Starkiller Posted July 12, 2018 Report Share Posted July 12, 2018 8 minutes ago, THE_TITAN said: No it isn't. People are individuals, individuals should have equal rights. Identity politics pits groups against each other - based on immutable characteristics. When Republicans go after gays or trans people or any other demographic as a group then Democrats should defend them as a group. It’s not that hard to comprehend. Mythos27 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE_TITAN Posted July 12, 2018 Report Share Posted July 12, 2018 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Starkiller said: When Republicans go after gays or trans people or any other demographic as a group then Democrats should defend them as a group. It’s not that hard to comprehend. Strawman argument. We are talking about IDENTITY POLITICS as a phenomenon. Explain to me how it doesn't pit groups against eachother? (Not to mention that your strawman argument is a clear illustration of your subscription to the identity politics groupthink mentality. By assuming that all gays or trans people would agree with your assertion that the GOP are "going after them", I'm sure you'll find a diversity of opinion on that point. But it doesn't matter because you assume a groupthink > the individual mentality). Edited July 12, 2018 by THE_TITAN Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE_TITAN Posted July 12, 2018 Report Share Posted July 12, 2018 (edited) This obsession with identity of the group (which is usually some constructionist narrative whipped up by some far-left or far-right crackpot movement) has really alienated the rural working class vote for the Dems. When they used to focus on the individual worker, and talk about policies to assist the individual, that really resonated. But now they seem to be focused (or at least the dominant progressive wing does) on group-based policies. Without realising that a group isn't homogeneous in terms of its worldview just because individuals within that group share an immutable characteristic/s. At its core identity politics is extremely anti-liberal because of its disdain for the individual. Edited July 12, 2018 by THE_TITAN Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkiller Posted July 12, 2018 Report Share Posted July 12, 2018 12 minutes ago, THE_TITAN said: Strawman argument. We are talking about IDENTITY POLITICS as a phenomenon. Explain to me how it doesn't pit groups against eachother? (Not to mention that your strawman argument is a clear illustration of your subscription to the identity politics groupthink mentality. By assuming that all gays or trans people would agree with your assertion that the GOP are "going after them", I'm sure you'll find a diversity of opinion on that point. But it doesn't matter because you assume a groupthink > the individual mentality). There’s no strawman, it’s just a fact. Gays are attacked as a demographic. Trans people are attacked as a demographic. Black people are attacked as a demographic. They aren’t discriminated against because of their individual characteristics, they are discriminated against based on the fact they they are gay, or trans, or black, or whatever demographic checkbox they check. Groups are inherently pit against one another. When the civil rights movement was at its peak in the 60's it wasn’t about individuals being discriminated against. It was about black people as a demographic. And liberals had to defend black people as a group. Mythos27 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyrus Posted July 12, 2018 Author Report Share Posted July 12, 2018 @Starkiller You may find this interesting, and this is actually a bit more what I was alluding to. I don't think the Republican party is prepared for this, but if the Democratic party were will to cast a broader net, it could incorporate many of these ideas. (particularly since in some ways I think the Democratic party, especially under Clinton was quite a bit more pluralistic). Tim Keller and Redeemer had a nice conversation with Inazu and Nicholas Kristof (of the NYT) regarding some of these ideas as well, along with civility in politics: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE_TITAN Posted July 12, 2018 Report Share Posted July 12, 2018 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Starkiller said: There’s no strawman, it’s just a fact. Gays are attacked as a demographic. Trans people are attacked as a demographic. Black people are attacked as a demographic. They aren’t discriminated against because of their individual characteristics, they are discriminated against based on the fact they they are gay, or trans, or black, or whatever demographic checkbox they check. Groups are inherently pit against one another. When the civil rights movement was at its peak in the 60's it wasn’t about individuals being discriminated against. It was about black people as a demographic. Please provide evidence for any of the above, it is just empty narrative. And do you really think the civil rights movement was successful because of identity politics?! The people like MLK who really pushed that movement forward did it by being inclusive and illustrating the power of equality to all INDIVIDUALS. If it were a black vs white contest do you really think LBJ would've passed the legislation? No chance. Coalitions based upon sound ideas and appealing to individuals is the way forward. The policy issue was discrimination again minorities, yes, but this wasn't overcome by discrimination or disdain for other groups. It was overcome by open dialogue and debate to illustrate to individuals how powerful the argument and necessity of equality among the races instantiated in legislation actually was and still is. Edited July 12, 2018 by THE_TITAN Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkiller Posted July 12, 2018 Report Share Posted July 12, 2018 4 minutes ago, Cyrus said: @Starkiller You may find this interesting, and this is actually a bit more what I was alluding to. I don't think the Republican party is prepared for this, but if the Democratic party were will to cast a broader net, it could incorporate many of these ideas. (particularly since in some ways I think the Democratic party, especially under Clinton was quite a bit more pluralistic). Tim Keller and Redeemer had