An interesting perspectice. I've often thought that some negative aspects of identity politics are damaging to the society but that the struggle between the desire to do good and tempering that...
An interesting perspectice. I've often thought that some negative aspects of identity politics are damaging to the society but that the struggle between the desire to do good and tempering that desire with wisdom may be a ultimately healthy for us collectively.
The demand for recognition from groups united around race, gender, ethnicity or other assorted identities is a natural impulse, and a praiseworthy one.
Can you justify this for me dubteedub? I am curious how you feel on this point. The phrasing seems a little extreme. I would have written "The desire to have fellowship and identify with various groups is a normal social instinct."
Okay I hear you, well said. Friction often creates positive change, and organizing and signaling as a minority group is an effective way to fight for representation. The following is absolutely...
Okay I hear you, well said.
Friction often creates positive change, and organizing and signaling as a minority group is an effective way to fight for representation.
The following is absolutely not a critique on you personally; it is difficult to have political conversations because of the fact that many political terms vary so widely in perceived meaning between political identity groups. And within those groups, further difference in perception. A positive note would be that this ambiguity could help foster an environment where people engage issues and people thoughtfully and on a case by case basis thus solving the issues that I see being born out of identity politics.
Before I begin, I find it's often helpful to actually define what "identity politics" is. An identity is just an arbitrary grouping by shared traits. Identity politics is simply the act of...
Before I begin, I find it's often helpful to actually define what "identity politics" is. An identity is just an arbitrary grouping by shared traits. Identity politics is simply the act of promoting an idea of how these groups should be treated in society.
I have always thought that the hate identity politics gets is incredibly misguided. It strikes me as a thing that (in the context of United States society) only straight white men could really have. Rather, it's something that is more common in people who are in a politically powerful group. They see these groups of people as "other" and think to themselves "If they really want to be well integrated into this society, they need to stop thinking of themselves as part of this other group".
In reality, Identity politics arise and become popular because they are being discriminated against by those in power. The type of person I was describing earlier who push against them are actually empowering identity politics. If they wanted to, they could get rid of identity politics virtually overnight. And the solution is so obvious that they often brush right past it: they need to adopt true egalitarianism. They need to listen to these minority groups, understand why they are so upset, and enact change to even the playing field. Politics rarely gets simpler than this.
Politics are never simple. And I'd rather not redefine words. I'm going to talk idpol as it is nowadays, as this term is recognized by the mass. In idpol, we have a mess of divides by gender,...
Politics are never simple. And I'd rather not redefine words. I'm going to talk idpol as it is nowadays, as this term is recognized by the mass.
In idpol, we have a mess of divides by gender, race, socioeconomic classes and whatever else, and focusing on those divides is the focus of idpol. It always is. Never about "what we have in common", always about "what we are different in". Focus on divides, feed into divides, group people up by their features. Equality isn't in the picture, it's tribalism. We have things like "positive discrimination" already, and it's easy to see how they go against the idea of true equality. And yet, idpol groups pushing for them are not even the fringe ones, it's a rather mainstream take. We have groups of people believing to be discriminated against because their fathers were discriminated against, and then we have groups of people believing to be discriminated against because policies like "affirmative action" and "diversity hiring" discriminate against them here and now, and both believe they are doing the right thing when they clash. We have opportunistic fringe groups capitalizing on those tensions and divides to push their radical ideology. We have movements that claim to have the solutions to problems of idpol, but if a problem ever comes close to being solved, they redefine what "problem" is because they need those problems to exist. Because they need an enemy, and if there isn't any, they'll make one. We have zealous, pseudo-religious groups forming on the ends of idpol spectrums. We have fighting and infighting and radicalization and tribalization and "justified" discrimination and many other wrongs, all bound together into a tight mess people call "identity politics" today.
I fail to see a single good thing to come out of all this. I fail to see a single good thing that possibly can.
First off, I didn't redefine identity politics. If you pull up the Wikipedia page you will see essentially the same definition. I brought up the definition because most articles talking about it...
First off, I didn't redefine identity politics. If you pull up the Wikipedia page you will see essentially the same definition. I brought up the definition because most articles talking about it don't have a firm definition (such as this one) and some go further and argue about a characature of the idea instead - which it appears that you are doing right now.
If you don't think that identity politics has been a tremendously positive outcome, you should perhaps find some new voices to listen to. How else do you think that Canada, the US, and Australia have managed to legalize gay marriage? What about worker's rights? Worker is an identity too. In the most extreme positive example I can give you, identity politics is the reason why the global society no longer sees people of different skin colors as subhuman. The term "identity politics" may be relatively new, but it describes timeless human social behaviour.
You are right in one respect, though; I definitely did oversimplify things. The discrimination felt by the identity group doesn't have to be real. That's why both sides need to reflect to make sure that we have real equality and fairness.
Slightly OT, but I have never once seen a person who wasn't a right wing white guy use "idpol". It feels like it's used specifically to trivialize the experiences of others, because on any topic...
I'm going to talk idpol as it is nowadays, as this term is recognized by the mass.
Slightly OT, but I have never once seen a person who wasn't a right wing white guy use "idpol". It feels like it's used specifically to trivialize the experiences of others, because on any topic around identity politics, white guys are always at the top of the food chain and therefore none of the issues effect them.
We have things like "positive discrimination" already, and it's easy to see how they go against the idea of true equality
True equality cannot be achieved by simply saying everyone's equal. You need to address the historical baggage that comes with it, which is why positive discrimination exists. It's an undisputable fact that simply being born black in the US - no matter your social class - is a significant disadvantage compared to being white. Saying whites and blacks are equal doesn't remove that disadvantage, so positive discrimination is most definitely needed. Naturally, you can extend this to all sorts of opressed minorities.
