|
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 December 03 2016 04:31 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2016 04:26 Ayaz2810 wrote:On December 03 2016 04:01 ticklishmusic wrote:
"identity politics" is a way to make civil rights sound like some sort of a bad thing. Literally logged in to say that im so fucking sick of the term "identity politics", and this is the first post im faced with. Thanks internet. oh what a difficult life you must lead. must be almost bad as ivanka's. Show nested quote +On December 03 2016 04:29 LegalLord wrote:On December 03 2016 04:01 ticklishmusic wrote:
"identity politics" is a way to make civil rights sound like some sort of a bad thing. Or a way to say that "women go to hell if they don't vote for Hillary Clinton" and "I'm the first woman running for president and that's why you should vote for me" and "anyone who opposes our team is a racist sexist xenophobe" really isn't ok. pointing to the extremes, which i have noted that i disagree with numerous times, to discredit the fact there are very real problems facing minorities, LGBT people and so forth is a very disingenuous argument.
Did you watch the DNC, identity politics was the name of the game. Not the economy, not immigration, barely any mention of terrorism and chaos of middle east but just "she's a woman, cares about minorities, and immigrants and isn't donald trump." This message continued well beyond the DNC as well. Oh and let's not forget Obama's "I will consider it an insult if black people don't show up and vote for hrc"
|
On December 03 2016 05:48 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2016 04:31 ticklishmusic wrote:On December 03 2016 04:26 Ayaz2810 wrote:On December 03 2016 04:01 ticklishmusic wrote:
"identity politics" is a way to make civil rights sound like some sort of a bad thing. Literally logged in to say that im so fucking sick of the term "identity politics", and this is the first post im faced with. Thanks internet. oh what a difficult life you must lead. must be almost bad as ivanka's. On December 03 2016 04:29 LegalLord wrote:On December 03 2016 04:01 ticklishmusic wrote:
"identity politics" is a way to make civil rights sound like some sort of a bad thing. Or a way to say that "women go to hell if they don't vote for Hillary Clinton" and "I'm the first woman running for president and that's why you should vote for me" and "anyone who opposes our team is a racist sexist xenophobe" really isn't ok. pointing to the extremes, which i have noted that i disagree with numerous times, to discredit the fact there are very real problems facing minorities, LGBT people and so forth is a very disingenuous argument. Did you watch the DNC, identity politics was the name of the game. Not the economy, not immigration, barely any mention of terrorism and chaos of middle east but just "she's a woman, cares about minorities, and immigrants and isn't donald trump." This message continued well beyond the DNC as well. Oh and let's not forget Obama's "I will consider it an insult if black people don't show up and vote for hrc"
Are you sure about that or is that just the message you listened to?
|
On December 03 2016 05:55 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2016 05:48 biology]major wrote:On December 03 2016 04:31 ticklishmusic wrote:On December 03 2016 04:26 Ayaz2810 wrote:On December 03 2016 04:01 ticklishmusic wrote:
"identity politics" is a way to make civil rights sound like some sort of a bad thing. Literally logged in to say that im so fucking sick of the term "identity politics", and this is the first post im faced with. Thanks internet. oh what a difficult life you must lead. must be almost bad as ivanka's. On December 03 2016 04:29 LegalLord wrote:On December 03 2016 04:01 ticklishmusic wrote:
"identity politics" is a way to make civil rights sound like some sort of a bad thing. Or a way to say that "women go to hell if they don't vote for Hillary Clinton" and "I'm the first woman running for president and that's why you should vote for me" and "anyone who opposes our team is a racist sexist xenophobe" really isn't ok. pointing to the extremes, which i have noted that i disagree with numerous times, to discredit the fact there are very real problems facing minorities, LGBT people and so forth is a very disingenuous argument. Did you watch the DNC, identity politics was the name of the game. Not the economy, not immigration, barely any mention of terrorism and chaos of middle east but just "she's a woman, cares about minorities, and immigrants and isn't donald trump." This message continued well beyond the DNC as well. Oh and let's not forget Obama's "I will consider it an insult if black people don't show up and vote for hrc" Are you sure about that or is that just the message you listened to?
