6 ms·

You are doing exactly what the article and the comments above are slating the left for doing: turning the issues that actually affect the other side every day,

by 7Z7 10y ago

You are doing exactly what the article and the comments above are slating the left for doing: turning the issues that actually affect the other side every day, or which they want treated as important, into "imaginary issues". You think identity politics are imaginary to the various minorities (of all descriptions) who just want equal footing and the ability to not deal with race and gender every day of their lives?

tomp 10y ago
If that was their real concern, they wouldn't subscribe to feminism and/or social justice. E.g. even the idea of women being a minority is bullshit (they're actually a majority). Feminism focuses on solving problems for a specific group of people. That's bigotry, pure and simple. Let's rather focus on solving problems for everyone who's affected. And that was exactly what Sanders was doing - economic inequality is largely at the source of all the issues described (e.g. the fact that blacks commit more crime - which in turn pins "whites" (i.e. the majority) against them - could largely be solved by removing them from poverty). Identity politics is largely just an elite "divide and conquer" tactics that's making the lower/middle class groups hate each other.
- mkaziz 10y ago
  As I minority, I will tell you that I trust Sanders far more with social justice than HRC. Also there's nothing bigoted about folks working to make sure women get the same wages as men, or to break the cycle of poverty black folks in Chicago's south side are stuck in. Those are problems plain and simple, and they need to be solved.
  - tomp 10y ago
    I don't think wage gap is a problem. Most statistical analyses explain the gap (via different education and occupation choices, work experience and hours, and negotiaiton skills). Sure, women could increase their wages by negotiating better and getting education that pays better (e.g. STEM). Just as some (many?) men. It's important that we tell them that, but there's no point targeting a specific group with this message. Yes, there could be other discrimination (e.g. there probably is some discrimination against women achieving high management positions) (although it's really hard to measure) - I agree that's a problem and needs to be solved, but it doesn't appear to me that the public discourse revolves around it (it usually ends at the "70 cents to the dollar" myth), and I think the current tactics are actually counter-productive (e.g. they're making men afraid of working with women, lest they say something inappropriate or wear the wrong t-shirt).
    - mkaziz 10y ago
      I'll agree with you that the feminist movement adopts tactics that are counterproductive sometimes (not everyone does everything correctly) but I disagree with you in that there is a point helping out a certain group. Consider a resource A. All humans should have equal access to this resource, but because of various social, cultural, economic and historical factors, minority groups B and C have less access to A than the rest of humankind. I don't think there is anything wrong with targeting those specific groups to help them engineer better access to resource A.
      - tomp 10y ago
        But woman don't have less access to resource A. They only have less access in average! So if you target women, inevitably you'll help some women (Hillary Clinton comes to mind) that are (individually) much more privileged than some (individual) men. I don't think that's fair.
        mkaziz 10y ago
        Very true, that does happen, and it is unfair, but it's a cost of helping the oppressed. Welfare is a great example of this: let's say for a population of 12 that gets welfare, 4 recipients become welfare queens (able to work but choosing not to so they can live off the dole) and the remaining 8 are helped enough so that on top of all the hard work that they do (think of single mothers working multiple jobs who are still below the poverty line), they are able to live and raise their kids with dignity. Yes those it's unfair those 4 people take advantage of welfare, but for me, that's an acceptable cost for helping the other 8 who need it. I'm happy my tax dollars go to that. Of course you can argue forever about whether the cost is worth the benefit, and whether basic income is better than welfare in this form and yadda yadda, but I'm trying to illustrate to you that in a system designed to help a population (I don't agree with you that women are not disadvantaged, but substitute them with any other minority group like black people), some people will inevitably abuse the system, but that's okay as long as there are enough people who benefit to justify the cost of the small number of abuses. In sum: helping a population with less access to resource A is not bigoted and, if implemented right, is a very reasonable approach.
