|
Bip Roberts posted:Would fighting housing discrimination or hate crimes be ID politics? No. How many times does it need to be reiterated that social and economic justice are not mutually exclusive?
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 07:14 |
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:No. How many times does it need to be reiterated that social and economic justice are not mutually exclusive? So identity politics (social justice) are good then?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
I'm confused. Is ID politics only when good things are done but only when they are done in a bad way?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Alternatively, the Clinton family had a lot of (well-earned) support among minority communities thanks to decades of outreach through the power only a federal billionaire family could hold, and that they liked Sander's message but simply felt in Clinton's debt, for being a politician who actually reached out to black community leaders. "a compelling read". What the hell is wrong with you. Alternatively, people preferred Hillary Clinton because they genuinely believed she would be better on those issues than Bernie Sanders, instead of black people operating like La Cosa Nostra.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted: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. Oh, so blatant economic discrimination, employment discrimination, and educational discrimination against minorities aren't important because you think we should be focusing on dismantling the fundamental structure of our economy instead? I couldn't have summed up the viewpoint of people who complain about "identity politics" any better myself. No matter how much they insist otherwise, it always seems to boil down to "unfair and unequal treatment of minorities isn't as important as the problems of the average (white) laborer" - regardless of whether the person saying it is a socialist or a neoliberal. UV_Catastrophe posted:Appealing to working class whites through a stronger stance on economic issues doesn't detract from fighting for the rights of minorities, though. Basically the entirety of US history suggests otherwise, though. Hell, just look at Trump. His economic argument that won over working-class whites was "deport all the illegal immigrants and dismantle our foreign relations". Now, I don't think it's impossible to fight for minorities and economic justice at the same time, and it'd be nice to see a political movement that could manage it, but "economic justice" has meant "throwing minorities under the bus for the sake of white workers" so many times, for so many people, over so many decades, that it's absolutely deserving of skepticism. Black people are being massacred in the streets, and people are complaining that too much attention is being paid to their issues.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:"a compelling read". What the hell is wrong with you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
Extra, extra! Man convinced that identity politics are the enemy of the left denies minorities agency, read all about it!
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:It's actually because all the people Hillary's husband put in prison weren't allowed to vote. But Bernie also voted to imprison them too?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:It's actually because all the people Hillary's husband put in prison weren't allowed to vote. Funnily enough, the story of the crime bill in the mid-90s is a lot more complicated than white Euros like to shriek about.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:What are you going to do to dismantle identity politics? The issue is more of a packaging or framing problem not the goal itself. A large section of the identity politics peddlers appear disturbingly excited about bringing "whites" to confess guilt in something. The solution is to sell a political message with broad appeal that everyone can subscribe to (with as little thinking involved as possible) that necessarily excludes racism, etc. Most of the language is available in the US founding documents. A good way to sell people on ideas they might not necessarily want to adopt is to appeal to the commonly held virtues that people think are positives about themselves and about the country. Again the problem isn't so much to get more votes, but to motivate people that were not motivated to vote in the last election who were apparently concentrated in rural rust belt areas but also includes apparently a number of minority non-voters who were not motivated by the message that was being sent. A good way to motivate them is to talk about poo poo that is relevant to their daily lives, which in rural America probably doesn't include minorities since there are basically none in their town but you are probably going to hit the mark if you talk about jobs and money. Also people nearly always think of themselves in positive terms and most people think of themselves as 'normal' so either explicitly or implicitly assigning bad things to people is a good way to not motivate them. This is tricky when dealing with a government since individuals draw a certain amount of identity and pride in the nation's or State's history; criticizing oppressive government practices needs to be done in a way that does not implicate the average citizen. A good rule in politics is to always provide the supporters of the policy you are trying to change as graceful of a possible exit as humanly possible even if those supporters are loathsome as hell. All of the college campus identity politics is just horrible poo poo explicitly designed to exclude people. To the extent that any of it is mirrored in broader politics it is a complete mistake. Edit: If identity must be called upon then typically invoke it to draw as many positive commonalities with everyone in the country as possible. To the extent that anyone/any group needs to be criticized just don't since that is poo poo politics. Torpor fucked around with this message at 22:44 on Dec 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:If you ignore that my prior posts established that when I speak of Identity Politics I refer specifically to a certain mindset that is toxic towards leftist allies, sure. I wonder if anyone might feel that is an apt description of people who go to great lengths to minimise the importance of anything that they do not consider to be a purely economic issue.