There was definitely a disgusting amount of identity politics at play there under the banner of false inclusiveness.
|
On December 03 2016 06:02 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2016 05:55 Logo wrote:On December 03 2016 05:48 biology]major wrote:On December 03 2016 04:31 ticklishmusic wrote:On December 03 2016 04:26 Ayaz2810 wrote:On December 03 2016 04:01 ticklishmusic wrote:
"identity politics" is a way to make civil rights sound like some sort of a bad thing. Literally logged in to say that im so fucking sick of the term "identity politics", and this is the first post im faced with. Thanks internet. oh what a difficult life you must lead. must be almost bad as ivanka's. On December 03 2016 04:29 LegalLord wrote:On December 03 2016 04:01 ticklishmusic wrote:
"identity politics" is a way to make civil rights sound like some sort of a bad thing. Or a way to say that "women go to hell if they don't vote for Hillary Clinton" and "I'm the first woman running for president and that's why you should vote for me" and "anyone who opposes our team is a racist sexist xenophobe" really isn't ok. pointing to the extremes, which i have noted that i disagree with numerous times, to discredit the fact there are very real problems facing minorities, LGBT people and so forth is a very disingenuous argument. Did you watch the DNC, identity politics was the name of the game. Not the economy, not immigration, barely any mention of terrorism and chaos of middle east but just "she's a woman, cares about minorities, and immigrants and isn't donald trump." This message continued well beyond the DNC as well. Oh and let's not forget Obama's "I will consider it an insult if black people don't show up and vote for hrc" Are you sure about that or is that just the message you listened to? There was definitely a disgusting amount of identity politics at play there under the banner of false inclusiveness.
disgusting? false inclusiveness?
what makes it false inclusiveness rather than true inclusiveness? I'm sure quite a number of people felt rather included by it.
Also disgusting seems like a bit excessive of a word for the amount.
|
There's two separate issues here:
The first is the Democratic party subverting the goals of legitimate movements to improve the lives of minorities in America for the sake of getting their votes under their coalition (identity politics).
The second is people on the right using the moniker of "identity politics" in an attempt to de-legitimize real civil rights movements. Not all political discourse that recognizes the problems minorities face in America is automatically identity politics.
In reality, neither party take civil rights seriously, and that's the problem.
|
On December 03 2016 06:10 TheYango wrote:
There's two separate issues here:
The first is the Democratic party subverting the goals of legitimate movements to improve the lives of minorities in America for the sake of getting their votes under their coalition (identity politics).
The second is people on the right using the moniker of "identity politics" in an attempt to de-legitimize real civil rights movements. Not all political discourse that recognizes the problems minorities face in America is automatically identity politics.
In reality, neither party take civil rights seriously, and that's the problem.
The problem is that elements of the left have weaponized the civil rights discussoon and used it to silence their opposition. That act alone delegitimizes their cause. The right's response to this abuse is truly besides the point.
|
On December 03 2016 06:37 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2016 06:10 TheYango wrote:
There's two separate issues here:
The first is the Democratic party subverting the goals of legitimate movements to improve the lives of minorities in America for the sake of getting their votes under their coalition (identity politics).
The second is people on the right using the moniker of "identity politics" in an attempt to de-legitimize real civil rights movements. Not all political discourse that recognizes the problems minorities face in America is automatically identity politics.
In reality, neither party take civil rights seriously, and that's the problem. The problem is that elements of the left have weaponized the civil rights discussoon and used it to silence their opposition. That act alone delegitimizes their cause. The right's response to this abuse is truly besides the point.
Isn't that hypocritical in the face of people using the right to further racist agendas? Either you need to cop both parties to their most unpalatable members or acknowledge the wide ranging opinions of each group.
Not that I think the answer is to just ignore and let such sub-groups run wild, it's a complex issue that movements have grappled with for a long time.
|
On December 03 2016 06:10 TheYango wrote:
There's two separate issues here:
The first is the Democratic party subverting the goals of legitimate movements to improve the lives of minorities in America for the sake of getting their votes under their coalition (identity politics).
The second is people on the right using the moniker of "identity politics" in an attempt to de-legitimize real civil rights movements. Not all political discourse that recognizes the problems minorities face in America is automatically identity politics.
In reality, neither party take civil rights seriously, and that's the problem.
I can agree with this. The right seems more upfront and honest about their neglect of civil rights, which is more palatable to me than this pseudo interest for the sake of votes.
|
|
|
On December 03 2016 06:43 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2016 06:37 xDaunt wrote:On December 03 2016 06:10 TheYango wrote:
There's two separate issues here:
The first is the Democratic party subverting the goals of legitimate movements to improve the lives of minorities in America for the sake of getting their votes under their coalition (identity politics).
The second is people on the right using the moniker of "identity politics" in an attempt to de-legitimize real civil rights movements. Not all political discourse that recognizes the problems minorities face in America is automatically identity politics.
In reality, neither party take civil rights seriously, and that's the problem. The problem is that elements of the left have weaponized the civil rights discussoon and used it to silence their opposition. That act alone delegitimizes their cause. The right's response to this abuse is truly besides the point. Isn't that hypocritical in the face of people using the right to further racist agendas? Either you need to cop both parties to their most unpalatable members or acknowledge the wide ranging opinions of each group. Not that I think the answer is to just ignore and let such sub-groups run wild, it's a complex issue that movements have grappled with for a long time.
