6 ms·

The intent of "identity liberalism" (an awful neologism: I'd prefer "identity emphatic") is to try to end otherization of out-groups. But Lilla's point is right

The intent of "identity liberalism" (an awful neologism: I'd prefer "identity emphatic") is to try to end otherization of out-groups. But Lilla's point is right on. The result is often divisive rather than inclusive. My white uncle is famous for saying "You should never discriminate against people because they're different. But why do those people keep coming over here?" o_0

m_mueller 10y ago
I'm not sure why you chose to mock your unvle after your first paragraph. Am I missing your /s tag or are you missing the irony .. of calling your uncle your white uncle. why is that so important to have it his main attribute? .. of emphasizing those people - was that really his emphasis or is it rather you who turns around his words into something he didn't say? .. of not trying to understand his point, rather to immediately accuse him of bigotry. I read it as a dissatisfaction with economical migration when already many domestic people (who have basically a lot of sunken cost in this society) are left behind. I read his first sentance as an assurance that he doesn't care about race or ethnicity, rather, it's natural in-group vs. out-group thinking. If anyone who does that is a bigot, then boy, everyone is a bigot sometime - and the distinction is meaningless. So if you weren't sarcastic I suggest rereading the article.
- gcr 10y ago
  > If anyone who does that is a bigot, then boy, everyone is a bigot sometime - and the distinction is meaningless. Nah. Different races are different, sure. In-group and out-group. But there's also a power element that you're not considering. Black vs white is in-group and out-group, but one of those groups is disenfranchised. That's where the racism comes in. It is anything but meaningless.
  - m_mueller 10y ago
    I truly think that if this thinking prevails, then liberalism in the US is doomed. Sorry to become preaching here, but for the love of science, stop caring about race, gender snd ethnicity so much, instead care about class. There are at least as many white folks with no means to get ahead than black folks - and we haven't yet considered the other major ethnic groups. What you should care about is the 'glass ceiling' installed for a whole class of people who cannot offer their sons and daughters the chance to move up anymore. Liberals need to get back to tackling issues, not identities, that make the American nation such a divided one. And the obvious one to me is education. Forget about affirmative action, make high quality education accessible for any capable resident. Having less in-group vs. out-group thinking will follow automatically when people start thinking that everyone gets a fair chance again.
    - tomp 10y ago
      > instead care about class my hero!
    - nickbauman 10y ago
      I'm all for doing whatever works. But white people aren't getting arrested for being white. They aren't getting redlined for bad loans. They aren't having their schools having resources getting directed away from them because the student body us predominantly white. It doesn't just cleave along lines for some. It cleaves along matrices.
      - m_mueller 10y ago
        Tbh. it's hard for me to imagine how the government can fail so hard as to have racist resource allocation for education. How hard can it be? You have state level funds for public schools right? Divide by nunber of pupils, have some budget controlling, done. How can resources even be redirected, if not for everyone in the state? Who's deciding this? Are they relying on sponsorship? If that's the case then get rid of that and raise taxes and public funds accordingly. I firmly believe that schools need to be egalitarian, everyone deserves the same resources and care at the start of his/her life, with the only exception being special care students.
  - Kalium 10y ago
    One of the key points in this article is that when you divide people into identity groups, some of those groups are going to feel neglected. As you get at, some of those groups that feel neglected are groups you and I would consider privileged and protected. Yet... other people don't vote based on what you and I think or feel. They vote based on what they think and feel. If people are treated in a way that makes them feel like they are out-group, regardless of structural power, those people will tend to act like an out-group instead of a powerful in-group. tl;dr: You can tell people that they're an enfranchised in-group, but if they don't feel that way it might backfire.
    - jshevek 10y ago
      > You can tell people that they're an enfranchised in-group... This is not (and should not be) very meaningful for the individual.
      - throwanem 10y ago
        Many disagree. Consider the possibility that they might not be wrong in so doing.
        Kalium 10y ago
        You're right! Many people rightly consider this very relevant to the lives of individuals. This is something that should always be considered. Yet, the issue remains - if you tell someone that they are an enfranchised member of an in-group and their lived experience seems to contradict that, two things are likely to happen. First, they will tend to favor their lived experience over your carefully considered claims. Second, they will tend to discount and disregard anything further you might say, as you have damaged your credibility by invalidating their lived experiences. So, please, consider the possibility that what one expects to be meaningful to a person's life and what that person considers meaningful to a person's life may differ in potentially significant ways.
        throwanem 10y ago

