|
So it seems since the end of the election that a cadre of people here and elsewhere on the right and, to a certain extent, on the left have blamed the concept of identity politics general for the Democrat's defeat. This also seems to get accompanied by a belief that Idpol has resulted in an overly rigid, politically correct left centered around younger people obsessed with calling everything racist and/or sexist that turned off moderate voters and especially the all important White Working Class Male (tm). We now have people Proclaiming the end of Identity Liberalism, with Conservatives gobbling up that viewpoint too. Now what I don't get here, is how the Democrats recent defeats can really be laid at the feet of Identity Politics. A lot of the talk seems to be barely disguised whinging about kids these days with appeals to a return of a simpler (and non-existent) time when everyone got along and internal identities were suppressed to try and create a more cohesive society. Even leaving that aside It seems as though the election ended being an aggressive proclamation of the importance of the Identity Politics of one group in particular, poorer white Americans. Even talking about the Clinton campaign its strange to me to argue that a fairly centrist wealthy white woman who made lots of overtures to try and reel in moderate conservatives (and was actually fairly successful in doing so) but did a much poorer job in invigorating the various demographic minority groups that form the Democratic base is now being seeing as the very picture of Idpol failure just because she may have used the word 'privilege' during the race a few times. And even still she still won the popular vote clearly. Now, honestly I'm not much of fan of Clinton and much preferred Sanders, but I don't see how Identity Politics really damaged the Democrats on the whole, or leftist movements in general. Surely if we expect to create a unified opposition to right wing movements across the world we need to prove to various marginalized groups that we care and will address the unique issues they might face, even if sometimes they are not simply economic issues? What use is it to us to place the blame on identity politics so much, especially when the opposition can exploit it as much as they want and win as a result? Here's a couple of articles on the issue: ‘Don’t play identity politics!’ The primal scream of the straight white male There's no conflict here khwarezm fucked around with this message at 18:06 on Dec 3, 2016 |
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 00:28 |
|
|
"Identity politics" is just a way of referring to the kind of politics you don't like. So they're bad because the person saying "identity politics" thinks they're bad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
Largely because if you are a white cis het male you have perpetuated the greatest trick of all, convincing people that white cis het male isn't really an identity, and can you stop going on about it please it's making me feel uncomfortable etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
Because it is a knife that cuts both ways. It is often times ironically bigoted and prejudiced.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
Because neoliberals use it as a wedge issue to divide classes so they won't unite on economic issues
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
Byolante posted:Because neoliberals use it as a wedge issue to divide classes so they won't unite on economic issues This.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
The way I usually see it argued here is that the way identity politics were defined in the Clinton camp was basically "The demographics make victory inevitable", which resulted in a campaign that was more about (rightfully, to be fair) making GBS threads on Trump rather than getting people excited about Clinton outside the "First woman president" thing. The way some supporters really embody the whole "Progress is making it so everyone can become an oppressor, not just straight white christian men" strand of liberalism probably doesn't help perceptions either. But yeah, this:Byolante posted:Because neoliberals use it as a wedge issue to divide classes so they won't unite on economic issues
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
When I use "identity politics" I'm refering to meaningless platitudes given to minorities. Nobody actually gives a poo poo about, say, the diversity of corporate boards but it gives the elite enough "diversity" to pat themselves on the back and consider themselves truly progressive people without actually changing anything. Neoliberals have no intention on actually helping minorities but they think that replacing white dudes from Harvard with black dudes and white women from Harvard is good enough for the masses. Its basically rearranging deck chairs while they continue to loot pensions and push charter schools.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
Byolante posted:Because neoliberals use it as a wedge issue to divide classes so they won't unite on economic issues
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
