 03:54 Nebuchad wrote:On November 19 2016 03:40 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2016 03:39 Nebuchad wrote:On November 19 2016 03:21 LegalLord wrote:On November 19 2016 03:15 Nebuchad wrote:
Meh, fair enough, there are people like that in the thread. I wouldn't have thought that was enough to be a SJW honestly.
Perhaps if you expand the meaning too much, the word will lose its meaning x) Turning every issue into identity politics poisons the discussion more than most anything else, possibly even more so than assuming the other candidate is corrupt. People generally blame Trump for the poisonous nature of political discourse this time around but on the matter of identity politics you can find no candidate more culpable for that poison than Hillary Clinton. All right, so let's not turn every issue into identity politics. What would you say are legitimate issues for identity politics? The one special case that I'd consider would be policies for helping out the black community. Pretty sure you also advocated identity politics for rural communities recently, wouldn't you say? "Identity politics" refers to the Title VII classes (race, sex, religion, gender, etc). I wouldn't put rural interests into the same category. Is this another word with an american definition and a world definition? Title VII is the major federal anti-discrimination statute in the US that protects people on the basis of things like race, sex, color, religion, and national origin. So really what I'm saying is that "identity politics" is the appeal/pandering to people on the basis of their identity -- race, sex, religion, and sexual orientation -- as opposed to catering to economic interest groups like unions or farmers.
I got your position but I've seen it used in a broader context fairly commonly, so I'm wondering if that's an american vs world thing, cause that's happened before. I just googled it and found wikipedia is on my side (for what it's worth).
|
Take a look at this Bannon quote from the interview that I cited earlier:
He absolutely — mockingly — rejects the idea that this is a racial line. “I’m not a white nationalist, I’m a nationalist. I’m an economic nationalist,” he tells me. “The globalists gutted the American working class and created a middle class in Asia. The issue now is about Americans looking to not get f—ed over. If we deliver—” by "we" he means the Trump White House "—we’ll get 60 percent of the white vote, and 40 percent of the black and Hispanic vote and we’ll govern for 50 years. That’s what the Democrats missed, they were talking to these people with companies with a $9 billion market cap employing nine people. It’s not reality. They lost sight of what the world is about.”
In a nascent administration that seems, at best, random in its beliefs, Bannon can seem to be not just a focused voice, but almost a messianic one:
“Like [Andrew] Jackson’s populism, we’re going to build an entirely new political movement,” he says. “It’s everything related to jobs. The conservatives are going to go crazy. I’m the guy pushing a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan. With negative interest rates throughout the world, it’s the greatest opportunity to rebuild everything. Ship yards, iron works, get them all jacked up. We’re just going to throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks. It will be as exciting as the 1930s, greater than the Reagan revolution — conservatives, plus populists, in an economic nationalist movement.”
....
“I am,” he says, with relish, “Thomas Cromwell in the court of the Tudors.”
|
On November 19 2016 04:18 Nyxisto wrote:
The identity politics debate basically has gained prominence since control of the institutions has turned around. Decades ago racists love to use identity politics because they were in control of institutions and thus had a grip on it, nowadays identity is seen as a tool of empowerment for minorities and racists have figured out that the marketplace of ideas and some kind of pseudo-egalitarianism is a way better tool to discriminate. Kind of how leaking tons of bullshit has become a better method of censorship than withholding information. Nothing really has changed, it's just that places have been swapped.
this is somewhat reminiscent of how "states rights" was sometimes used in back in the 50s.
Plenty of people on the right (and left and all over) use what one might well consider identity politics, but it's not acceptable these days to have pro-white/male identity politics (for justifiable historical reasons), so those doing it use another cover.
So there's a mix of people, some who're using it as a cover for racism (usually still a far midler form of racism than that existed historically), and those who're using it for the stated cover reasons (which take on a life of their own, and were after all chosen because they have some validity, so some take them just for that).
This leads to confusion for others cuz it's very hard to tell which people are doing it for the decent reasons and which are doing it for the bad ones.
Generalized accusations of identity politics, while perhaps sometimes justified, are seldom productive, it'd be far better to focus on what the actual specific policies are and go over those.
|
On November 19 2016 04:27 xDaunt wrote:Take a look at this Bannon quote from the interview that I cited earlier: Show nested quote +He absolutely — mockingly — rejects the idea that this is a racial line. “I’m not a white nationalist, I’m a nationalist. I’m an economic nationalist,” he tells me. “The globalists gutted the American working class and created a middle class in Asia. The issue now is about Americans looking to not get f—ed over. If we deliver—” by "we" he means the Trump White House "—we’ll get 60 percent of the white vote, and 40 percent of the black and Hispanic vote and we’ll govern for 50 years. That’s what the Democrats missed, they were talking to these people with companies with a $9 billion market cap employing nine people. It’s not reality. They lost sight of what the world is about.”