- jmcmichael 10y ago
  How would you differentiate between your definition of identity politics, and recognizing the very real, factual discrepancy between how society treats white males and most of the rest of the population. Do you believe in white privilege, or do you consider it just another example of identity politics? In other words, if I say 'The law enforcement and legal systems of the United States treat African Americans very differently than white Americans, and this needs to be changed.' - is that recognizing a problem that needs attention, or am I engaging in irrelevant, invalid 'identity politics'?
  - tomp 10y ago
    As I said, I think if you ensure economic equality for everyone, the problem will solve itself soon enough. Having said that, if you want to tackle the problem of discrimination separately (e.g. because you believe you can solve more quickly and easily than the economic inequality problem), then the tactics currently used (i.e. feminism - complaining, protesting, self-victimisation, and shaming reasonable conter-arguments) are the wrong way to go about it. Lets for a moment consider a similar, yet different problem. Rape. Men are statistically more likely to rape women than women are (feminists are happy to point that out). I don't think it's correct to villify men as a group for that, but I do think it's reasonable for women to be extra cautious when interacting with men (e.g. it may be a better idea if a drunk woman asks a female friend to take her home, than a male friend, or to cross the street to avoid strange men at night). Nothing personal, just statistics - and oponents can scream "sexism" as loud as they want, but you can't put a price on personal safety (of course, feminists won't scream "sexism" in this istance, because it's fashionable to shame men). Same with blacks and crime. Blacks statistically commit more crime, so it's not unreasonable to be more afraid of or cautious with blacks than with whites (or asians). Sure, it could be plain racism (pre-judice), but it could also simply be pattern-matching based on statistics (post-judice). And even if you consider those instincts to be wrong, it's hard to fight against them, after all they've been keeping us alive for thousands of years! If you nevertheless want to fight those instincts, I guess the best way is more information, and emphasizing that people should be treated as individuals, not as a group. Unfortunately, feminism/social justice/identity politics isn't very good at either. In particular, if you attack (verbally or physically), shame, fire, riot against those whose opinion you want to change, I can't imagine you'll achieve much. Anyhow, that's my thinking, although I fully accept it's wrong/there's more to it - here in the EU, I'm quite a bit removed from racial issues...
vermontdevil 10y ago
Huh? Im a Democrat and I always believed the Dems should focus on economic and social equality. The GOP plays with identity issues (God, Guns, Flag, etc). The Dems need to stay away from that and get back to the populist roots and focus on the working folk. That is what made the Dems a successful party in the past. That's all.
- oldmanjay 10y ago
  Most of the very wealthy people I've met work very hard indeed, yet they are not considered to be "working folk". Why be antagonistic toward powerful people in the core jargon of the party plank? Would honesty of language, or perhaps even inclusiveness, work better than emotional resonance and tribalism?
douche 10y ago
> the ability to not deal with race and gender every day of their lives? Sometimes, a thought percolates up from my poor rural white-boy hind-brain, that maybe instead of absorbing themselves in thinking and protesting and teeth-gnashing about these issues, they might be happier if they focused on themselves and things they can do to improve their own lot in life. If you constantly pick at a scab, it takes forever to heal. I have to remember to not let these forbidden thoughts dribble out. Damn...