The issue is less about Identity Politics, and more about the culture around Identity Politics. issues relating to Fiscal Policy and Foreign policy are ignored for Social Policy, which causes friction between those who consider Fiscal important (i.e every poor leftist atm) and those who consider Foreign Policy important (immigrants, humanitarians). They've basically "adopted" internationalist thought to exclusively pertain to different social injustices, rather than the interlinked web of leftist policy. The problem here is that they are punching up, and not in a "row row fight the powa" way; they assume that, because they may have the demographic advantage later down the line, that they no longer need the rest of the leftist base, and so should be openly hostile to groups that might consider their issues equally important. They don't have that edge right now though, so they're just burning bridges and making themselves look unappealing. Its like trying to walk out on a check before your food is even done cooking. It paints a negative picture of this group being very FYGM and wholly prepared to throw allies under the bus. I say this as someone who very much considers social policy important, is in a minority group affected by social policy, and as someone who cut his teeth on leftism with social policy, then foreign policy, then fiscal policy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
There is this mythology that we cannot address "identity politics" and class struggle at the same time. If you subscribe to this theory, and have an identity that is not under threat, then it's pretty easy to write off.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
apokaladle posted:There is this mythology that we cannot address "identity politics" and class struggle at the same time. If you subscribe to this theory, and have an identity that is not under threat, then it's pretty easy to write off. Thats entirely correct. We should be fighting for both. The problem is that the key proponents of what most people would recognise as identity politics were neoliberals trying to defuse economic popularism that was distressing to their donor base.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
here's a summary of the argument about identity politics: a leftist: "we need to fight for both social justice and economic justice. you can't have one without the other" a neoliberal: "we need to fight for social justice that won't affect my bank account"
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
Key for left-wing people to start using "identity politics" is to have a theory of politics wherein all of politics emerges from a single root. Because of the way our society is structured, most of the time, this root is class. Thus, race, gender, sexual orientation, ability, age, etc. all are manifestations of capitalist social classes and any effort which doesn't align with the speaker's understanding of communism or anarchism is thus invalid "identity politics". Because most of the people in this thread are liberals and not leftists, they blame "neoliberals" for inventing the idea of gay marriage and not reactionary bourgeois homosexuality itself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
Identity politics is making an appeal to demographics other than the user of the term "identity politics", at least in the context of this past election. But more seriously, as others have said, a lot of confused people insist that class and identity can't exist under the same tent somehow, and yes, corporatists had a hand in passing this off as common knowledge. On the other hand it was also the mantra of the Bernie-supporter-Clinton-apologist types like myself that just wanted people upset that the class war wasn't coming to suck it up and vote against the fascist, a stance that had some merit at the time but the farther we get from the election the more holes I see in it. Business Gorillas posted:here's a summary of the argument about identity politics: Going back to most of the reponses to your posts in USPol the latter would be more like "go burn a cross bernie-bro". It wasn't a conversation most wanted to have at the time. They were scared and circled the wagons. Deified Data fucked around with this message at 18:56 on Dec 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
The other side of the entirely justified distrust of "social justice that doesn't affect my bank account" is distrust of "economic justice that doesn't make a white person uncomfortable". I consider myself a leftist, and in leftist circles I have too frequently seen this play out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Key for left-wing people to start using "identity politics" is to have a theory of politics wherein all of politics emerges from a single root. Because of the way our society is structured, most of the time, this root is class. Thus, race, gender, sexual orientation, ability, age, etc. all are manifestations of capitalist social classes and any effort which doesn't align with the speaker's understanding of communism or anarchism is thus invalid "identity politics". Because most of the people in this thread are liberals and not leftists, they blame "neoliberals" for inventing the idea of gay marriage and not reactionary bourgeois homosexuality itself. Trying to boil down all of history and human action to an all encompassing grand narrative with one root cause is an endeavor doomed to failure. It is self-satisfying though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
Deified Data posted:Going back to most of the reponses to your posts in USPol the latter would be more like "go burn a cross bernie-bro". It wasn't a conversation most wanted to have at the time. They were scared and circled the wagons. im not shocked at all that a bunch of software engineers and lawyers did their absolute best to pretend class resentment wasn't a thing. they were much happier writing off entire states as racist or suggested rural whites needed to be put into re-education camps. edit: apokaladle posted:The other side of the entirely justified distrust of "social justice that doesn't affect my bank account" is distrust of "economic justice that doesn't make a white person uncomfortable". I consider myself a leftist, and in leftist circles I have too frequently seen this play out. Business Gorillas fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Dec 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