a nice conversation with Inazu and Nicholas Kristof (of the NYT) regarding some of these ideas as well, along with civility in politics: Well I’d argue that Democrats have been on the plurality and diversity train for as long as I can remember. The party itself is a big tent party that runs from moderately conservative to very liberal. They cast a pretty big net as it is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyrus Posted July 12, 2018 Author Report Share Posted July 12, 2018 Just now, THE_TITAN said: Please provide evidence for any of the above, it is just empty narrative. Well you could reference the support for defined marriage laws (or civil unions) in Congress. There's also the bathroom bill that was overturned in North Carolina. Broadly speaking you can talk about a variety of federal minimums and criminal justice laws being a detriment to minority communities. (I'd argue that while they disproportionately affect people of color, that they're not necessarily racist - but many are unjust nonetheless). However, these are issues that the right are divided on as well - even though they have broad support (in terms of civil unions) in the Republican party. By the way, I don't think "trans" issues are remotely comparable to the Civil Rights movement, or segregation, or institutional racism. It's not the same. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkiller Posted July 12, 2018 Report Share Posted July 12, 2018 6 minutes ago, THE_TITAN said: Please provide evidence for any of the above, it is just empty narrative. Anti-gay discrimination, anti-trans discrimination, anti-Black discrimination, anti-Muslim discrimination, etc are all both fact historically and currently in various forms. That’s clear evidence in and of itself. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE_TITAN Posted July 12, 2018 Report Share Posted July 12, 2018 1 minute ago, Cyrus said: Well you could reference the support for defined marriage laws (or civil unions) in Congress. There's also the bathroom bill that was overturned in North Carolina. Broadly speaking you can talk about a variety of federal minimums and criminal justice laws being a detriment to minority communities. (I'd argue that while they disproportionately affect people of color, that they're not necessarily racist - but many are unjust nonetheless). However, these are issues that the right are divided on as well - even though they have broad support (in terms of civil unions) in the Republican party. By the way, I don't think "trans" issues are remotely comparable to the Civil Rights movement, or segregation, or institutional racism. It's not the same. I'd struggle to term most of those examples as "attacking" those demographics as it was put. But the laws you mentioned i.e. criminal justice laws being a detriment to minority communities doesn't mean the laws are inherently discriminatory, it is usually behaviour on the other end that leads to the disproportionate affects i.e. higher crime rate among black populace. My point is you don't overcome any of those issues by pitting groups against eachother in the form of identity politics. It just leads to more polarized and extreme politics on both ends of the political spectrum. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE_TITAN Posted July 12, 2018 Report Share Posted July 12, 2018 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Starkiller said: Anti-gay discrimination, anti-trans discrimination, anti-Black discrimination, anti-Muslim discrimination, etc are all both fact historically and currently in various forms. That’s clear evidence in and of itself. Identity politics doesn't solve any problems of discrimination. I mean if we want to talk about DISCRIMINATION, identity politics has led to policies which openly advocate for discrimination under the guise of "equity" e.g. affirmative action policies that openly discriminate against asian and white student applicants to the Ivy League because of their race. That is discrimination that the identity politics left certainly supports because it forwards their so-called equity agenda. Edited July 12, 2018 by THE_TITAN Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkiller Posted July 12, 2018 Report Share Posted July 12, 2018 14 minutes ago, THE_TITAN said: Identity politics doesn't solve any problems of discrimination. I mean if we want to talk about DISCRIMINATION, identity politics has led to policies which openly advocate for discrimination under the guise of "equity" e.g. affirmative action policies that openly discriminate against asian and white student applicants to the Ivy League because of their race. That is discrimination that the identity politics left certainly supports because it forwards their so-called equity agenda. Yes, fighting for equal rights does solve problems of discrimination under the law. Fighting for equal rights isn’t going to eliminate racism or xenophobia or any other form of bigotry, but just giving people legal equality is a huge step towards solving discrimination. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE_TITAN Posted July 13, 2018 Report Share Posted July 13, 2018 14 minutes ago, Starkiller said: Yes, fighting for equal rights does solve problems of discrimination under the law. Fighting for equal rights isn’t going to eliminate racism or xenophobia or any other form of bigotry, but just giving people legal equality is a huge step towards solving discrimination. Affirmative action isn't legal equality, it's legal discrimination. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkiller Posted July 13, 2018 Report Share Posted July 13, 2018 1 hour ago, THE_TITAN said: Affirmative action isn't legal equality, it's legal discrimination. It’s not discrimination when it keeps minorities from being systematically discriminated against... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE_TITAN Posted July 13, 2018 Report Share Posted July 13, 2018 11 minutes ago, Starkiller said: It’s not discrimination when it keeps minorities from being systematically discriminated against... Judging applications on merit isn't systematic discrimination. Stopping asians from attending Harvard because of their race is systematic discrimination. That's affirmative action. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.