by 7Z7 10y ago

tomp 10y ago

If that was their real concern, they wouldn't subscribe to feminism and/or social justice. E.g. even the idea of women being a minority is bullshit (they're actually a majority). Feminism focuses on solving problems for a specific group of people. That's bigotry, pure and simple. Let's rather focus on solving problems for everyone who's affected. And that was exactly what Sanders was doing - economic inequality is largely at the source of all the issues described (e.g. the fact that blacks commit more crime - which in turn pins "whites" (i.e. the majority) against them - could largely be solved by removing them from poverty). Identity politics is largely just an elite "divide and conquer" tactics that's making the lower/middle class groups hate each other.

mkaziz 10y ago
As I minority, I will tell you that I trust Sanders far more with social justice than HRC. Also there's nothing bigoted about folks working to make sure women get the same wages as men, or to break the cycle of poverty black folks in Chicago's south side are stuck in. Those are problems plain and simple, and they need to be solved.
- tomp 10y ago
  I don't think wage gap is a problem. Most statistical analyses explain the gap (via different education and occupation choices, work experience and hours, and negotiaiton skills). Sure, women could increase their wages by negotiating better and getting education that pays better (e.g. STEM). Just as some (many?) men. It's important that we tell them that, but there's no point targeting a specific group with this message. Yes, there could be other discrimination (e.g. there probably is some discrimination against women achieving high management positions) (although it's really hard to measure) - I agree that's a problem and needs to be solved, but it doesn't appear to me that the public discourse revolves around it (it usually ends at the "70 cents to the dollar" myth), and I think the current tactics are actually counter-productive (e.g. they're making men afraid of working with women, lest they say something inappropriate or wear the wrong t-shirt).
  - mkaziz 10y ago
    I'll agree with you that the feminist movement adopts tactics that are counterproductive sometimes (not everyone does everything correctly) but I disagree with you in that there is a point helping out a certain group. Consider a resource A. All humans should have equal access to this resource, but because of various social, cultural, economic and historical factors, minority groups B and C have less access to A than the rest of humankind. I don't think there is anything wrong with targeting those specific groups to help them engineer better access to resource A.
    - tomp 10y ago
      But woman don't have less access to resource A. They only have less access in average! So if you target women, inevitably you'll help some women (Hillary Clinton comes to mind) that are (individually) much more privileged than some (individual) men. I don't think that's fair.
      - mkaziz 10y ago
        Very true, that does happen, and it is unfair, but it's a cost of helping the oppressed. Welfare is a great example of this: let's say for a population of 12 that gets welfare, 4 recipients become welfare queens (able to work but choosing not to so they can live off the dole) and the remaining 8 are helped enough so that on top of all the hard work that they do (think of single mothers working multiple jobs who are still below the poverty line), they are able to live and raise their kids with dignity. Yes those it's unfair those 4 people take advantage of welfare, but for me, that's an acceptable cost for helping the other 8 who need it. I'm happy my tax dollars go to that. Of course you can argue forever about whether the cost is worth the benefit, and whether basic income is better than welfare in this form and yadda yadda, but I'm trying to illustrate to you that in a system designed to help a population (I don't agree with you that women are not disadvantaged, but substitute them with any other minority group like black people), some people will inevitably abuse the system, but that's okay as long as there are enough people who benefit to justify the cost of the small number of abuses. In sum: helping a population with less access to resource A is not bigoted and, if implemented right, is a very reasonable approach.
jmcmichael 10y ago
How would you differentiate between your definition of identity politics, and recognizing the very real, factual discrepancy between how society treats white males and most of the rest of the population. Do you believe in white privilege, or do you consider it just another example of identity politics? In other words, if I say 'The law enforcement and legal systems of the United States treat African Americans very differently than white Americans, and this needs to be changed.' - is that recognizing a problem that needs attention, or am I engaging in irrelevant, invalid 'identity politics'?
- tomp 10y ago
  As I said, I think if you ensure economic equality for everyone, the problem will solve itself soon enough. Having said that, if you want to tackle the problem of discrimination separately (e.g. because you believe you can solve more quickly and easily than the economic inequality problem), then the tactics currently used (i.e. feminism - complaining, protesting, self-victimisation, and shaming reasonable conter-arguments) are the wrong way to go about it. Lets for a moment consider a similar, yet different problem. Rape. Men are statistically more likely to rape women than women are (feminists are happy to point that out). I don't think it's correct to villify men as a group for that, but I do think it's reasonable for women to be extra cautious when interacting with men (e.g. it may be a better idea if a drunk woman asks a female friend to take her home, than a male friend, or to cross the street to avoid strange men at night). Nothing personal, just statistics - and oponents can scream "sexism" as loud as they want, but you can't put a price on personal safety (of course, feminists won't scream "sexism" in this istance, because it's fashionable to shame men). Same with blacks and crime. Blacks statistically commit more crime, so it's not unreasonable to be more afraid of or cautious with blacks than with whites (or asians). Sure, it could be plain racism (pre-judice), but it could also simply be pattern-matching based on statistics (post-judice). And even if you consider those instincts to be wrong, it's hard to fight against them, after all they've been keeping us alive for thousands of years! If you nevertheless want to fight those instincts, I guess the best way is more information, and emphasizing that people should be treated as individuals, not as a group. Unfortunately, feminism/social justice/identity politics isn't very good at either. In particular, if you attack (verbally or physically), shame, fire, riot against those whose opinion you want to change, I can't imagine you'll achieve much. Anyhow, that's my thinking, although I fully accept it's wrong/there's more to it - here in the EU, I'm quite a bit removed from racial issues...

vermontdevil 10y ago

Huh? Im a Democrat and I always believed the Dems should focus on economic and social equality. The GOP plays with identity issues (God, Guns, Flag, etc). The Dems need to stay away from that and get back to the populist roots and focus on the working folk. That is what made the Dems a successful party in the past. That's all.

oldmanjay 10y ago
Most of the very wealthy people I've met work very hard indeed, yet they are not considered to be "working folk". Why be antagonistic toward powerful people in the core jargon of the party plank? Would honesty of language, or perhaps even inclusiveness, work better than emotional resonance and tribalism?

douche 10y ago

> the ability to not deal with race and gender every day of their lives? Sometimes, a thought percolates up from my poor rural white-boy hind-brain, that maybe instead of absorbing themselves in thinking and protesting and teeth-gnashing about these issues, they might be happier if they focused on themselves and things they can do to improve their own lot in life. If you constantly pick at a scab, it takes forever to heal. I have to remember to not let these forbidden thoughts dribble out. Damn...