I deplore all identity politics. But the bottom line is that the left's use of identity politics is pushing lots of people (including myself) towards to the alt right's camp. I find the left to be far more threatening on the issue of civil rights -- particularly free speech -- than the alt right.
|
Good. China can eat a dick. Trump needs to rearrange our relationship with them to get us on more equal footing.
|
On December 03 2016 06:58 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2016 06:43 Logo wrote:On December 03 2016 06:37 xDaunt wrote:On December 03 2016 06:10 TheYango wrote:
There's two separate issues here:
The first is the Democratic party subverting the goals of legitimate movements to improve the lives of minorities in America for the sake of getting their votes under their coalition (identity politics).
The second is people on the right using the moniker of "identity politics" in an attempt to de-legitimize real civil rights movements. Not all political discourse that recognizes the problems minorities face in America is automatically identity politics.
In reality, neither party take civil rights seriously, and that's the problem. The problem is that elements of the left have weaponized the civil rights discussoon and used it to silence their opposition. That act alone delegitimizes their cause. The right's response to this abuse is truly besides the point. Isn't that hypocritical in the face of people using the right to further racist agendas? Either you need to cop both parties to their most unpalatable members or acknowledge the wide ranging opinions of each group. Not that I think the answer is to just ignore and let such sub-groups run wild, it's a complex issue that movements have grappled with for a long time. I deplore all identity politics. But the bottom line is that the left's use of identity politics is pushing lots of people (including myself) towards to the alt right's camp. I find the left to be far more threatening on the issue of civil rights -- particularly free speech -- than the alt right.
That was an insightful answer, but it dodged my question completely.
|
On December 03 2016 07:01 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2016 06:58 xDaunt wrote:On December 03 2016 06:43 Logo wrote:On December 03 2016 06:37 xDaunt wrote:On December 03 2016 06:10 TheYango wrote:
There's two separate issues here:
The first is the Democratic party subverting the goals of legitimate movements to improve the lives of minorities in America for the sake of getting their votes under their coalition (identity politics).
The second is people on the right using the moniker of "identity politics" in an attempt to de-legitimize real civil rights movements. Not all political discourse that recognizes the problems minorities face in America is automatically identity politics.
In reality, neither party take civil rights seriously, and that's the problem. The problem is that elements of the left have weaponized the civil rights discussoon and used it to silence their opposition. That act alone delegitimizes their cause. The right's response to this abuse is truly besides the point. Isn't that hypocritical in the face of people using the right to further racist agendas? Either you need to cop both parties to their most unpalatable members or acknowledge the wide ranging opinions of each group. Not that I think the answer is to just ignore and let such sub-groups run wild, it's a complex issue that movements have grappled with for a long time. I deplore all identity politics. But the bottom line is that the left's use of identity politics is pushing lots of people (including myself) towards to the alt right's camp. I find the left to be far more threatening on the issue of civil rights -- particularly free speech -- than the alt right. That was an insightful answer, but it dodged my question completely.
I answered your question. I basically said that it's not hypocritical and explained why.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On December 03 2016 06:10 TheYango wrote:
There's two separate issues here:
The first is the Democratic party subverting the goals of legitimate movements to improve the lives of minorities in America for the sake of getting their votes under their coalition (identity politics).
The second is people on the right using the moniker of "identity politics" in an attempt to de-legitimize real civil rights movements. Not all political discourse that recognizes the problems minorities face in America is automatically identity politics.
In reality, neither party take civil rights seriously, and that's the problem.
This is the ugly face of politics.
Identity politics is the pejorative for the identity pandering, having a woman, minority, or another characteristic of an individual in a position of power instead of substantive civil rights policy in places that matter.
On the other end of the spectrum is casting substantive civil rights policy as its pejorative in order to be able to oppose any substantive civil rights policy. There are two strains of this opposition, true bigotry and anti-counter discrimination.
The next level in this dynamic is the coloring the opposition of civil rights policy as entirely consistent of true bigotry in order to cast the entire opposition as the political bogeyman in order to keep the "identity politics" voter voting for you. This is political weaponization of fear.
|
On December 03 2016 07:03 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2016 07:01 Logo wrote:On December 03 2016 06:58 xDaunt wrote:On December 03 2016 06:43 Logo wrote:On December 03 2016 06:37 xDaunt wrote:On December 03 2016 06:10 TheYango wrote:
There's two separate issues here:
The first is the Democratic party subverting the goals of legitimate movements to improve the lives of minorities in America for the sake of getting their votes under their coalition (identity politics).
The second is people on the right using the moniker of "identity politics" in an attempt to de-legitimize real civil rights movements. Not all political discourse that recognizes the problems minorities face in America is automatically identity politics.