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Extra, extra! Man convinced that identity politics are the enemy of the left denies minorities agency, read all about it! How am I denying minority agency? If someone has proven through decades that they care about my issues more than the average politician, of course I'm going to hold some loyalty to them over any new figure arguing for nice things. Am I denying myself agency?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:No it isn't, your argument is that racism emerged from capitalism, and you ignored the evidence posted against it to repeat yourself like a parrot, except parrots are about three, five times smarter than you. Actually the super delegates system can from anti democratic leadership in the 80s . Happy to educate you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:The problem, Neurolimal, is that putting forward a candidate who did what the anti-identity politics people wanted, failed. Democrats decided not to pick him as their first choice. So, either you can say he didn't go far enough on opposing identity politics, or you can conclude that minorities need to be reeducated on where their real interests lie, or you can conclude that your obsession with identity politics is the mark of a child, and put away childish things. What other economic model of colonialism is there besides a kind of capitalism which is distinct from modern capitalism? Look at what I bolded, whoever does that is exactly a capitalist. Besides I didn't take issue with your post except my objection of tracing a cause to an event or person in history, it just overlooks complexities. That's what it seemed like, but I'm ok with my assumptions being wrong.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
Torpor posted:All of the college campus identity politics is just horrible poo poo explicitly designed to exclude people. To the extent that any of it is mirrored in broader politics it is a complete mistake. Why can't minorities shut the hell up and join us in the class war?  Let me denigrate their struggles as college campus nonsense though. Go join the Republican Party, you piece of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
This thread is hysterical
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Actually the super delegates system can from anti democratic leadership in the 80s . Happy to educate you. Bernie lost the nomination by hundreds of delegates more than the total number of superdelegates, and lost the popular primary vote by 20 points, and lost in number of states, too. By every possible metric he lost the primary nominations and only could have won through a reversion to pre-McGovern-Faber rules. You moron.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:How am I denying minority agency? If someone has proven through decades that they care about my issues more than the average politician, of course I'm going to hold some loyalty to them over any new figure arguing for nice things. Am I denying myself agency? In your view, minorities are incapable of making conscious choices and voting for the candidate they like best, instead only voting for the candidate they feel beholden to. Good job!
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Why can't minorities shut the hell up and join us in the class war? Yeah this is the kind of bs everyone is talking about. Calibanibal posted:This thread is hysterical It is . Now go join the GOP you enemy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:But Bernie also voted to imprison them too? Because the VAWA was attached. He had the option to not vote for a bill he wanted, or vote for the bill he wanted attached to a bill he thought was bad but was supported by the communities it would affect. He made the best possible choice by opting to vote for the bill, but caution others of its potential exploitability and future harm. Do you think intentionally misrepresenting these individual facts helps or hinders the argument that ID leftists hold contempt for and superiority over other leftists?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Bernie lost the nomination by hundreds of delegates more than the total number of superdelegates, and lost the popular primary vote by 20 points, and lost in number of states, too. By every possible metric he lost the primary nominations and only could have won through a reversion to pre-McGovern-Faber rules. You moron.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:Would fighting housing discrimination or hate crimes be ID politics? I'm not sure if you mean Identity Politics or ~IDPOL~ but like I and so many people in this thread have said that there is no reason why we can't or shouldn't fight housing discrimination or hate crimes or whatever else that affects mainly or exclusively minorities while at the same time fighting for the safety and security of the poor even if some of them happen to be - horror of horrors - white! (or straight or cis &c &c) You might even say these struggles are...inexorably linked?! I'm of the opinion that progress made towards one is worthless or at least vastly impoverished without equal progress towards the other.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
Confounding Factor posted:What other economic model of colonialism is there besides a kind of capitalism which is distinct from modern capitalism? Look at what I bolded, whoever does that is exactly a capitalist. Well, I mean, dude, if you're going to say that Roman latifundia were capitalist, or that the Greek cities on Syracuse were capitalist, you can, but that gets us back to Sumeria being capitalist since they had mercantile capitalist ventures, and some financial capitalism. It's a definition that is really not instrumentally useful for anticapitalism as politics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Because the VAWA was attached. He had the option to not vote for a bill he wanted, or vote for the bill he wanted attached to a bill he thought was bad but was supported by the communities it would affect. He made the best possible choice by opting to vote for the bill, but caution others of its potential exploitability and future harm. I bet everyone is glad he feels real bad about it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