We have groups of people believing to be discriminated against because their fathers were discriminated against
I know of people who are being discriminated against today and whose fathers were also discriminated against, but I don't know anyone that is only in the latter group. Care to give an example?
Would you like to elaborate on how you believe affirmative action or diversity hiring are any more discriminatory than current hiring or testing practices? I'm curious, big picture, what you think...
we have groups of people believing to be discriminated against because policies like "affirmative action" and "diversity hiring" discriminate against them here and now, and both believe they are doing the right thing when they clash.
Would you like to elaborate on how you believe affirmative action or diversity hiring are any more discriminatory than current hiring or testing practices? I'm curious, big picture, what you think the problems are in these areas.
An interesting perspectice. I've often thought that some negative aspects of identity politics are damaging to the society but that the struggle between the desire to do good and tempering that desire with wisdom may be a ultimately healthy for us collectively.
Can you justify this for me dubteedub? I am curious how you feel on this point. The phrasing seems a little extreme. I would have written "The desire to have fellowship and identify with various groups is a normal social instinct."
Okay I hear you, well said.
Friction often creates positive change, and organizing and signaling as a minority group is an effective way to fight for representation.
The following is absolutely not a critique on you personally; it is difficult to have political conversations because of the fact that many political terms vary so widely in perceived meaning between political identity groups. And within those groups, further difference in perception. A positive note would be that this ambiguity could help foster an environment where people engage issues and people thoughtfully and on a case by case basis thus solving the issues that I see being born out of identity politics.
Thanks for the response!
Before I begin, I find it's often helpful to actually define what "identity politics" is. An identity is just an arbitrary grouping by shared traits. Identity politics is simply the act of promoting an idea of how these groups should be treated in society.
I have always thought that the hate identity politics gets is incredibly misguided. It strikes me as a thing that (in the context of United States society) only straight white men could really have. Rather, it's something that is more common in people who are in a politically powerful group. They see these groups of people as "other" and think to themselves "If they really want to be well integrated into this society, they need to stop thinking of themselves as part of this other group".
In reality, Identity politics arise and become popular because they are being discriminated against by those in power. The type of person I was describing earlier who push against them are actually empowering identity politics. If they wanted to, they could get rid of identity politics virtually overnight. And the solution is so obvious that they often brush right past it: they need to adopt true egalitarianism. They need to listen to these minority groups, understand why they are so upset, and enact change to even the playing field. Politics rarely gets simpler than this.
Politics are never simple. And I'd rather not redefine words. I'm going to talk idpol as it is nowadays, as this term is recognized by the mass.
In idpol, we have a mess of divides by gender, race, socioeconomic classes and whatever else, and focusing on those divides is the focus of idpol. It always is. Never about "what we have in common", always about "what we are different in". Focus on divides, feed into divides, group people up by their features. Equality isn't in the picture, it's tribalism. We have things like "positive discrimination" already, and it's easy to see how they go against the idea of true equality. And yet, idpol groups pushing for them are not even the fringe ones, it's a rather mainstream take. We have groups of people believing to be discriminated against because their fathers were discriminated against, and then we have groups of people believing to be discriminated against because policies like "affirmative action" and "diversity hiring" discriminate against them here and now, and both believe they are doing the right thing when they clash. We have opportunistic fringe groups capitalizing on those tensions and divides to push their radical ideology. We have movements that claim to have the solutions to problems of idpol, but if a problem ever comes close to being solved, they redefine what "problem" is because they need those problems to exist. Because they need an enemy, and if there isn't any, they'll make one. We have zealous, pseudo-religious groups forming on the ends of idpol spectrums. We have fighting and infighting and radicalization and tribalization and "justified" discrimination and many other wrongs, all bound together into a tight mess people call "identity politics" today.
I fail to see a single good thing to come out of all this. I fail to see a single good thing that possibly can.
First off, I didn't redefine identity politics. If you pull up the Wikipedia page you will see essentially the same definition. I brought up the definition because most articles talking about it don't have a firm definition (such as this one) and some go further and argue about a characature of the idea instead - which it appears that you are doing right now.
If you don't think that identity politics has been a tremendously positive outcome, you should perhaps find some new voices to listen to. How else do you think that Canada, the US, and Australia have managed to legalize gay marriage? What about worker's rights? Worker is an identity too. In the most extreme positive example I can give you, identity politics is the reason why the global society no longer sees people of different skin colors as subhuman. The term "identity politics" may be relatively new, but it describes timeless human social behaviour.
You are right in one respect, though; I definitely did oversimplify things. The discrimination felt by the identity group doesn't have to be real. That's why both sides need to reflect to make sure that we have real equality and fairness.
Slightly OT, but I have never once seen a person who wasn't a right wing white guy use "idpol". It feels like it's used specifically to trivialize the experiences of others, because on any topic around identity politics, white guys are always at the top of the food chain and therefore none of the issues effect them.
True equality cannot be achieved by simply saying everyone's equal. You need to address the historical baggage that comes with it, which is why positive discrimination exists. It's an undisputable fact that simply being born black in the US - no matter your social class - is a significant disadvantage compared to being white. Saying whites and blacks are equal doesn't remove that disadvantage, so positive discrimination is most definitely needed. Naturally, you can extend this to all sorts of opressed minorities.
I know of people who are being discriminated against today and whose fathers were also discriminated against, but I don't know anyone that is only in the latter group. Care to give an example?
Would you like to elaborate on how you believe affirmative action or diversity hiring are any more discriminatory than current hiring or testing practices? I'm curious, big picture, what you think the problems are in these areas.