In a nascent administration that seems, at best, random in its beliefs, Bannon can seem to be not just a focused voice, but almost a messianic one:
“Like [Andrew] Jackson’s populism, we’re going to build an entirely new political movement,” he says. “It’s everything related to jobs. The conservatives are going to go crazy. I’m the guy pushing a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan. With negative interest rates throughout the world, it’s the greatest opportunity to rebuild everything. Ship yards, iron works, get them all jacked up. We’re just going to throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks. It will be as exciting as the 1930s, greater than the Reagan revolution — conservatives, plus populists, in an economic nationalist movement.”
....
“I am,” he says, with relish, “Thomas Cromwell in the court of the Tudors.”
His Vatican speech was not just about economic nationalism, it was very much about Judeo-Christian culture. He's not being up front here.
|
On November 19 2016 04:47 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2016 04:27 xDaunt wrote:Take a look at this Bannon quote from the interview that I cited earlier: He absolutely — mockingly — rejects the idea that this is a racial line. “I’m not a white nationalist, I’m a nationalist. I’m an economic nationalist,” he tells me. “The globalists gutted the American working class and created a middle class in Asia. The issue now is about Americans looking to not get f—ed over. If we deliver—” by "we" he means the Trump White House "—we’ll get 60 percent of the white vote, and 40 percent of the black and Hispanic vote and we’ll govern for 50 years. That’s what the Democrats missed, they were talking to these people with companies with a $9 billion market cap employing nine people. It’s not reality. They lost sight of what the world is about.”
In a nascent administration that seems, at best, random in its beliefs, Bannon can seem to be not just a focused voice, but almost a messianic one:
“Like [Andrew] Jackson’s populism, we’re going to build an entirely new political movement,” he says. “It’s everything related to jobs. The conservatives are going to go crazy. I’m the guy pushing a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan. With negative interest rates throughout the world, it’s the greatest opportunity to rebuild everything. Ship yards, iron works, get them all jacked up. We’re just going to throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks. It will be as exciting as the 1930s, greater than the Reagan revolution — conservatives, plus populists, in an economic nationalist movement.”
....
“I am,” he says, with relish, “Thomas Cromwell in the court of the Tudors.” His Vatican speech was not just about economic nationalism, it was very much about Judeo-Christian culture. He's not being up front here.
Your mistake is in thinking that the two are mutually exclusive and in failing to appreciate why he might give a different emphasis at the Vatican than he would elsewhere.
|
|
|
On November 19 2016 04:49 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2016 04:47 Doodsmack wrote:On November 19 2016 04:27 xDaunt wrote:Take a look at this Bannon quote from the interview that I cited earlier: He absolutely — mockingly — rejects the idea that this is a racial line. “I’m not a white nationalist, I’m a nationalist. I’m an economic nationalist,” he tells me. “The globalists gutted the American working class and created a middle class in Asia. The issue now is about Americans looking to not get f—ed over. If we deliver—” by "we" he means the Trump White House "—we’ll get 60 percent of the white vote, and 40 percent of the black and Hispanic vote and we’ll govern for 50 years. That’s what the Democrats missed, they were talking to these people with companies with a $9 billion market cap employing nine people. It’s not reality. They lost sight of what the world is about.”
In a nascent administration that seems, at best, random in its beliefs, Bannon can seem to be not just a focused voice, but almost a messianic one:
“Like [Andrew] Jackson’s populism, we’re going to build an entirely new political movement,” he says. “It’s everything related to jobs. The conservatives are going to go crazy. I’m the guy pushing a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan. With negative interest rates throughout the world, it’s the greatest opportunity to rebuild everything. Ship yards, iron works, get them all jacked up. We’re just going to throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks. It will be as exciting as the 1930s, greater than the Reagan revolution — conservatives, plus populists, in an economic nationalist movement.”
....
“I am,” he says, with relish, “Thomas Cromwell in the court of the Tudors.” His Vatican speech was not just about economic nationalism, it was very much about Judeo-Christian culture. He's not being up front here. Your mistake is in thinking that the two are mutually exclusive and in failing to appreciate why he might give a different emphasis at the Vatican than he would elsewhere.
I'm saying they aren't mutually exclusive, they're all tied up, and it doesn't make sense for him to say only one applies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