deep web creep posted:I'm not sure if you mean Identity Politics or ~IDPOL~ but like I and so many people in this thread have said that there is no reason why we can't or shouldn't fight housing discrimination or hate crimes or whatever else that affects mainly or exclusively minorities while at the same time fighting for the safety and security of the poor even if some of them happen to be - horror of horrors - white! (or straight or cis &c &c) So you are for ID politics then?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
Brainiac Two posted:Funnily enough, the story of slavery in the South is a lot more complicated than white Liberals like to shriek about.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:But the system isn't the one McGovern created it in fact is a system created to prevent majority making decisions. Dude, if the superdelegates didn't exist, Bernie would still have lost. His only path to victory involved eliminating primary results and going back to backroom nominations and brokered conventions. deep web creep posted:I'm not sure if you mean Identity Politics or ~IDPOL~ but like I and so many people in this thread have said that there is no reason why we can't or shouldn't fight housing discrimination or hate crimes or whatever else that affects mainly or exclusively minorities while at the same time fighting for the safety and security of the poor even if some of them happen to be - horror of horrors - white! (or straight or cis &c &c) Haha yeah, big fan of white genocide here. I slaughter thousands of str8s with grenade launchers and bazookas.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
Whoa, drat, it turns out that you can make people say anything with judicious use of backspace.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:So you are for ID politics then? If that is what you mean by ID politics I guess I am, friend! Waiting breathlessly over here for your clever gotcha.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
I'm kind of baffled by takes blaming identity politics for the election since if Clinton had actually spent a year screaming about white males or whatever it would've been a step up from her actual campaign, which refused to openly or effectively campaign on anything other than "Trump's pretty bad, I guess. America's already great btw."
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
deep web creep posted:I'm not sure if you mean Identity Politics or ~IDPOL~ but like I and so many people in this thread have said that there is no reason why we can't or shouldn't fight housing discrimination or hate crimes or whatever else that affects mainly or exclusively minorities while at the same time fighting for the safety and security of the poor even if some of them happen to be - horror of horrors - white! (or straight or cis &c &c) I guess I would say Id politics have to be real change. Anti discrimination stuff not Goldman Sachs having 50% of its board be women. Also Braniac why do you support the undemocratic superdelegate system can you please explain that. It's not about Bernie it's about democracy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
deep web creep posted:If that is what you mean by ID politics I guess I am, friend! People need to clarify when they use the term ID politics if they mean good things or bad things. Some people seem to use it for bad things and other people mean good things. I'm confused.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:I guess I would say Id politics have to be real change. Anti discrimination stuff not Goldman Sachs having 50% of its board be women. When did you stop beating your significant other? Oh, wait, you don't have one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Well, I mean, dude, if you're going to say that Roman latifundia were capitalist, or that the Greek cities on Syracuse were capitalist, you can, but that gets us back to Sumeria being capitalist since they had mercantile capitalist ventures, and some financial capitalism. It's a definition that is really not instrumentally useful for anticapitalism as politics. Sure I agree with that, and I've agreed with much of what you have posted here thus far (especially the no oppression against white gays). I'd rather put aside our minor squabble and focus on the more important discussion of class, which is what we should be having and not more identity politics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
I can see you are too much of a coward to answer a simple question. Sad really.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:I can see you are too much of a coward to answer a simple question. Sad really. I didn't say anything about the superdelegate system being good or bad one way or another, so your question is obviously made with dishonest intent, as dishonest as when you ran a kid over with your car in 2007 and drove away without turning yourself in.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
Confounding Factor posted:Sure I agree with that, and I've agreed with much of what you have posted here thus far (especially the no oppression against white gays). I'd rather put aside our minor squabble and focus on the more important discussion of class, which is what we should be having and not more identity politics. Why are you against both? Can two things not be focused on at once?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Why can't minorities shut the hell up and join us in the class war? You are so irrationally angry that you have rendered yourself illiterate and retarded.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:I guess I would say Id politics have to be real change. Anti discrimination stuff not Goldman Sachs having 50% of its board be women. Yeah employment discrimination and glass ceilings are no big deal, right? This is why people don't trust the whole "end identity politics" schtick; it usually ends up meaning "forget the minority issues I don't care about".
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 07:14 |
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:Why are you against both? Can two things not be focused on at once? I mean personally I would suggest that the two things can easily be made one thing and that a pretty major obstacle to that is a bunch of annoying people saying "oh no that's not important we shouldn't be talking about that because it's not what I think of as class warfare"
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 23:02
|
|