This pointless, fruitless debate about "identity politics" has and is probably going to do more damage to the democratic coalition than any clever strategy conservatives have dreamed up. The moral of the story is that you must appeal to all demographics within the democratic tent, meaning that you've got to excite people about both your social and economic stances. It is entirely possible to convincingly do both, and anyone who tells you otherwise is likely disguising their conservative views behind a bad faith argument.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:here's a summary of the argument about identity politics: Byolante posted:Because neoliberals use it as a wedge issue to divide classes so they won't unite on economic issues I'm not emptyquoting but I should be because these are the only two things that need to be posted in this thread, again and again, forever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
Identity politics is not bad by itself but because his supporters are faith based instead of fact based. Has such, I predict this thread will not end well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
Software engineers and lawyers being in a different social class from retail workers is pure liberalism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
UV_Catastrophe posted:It is entirely possible to convincingly do both, and anyone who tells you otherwise is likely disguising their conservative views behind a bad faith argument.  anyone that says "populism is racist" or "there is no war but class war" is being disingenuous
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
It's already been pointed out that all identities other than class represent false consciousnesses created by the bourgeoisie to turn us against each other, so might as well close the thread
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:i agree with this but "slave reparations now" is about as politically viable and realistic as "destroy capitalism" If I'm dreaming, might as well dream big, eh? Sure, be pragmatic. But pragmatism for its own sake is toxic and self defeating. I think, in a sense, if you even use the term" identity politics", you have already ceded too much of the narrative.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
Freddie deBoer wrote a good piece after the election with the idea that it is not the politics of identity that are the problem, but the politics of deference, "that people of a progressive bent have a duty to suspend their critical judgment and engage in unthinking support of whoever claims to speak for the movement against racism and sexism." This is by no means a rejection of the ongoing struggle to make the American left inclusive of minority groups. Instead, it is a warning against those who respond to reasoned debate and criticism by using their self-asserted participation in that struggle as a bludgeon against those who might challenge them. Though these individuals are hardly representative of their respective movements, they tend to be more ardently vocal in a way that does far more harm than simply pushing away allies with differing opinions on how to move forward—they ward off sympathetic onlookers who might otherwise be swayed to the cause. Though they may honestly have their cause's best interests at heart, their self-righteous zealotry is utterly toxic if we are looking to win at the ballot box. quote:This is the tail-swallowing aspect of today’s liberal spaces, not the noble and correct prohibition against engaging in racist or sexist behavior but the meta-prohibition against questioning whether any given accusation is credible or convincing. A political tendency that prohibits its members from questioning each other, or which treats critical examination of its beliefs about bigotry as bigotry itself, has sewn the seeds of its own demise.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:It's already been pointed out that all identities other than class represent false consciousnesses created by the bourgeoisie to turn us against each other, so might as well close the thread A way to wrap everything up in a nice little bow is to then say that negative consequences of constructed identities must be fought against in the name of class unity. Also, send in the tanks. Edit: or that class unity and fighting the system of economic oppression requires comity and tanks. Edit2: anyway the point being you can, if you are crafty, use the idea of identity to unify a base around a common goal, and to engender empathy amongst people from vastly different backgrounds, instead of whatever the Hillary campaign did which was to ham-fistedly invoke it which de-motivated a large portion of the voters in the rust belt states. Hillary won the popular vote but to get the kind of broad-based appeal and motivation that winning in all states requires would need a message that everyone can hang their hat on. That type of message is usually centered around jobs and money. Torpor fucked around with this message at 20:16 on Dec 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