In reality, neither party take civil rights seriously, and that's the problem. The problem is that elements of the left have weaponized the civil rights discussoon and used it to silence their opposition. That act alone delegitimizes their cause. The right's response to this abuse is truly besides the point. Isn't that hypocritical in the face of people using the right to further racist agendas? Either you need to cop both parties to their most unpalatable members or acknowledge the wide ranging opinions of each group. Not that I think the answer is to just ignore and let such sub-groups run wild, it's a complex issue that movements have grappled with for a long time. I deplore all identity politics. But the bottom line is that the left's use of identity politics is pushing lots of people (including myself) towards to the alt right's camp. I find the left to be far more threatening on the issue of civil rights -- particularly free speech -- than the alt right. That was an insightful answer, but it dodged my question completely. I answered your question. I basically said that it's not hypocritical and explained why.
No you explained why you dislike a group of people based on a subset of that group and I asked you why that logic doesn't get applied equally to all groups.
Your answer was that you feel pushed to one group based on that subset of the other group. Which is a reasonable explanation for your actions but does not address whether other groups like the alt-right (or right in general) should be judged based on particular subsets of their groups.
Unless I'm supposed to read between the lines and assume something like you judge both groups equally but find the unsavory parts of the alt-right an acceptable evil that you're willing to associate with.
|
On December 03 2016 06:37 xDaunt wrote:
The problem is that elements of the left have weaponized the civil rights discussoon and used it to silence their opposition. That act alone delegitimizes their cause. The right's response to this abuse is truly besides the point.
The right's resistance to civil rights movements predates their subversion by organizations of the political left. To characterize that resistance as purely a reactionary one seems inaccurate.
|
XDaunt: "The problem is that elements of the left have weaponized the civil rights discussoon and used it to silence their opposition. That act alone delegitimizes their cause."
Logo: "Isn't that hypocritical in the face of people using the right to further racist agendas?"
He' doesn't seem to be complaining about racism per se, but about responses to racism that he finds more threatening than the actual racism.
|
On December 03 2016 07:19 Buckyman wrote:
XDaunt: "The problem is that elements of the left have weaponized the civil rights discussoon and used it to silence their opposition. That act alone delegitimizes their cause."
Logo: "Isn't that hypocritical in the face of people using the right to further racist agendas?"
He' doesn't seem to be complaining about racism per se, but about responses to racism that he finds more threatening than the actual racism.
I know, I understood that part. The point is the people who are making what he consider free-speech threatening statements are by all accounts a minority or sub-group of the entire left, much like some of the racist sub-groups of the right. But his statements connects the entire platform to those views, my follow-up is an attempt to ask if he paints the right (or alt-right) the same way, i.e judging them by the actions of a sub-group.
To be fair the part of the original statement:
That act alone delegitimizes their cause
Their Cause here is a bit confusing (who and what cause?). The context seems to be "Elements of the Left" and "The Civil Right Movement" respectively. Which would mean that elements of the left are delegitimizing the civil rights movement which is a cause bigger than "elements of the left". So that can be sowing confusion, but is where the statement appears to be applying ideas of a sub-group to an entire cause.
|
Steve Bannon, Trump's chief strategist, thinks Western culture needs to be restored to its place of prominence. He ran a news site with headlines that are click bait for white nationalists.
David Duke no longer calls himself a klan wizard, he just says he wants to see Western culture restored.
It's quite the correlation.
|
Canada11367 Posts
Small Sub groups can matter a lot depending on the main groups' relationship to them. Jordan Peterson's students in psychology were looking to see if there were identifiable traits from people on the left and right end of the spectrum. They found on the left that the trait agreeableness was quite high. However, they found two distinct groups that they categorized as left authoritarian and left egalitarian. Left egalitarian had high verbal cognitive ability. However, left authoritarian (those attacking free speech) had quite low verbal cognitive ability, but a high disgust sensitivity... which is the trait they share in common with right wing fundamentalists that are out there trying to ban books and movies. In addition, there was actually a significant amount of anxiety disorders withing left authoritarians.
Peterson suggested the problem came when left egalitarians see that left authoritarians were under stress, and assuming the authoritarians were the same as them, and swoop in to defend and covered for their truly authoritarian ideas with better words, creating a more nuanced view that the authoritarians did not actually believe. In other words, the egalitarian and the authoritarian values are in conflict, but being high in trait agreeableness (compassion) the egalitarian just see the distress and can have difficulty recognizing the left authoritarian is not one of them and not on their side.
While Peterson did not cover this, I think in the same way, there are a number of racists... erm sorry 'race realists' that are running under the banner of free speech, but whose values are in direct conflict with actual free speech advocates on the right.
If the main group in either the left or right do not recognize the problems within their ranks, I think great trouble will come of it.
(Incidentally, those on the right tended to score low on trait agreeableness, but high on trait conscientious.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
