3 ms·

You're right that there isn't any conflict between supporting civil rights and the working class, but identity politics is a perversion of social justice that t

You're right that there isn't any conflict between supporting civil rights and the working class, but identity politics is a perversion of social justice that treats everyone according to their external characteristics. In this case, working class whites have heard about how privileged they are to be white (while everyone's wages have risen around them) and how racist they are for opposing the illegal immigration that threatens their stability. And this is coming to them largely from upper and upper-middle class elites with no skin in the game, who largely make no attempt to understand their perspective. Mind you, the GOP and Trump aren't models of virtue. The message isn't "the Dems should be more like the Reps", it's "be compassionate and nuanced and stop abusing the innocent people you depend on".

wpietri 9y ago
Identity politics is not some weird Tumblr creation. America was founded by and for well-off white men. They were the only ones who could vote. America's history can be written as the slow removal of those limits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States#Removal_of_exclusions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_St... What most white dudes critique as "identity politics" is people talking about and trying to remedy historical identity-based oppression. But they don't like these things being explicitly talked about, because sweeping the historical oppression under the rug is one of the mechanisms by which that oppression is maintained. If you really don't like identity politics, you too should work to help undo America's long history of pro-white, pro-male, pro-upper-class identity politics.
- weberc2 9y ago
  I don't think anyone disputes historical oppression (or at least those who do are outliers), I think the concern is that the identity devotees deliberately try to conflate real, historical oppression with things like women making different career choices than men. Their propensity to conclude oppression at any sign of a disparity (but only disparities that disadvantage one of "their groups"; e.g., wage gap is oppression but not workplace fatality gap) and constant mischaracterizations of opposing arguments ruins their credibility as advocates for real social justice. To put it bluntly, the "social justice left" appears to be more concerned with hating "white dudes" than it is with addressing actual social justice problems, and when a huge portion of your voting base is comprised of people you appear to hate or at least treat very badly, you should not expect to win an election.
  - wpietri 9y ago
    Plenty of people do dispute historical oppression. Plenty of people deny outright that it was oppression at all. They think it was better back then. And they are not outliers. But if you're claiming that historical oppression totally ended at some point, what date do you believe that was? As a white dude, I disagree with your reading of the American left. I don't think I've ever experienced a personal hate for myself. They do take issues with a lot of the behaviors of a group that has benefited from and sustains oppression. But I object to that too.
    - weberc2 9y ago
      > Plenty of people do dispute historical oppression. Plenty of people deny outright that it was oppression at all. They think it was better back then. And they are not outliers. I would be surprised of slavery deniers or any comparable entity comprised more than a tenth of a percent of the U.S. population, but I'm happy to be disproven. > But if you're claiming that historical oppression totally ended at some point, what date do you believe that was? It depends on how you precisely define "historical oppression". The most common definition I'm aware of refers to slavery, Jim Crowe laws, lynchings, etc. Those things largely ended in the 70s in most places in the U.S., but I'll go so far as to say the 90s. > They do take issues with a lot of the behaviors of a group that has benefited from and sustains oppression. But I object to that too. This is sort of my point. I have no idea what you possibly mean by "oppression" or "benefited from" or "sustains". Team "identity" has watered the term down such that I have no idea if you're talking about real oppression (probably not, since that would be newsworthy) or merely women having different career priorities than men. I'm inclined to think if you were talking about meaningful oppression, you could call it by name and wouldn't need to rely on the shock value of the word 'oppression' to advance your position. If you want to (for example) make things better for inner city black communities, come grab a shovel. But no one is oppressing these communities nor do they have an incentive to do so--poor communities are expensive. If poverty were an easy problem, it would be solved. People who talk about "oppression" and "structural racism" seem to think that wealth is the default state of man, and that poverty can only be explained by oppression.
      - 9y ago

wpietri 9y ago

Identity politics is not some weird Tumblr creation. America was founded by and for well-off white men. They were the only ones who could vote. America's history can be written as the slow removal of those limits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States#Removal_of_exclusions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_St... What most white dudes critique as "identity politics" is people talking about and trying to remedy historical identity-based oppression. But they don't like these things being explicitly talked about, because sweeping the historical oppression under the rug is one of the mechanisms by which that oppression is maintained. If you really don't like identity politics, you too should work to help undo America's long history of pro-white, pro-male, pro-upper-class identity politics.

weberc2 9y ago
I don't think anyone disputes historical oppression (or at least those who do are outliers), I think the concern is that the identity devotees deliberately try to conflate real, historical oppression with things like women making different career choices than men. Their propensity to conclude oppression at any sign of a disparity (but only disparities that disadvantage one of "their groups"; e.g., wage gap is oppression but not workplace fatality gap) and constant mischaracterizations of opposing arguments ruins their credibility as advocates for real social justice. To put it bluntly, the "social justice left" appears to be more concerned with hating "white dudes" than it is with addressing actual social justice problems, and when a huge portion of your voting base is comprised of people you appear to hate or at least treat very badly, you should not expect to win an election.
- wpietri 9y ago
  Plenty of people do dispute historical oppression. Plenty of people deny outright that it was oppression at all. They think it was better back then. And they are not outliers. But if you're claiming that historical oppression totally ended at some point, what date do you believe that was? As a white dude, I disagree with your reading of the American left. I don't think I've ever experienced a personal hate for myself. They do take issues with a lot of the behaviors of a group that has benefited from and sustains oppression. But I object to that too.
  - weberc2 9y ago
    > Plenty of people do dispute historical oppression. Plenty of people deny outright that it was oppression at all. They think it was better back then. And they are not outliers. I would be surprised of slavery deniers or any comparable entity comprised more than a tenth of a percent of the U.S. population, but I'm happy to be disproven. > But if you're claiming that historical oppression totally ended at some point, what date do you believe that was? It depends on how you precisely define "historical oppression". The most common definition I'm aware of refers to slavery, Jim Crowe laws, lynchings, etc. Those things largely ended in the 70s in most places in the U.S., but I'll go so far as to say the 90s. > They do take issues with a lot of the behaviors of a group that has benefited from and sustains oppression. But I object to that too. This is sort of my point. I have no idea what you possibly mean by "oppression" or "benefited from" or "sustains". Team "identity" has watered the term down such that I have no idea if you're talking about real oppression (probably not, since that would be newsworthy) or merely women having different career priorities than men. I'm inclined to think if you were talking about meaningful oppression, you could call it by name and wouldn't need to rely on the shock value of the word 'oppression' to advance your position. If you want to (for example) make things better for inner city black communities, come grab a shovel. But no one is oppressing these communities nor do they have an incentive to do so--poor communities are expensive. If poverty were an easy problem, it would be solved. People who talk about "oppression" and "structural racism" seem to think that wealth is the default state of man, and that poverty can only be explained by oppression.
    - 9y ago