deep web creep posted:I'm not emptyquoting but I should be because these are the only two things that need to be posted in this thread, again and again, forever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
Because it's the ultimate victory of style over substance, OP.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 20:06
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Byolante posted:Because neoliberals use it as a wedge issue to divide classes so they won't unite on economic issues Also this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
otoh i am enjoying the deafening silence of the "poor privilege definitely exists!!!!" people at this point in time, i hope it lasts
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:Freddie deBoer wrote a good piece after the election with the idea that it is not the politics of identity that are the problem, but the politics of deference, "that people of a progressive bent have a duty to suspend their critical judgment and engage in unthinking support of whoever claims to speak for the movement against racism and sexism." I agree that this is an observable phenomenon but for the sake of discussion could you share something you regard to be a well-reasoned criticism of inclusiveness or equal rights? Excluding the potential (operative word) for "deference politics" itself which I concede as a given. Anime Schoolgirl posted:otoh i am enjoying the deafening silence of the "poor privilege definitely exists!!!!" people at this point in time, i hope it lasts What is this? Do you mean poor white privilege?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
Byolante posted:Because neoliberals use it as a wedge issue to divide classes so they won't unite on economic issues Racism is a wedge issue designed to divide the classes so they wouldn't unite on economic issues. Identity politics is about dismantling racism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
Deified Data posted:What is this? Do you mean poor white privilege? the sewer hole never ends
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
A pretty good example of why "we need both" is a facile lie is that the people saying it are pushing respectability politics for the minorities. Thus, since LGBT people can't put pressure on society in general because that's "alienating" and can't put pressure on corporations because that's "neoliberalism", what would actually happen in Freddie the Boor's ideal leftism is that LGBT liberation and LGBT people as a class would slowly get strangled into oblivion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:Now, honestly I'm not much of fan of Clinton and much preferred Sanders, but I don't see how Identity Politics really damaged the Democrats on the whole, or leftist movements in general. Surely if we expect to create a unified opposition to right wing movements across the world we need to prove to various marginalized groups that we care and will address the unique issues they might face, even if sometimes they are not simply economic issues? What use is it to us to place the blame on identity politics so much, especially when the opposition can exploit it as much as they want and win as a result? i googled white fragility and didn't find an easy link posted:White Fragility is a state in which even a minimum amount of racial stress be- comes intolerable, triggering a range of defensive moves. These moves include the outward display of emotions such as anger, fear, and guilt, and behaviors such as argumentation, silence, and leaving the stress-inducing situation. Basically white people have no experience dealing with race issues, so any amount of that stress just causes meltdowns. When a minority starts seeing articles that say "turns out everyone is racist and everythings stacked against you" they say "yeah duh" but a white person seeing the same poo poo has been tricked by American culture into thinking that that isn't true. The thing is, it's not like giving up on "identity politics" is actually going to win any arguments or votes. You'll lose the support of anti-racist activists and voters, and even if they don't flip that just makes D votes go down, and there will just be a new battleground that Repubs will be obstinate and awful about. And the dogwhistling won't even go away.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Identity politics is about dismantling racism. Unless you are a moron and invoke it haphazardly which is what happened.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
Byolante posted:Because neoliberals use it as a wedge issue to divide classes so they won't unite on economic issues Not much else to say, people wanted to talk about wealth inequality and only one candidate gave that to them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:A pretty good example of why "we need both" is a facile lie is that the people saying it are pushing respectability politics for the minorities. Thus, since LGBT people can't put pressure on society in general because that's "alienating" and can't put pressure on corporations because that's "neoliberalism", what would actually happen in Freddie the Boor's ideal leftism is that LGBT liberation and LGBT people as a class would slowly get strangled into oblivion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 00:28 |
|
|
Anime Schoolgirl posted:is there an otherworld variant of fox news you're subscribing to because not once have i ever seen your type give a poo poo about the most vulnerable of minority classes, trans/gay sex workers What's "my type", motherfucker?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 20:26
|
|