m_mueller 10y ago

I'm not sure why you chose to mock your unvle after your first paragraph. Am I missing your /s tag or are you missing the irony .. of calling your uncle your white uncle. why is that so important to have it his main attribute? .. of emphasizing those people - was that really his emphasis or is it rather you who turns around his words into something he didn't say? .. of not trying to understand his point, rather to immediately accuse him of bigotry. I read it as a dissatisfaction with economical migration when already many domestic people (who have basically a lot of sunken cost in this society) are left behind. I read his first sentance as an assurance that he doesn't care about race or ethnicity, rather, it's natural in-group vs. out-group thinking. If anyone who does that is a bigot, then boy, everyone is a bigot sometime - and the distinction is meaningless. So if you weren't sarcastic I suggest rereading the article.

gcr 10y ago
> If anyone who does that is a bigot, then boy, everyone is a bigot sometime - and the distinction is meaningless. Nah. Different races are different, sure. In-group and out-group. But there's also a power element that you're not considering. Black vs white is in-group and out-group, but one of those groups is disenfranchised. That's where the racism comes in. It is anything but meaningless.
- m_mueller 10y ago
  I truly think that if this thinking prevails, then liberalism in the US is doomed. Sorry to become preaching here, but for the love of science, stop caring about race, gender snd ethnicity so much, instead care about class. There are at least as many white folks with no means to get ahead than black folks - and we haven't yet considered the other major ethnic groups. What you should care about is the 'glass ceiling' installed for a whole class of people who cannot offer their sons and daughters the chance to move up anymore. Liberals need to get back to tackling issues, not identities, that make the American nation such a divided one. And the obvious one to me is education. Forget about affirmative action, make high quality education accessible for any capable resident. Having less in-group vs. out-group thinking will follow automatically when people start thinking that everyone gets a fair chance again.
  - tomp 10y ago
    > instead care about class my hero!
  - nickbauman 10y ago
    I'm all for doing whatever works. But white people aren't getting arrested for being white. They aren't getting redlined for bad loans. They aren't having their schools having resources getting directed away from them because the student body us predominantly white. It doesn't just cleave along lines for some. It cleaves along matrices.
    - m_mueller 10y ago
      Tbh. it's hard for me to imagine how the government can fail so hard as to have racist resource allocation for education. How hard can it be? You have state level funds for public schools right? Divide by nunber of pupils, have some budget controlling, done. How can resources even be redirected, if not for everyone in the state? Who's deciding this? Are they relying on sponsorship? If that's the case then get rid of that and raise taxes and public funds accordingly. I firmly believe that schools need to be egalitarian, everyone deserves the same resources and care at the start of his/her life, with the only exception being special care students.
- Kalium 10y ago
  One of the key points in this article is that when you divide people into identity groups, some of those groups are going to feel neglected. As you get at, some of those groups that feel neglected are groups you and I would consider privileged and protected. Yet... other people don't vote based on what you and I think or feel. They vote based on what they think and feel. If people are treated in a way that makes them feel like they are out-group, regardless of structural power, those people will tend to act like an out-group instead of a powerful in-group. tl;dr: You can tell people that they're an enfranchised in-group, but if they don't feel that way it might backfire.
  - jshevek 10y ago
    > You can tell people that they're an enfranchised in-group... This is not (and should not be) very meaningful for the individual.
    - throwanem 10y ago
      Many disagree. Consider the possibility that they might not be wrong in so doing.
      - Kalium 10y ago
        You're right! Many people rightly consider this very relevant to the lives of individuals. This is something that should always be considered. Yet, the issue remains - if you tell someone that they are an enfranchised member of an in-group and their lived experience seems to contradict that, two things are likely to happen. First, they will tend to favor their lived experience over your carefully considered claims. Second, they will tend to discount and disregard anything further you might say, as you have damaged your credibility by invalidating their lived experiences. So, please, consider the possibility that what one expects to be meaningful to a person's life and what that person considers meaningful to a person's life may differ in potentially significant ways.
        throwanem 10y ago