31 ms·

A nuanced view? Are you sexist?! /s I highly suspect it is closely tied with each sexes favored topic. Most women are less interested in Right-to-Repair, where

by nugi 9y ago

A nuanced view? Are you sexist?! /s I highly suspect it is closely tied with each sexes favored topic. Most women are less interested in Right-to-Repair, where men seem much less interested in identity politics until either get the pointy end. I, like you, would favor data over conversation and pontificating. Already, studies of this type can be hard to fund. Introducing a component that could promote bias (real or percieved), is enough to often warrant its disconsideration, and it is unfortunate.

andrepd 9y ago
>men seem much less interested in identity politics Ahahahaha. Somehow, I really doubt it. Do you have any statistics to back you up or is that just your bias talking?
kevinh 9y ago
> where men seem much less interested in identity politics I wouldn't be surprised if there's a bias to this. After the 2016 election, there was discussion about the focus of Democrats on identity politics, but Trump's campaign was almost entirely identity politics, which was rarely explicitly called out. It seems as though when the group that holds the most political power (men, white people, Christians) has concerns, it's not viewed as identity politics, whereas for political minorities, it is.
- ygaf 9y ago
  I still don't understand what identity politics is. (as opposed to politics)
  - ajmurmann 9y ago
    This is really hard to respond to because the general definition is straight forward, but concrete examples get controversial really quick. As I understand it identity politics is dominated by in-group and out-group thinking. The group can be racial, cultural, gender based, didn't really matter. Extreme examples are: You aren't allowed to speak about the situation of women in the work place without identifying as a woman; if you are pro abortion and don't smoke you are likely against guns and the crucial part: might be shunned from your social group of you aren't; funny example from a recent article here: if you are a true Vegan you also can't eat processed food like Quorn.
    - ygaf 9y ago
      So identity politics is when you try to make other people invalid. That's a more radical definition than the one(s) in wikipedia, thanks though.
      - ygaf 9y ago
        Multiple downvotes for acknowledging replies, wow. There's some real clowns out there.
  - superioritycplx 9y ago
    Trudeau making half of his office female, even though much less were actually elected, is identity politics.
  - booleandilemma 9y ago
    Identity politics is calling a black person who voted for McCain or a mexican-american who voted for Trump a traitor.
  - kelukelugames 9y ago
    May I suggest the wikipedia page? The term has historical significance. It's usually applied to underprivileged groups and associated with democrats. For some reason no one calls it identity politics when Trump divides us into patriots and sons of bitches. Or real Americans vs coastal elites, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_politics
    - ygaf 9y ago
      I wouldn't ask about single words/concepts without wiki'ing first. It's when even wikipedia leaves me blank that I pray for the interpretation of a HNer (or stackexchanger etc). Wikipedia says identity politics is people holding political positions in the interests of their religion, social class or caste, culture, dialect, disability, education, ethnicity, language, nationality, sex, gender identity, generation, occupation, profession, race, political party affiliation, sexual orientation, settlement, urban and rural habitation, and veteran status. Well damn, that's everything.
      - kelukelugames 9y ago
        Yes, it covers everything. But in the US the term "identity politics" became popular during the Civil Rights Era. So it has been used to describe issues impacting African Americans. They vote overwhelmingly Democrat, so Republicans use the term in a derogatory manner.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- ajmurmann 9y ago
  I've heard the point made that the Democrat's identity politics caused the Trumpian identity politics as a backslash. If topics are frequently about solving issues for groups that are explicitly different from you, you get framed as the problem and frequently even prohibited from having a voice backslash is inevitable especially by people who don't agree with the problem statement in the first place. That approach is not a productive way to have any discussion.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > I've heard the point made that the Democrat's identity politics caused the Trumpian identity politics as a backslash. Well, it's true that white identity politics in the US was a response to abolitionism and the upswing since the mid-20th century a response to the civil Rights movement, and the Republican Partt embrace of white identity politics a direct response to LBJs embrace of civil rights, so there's a long term historical sense where (accounting for the flip in party positions over history) that's true. More immediately, Trumpian identity politics is more a direct reaction to neoliberal globalism with a rhetorical veneer directed at Democratic identity politics. On the other hand, Democratic identity politics are currently the major distraction from the fact that the dominant Democratic faction is dedicated primarily to neoliberal globalism, so there is that.
  - marcosdumay 9y ago
    > the Democrat's identity politics caused the Trumpian identity politics as a backslash Trump's campaign made sure to groom this backslash and harvest the maximum amount of polarization from it. As did Hillary's campaign on the other side. The next step in "bettering society" seems to be creating some kind of resistance towards that thing.
- smokeyj 9y ago
  > It seems as though when the group that holds the most political power (men, white people, Christians) has concerns, it's not viewed as identity politics, whereas for political minorities, it is I have no support for trump, but the level of identity politics was nowhere near comparable. This is when the phrase "check your privilege" became a meme - because it was being used to shut down the conversation. Progressives literally had a scorecard for if they'd consider talking to you. (Gay +1, Trans + 3, Black +2, Female + 1.5, Hetero Parents -5). It's disheartening to see people turn down the opportunity to discuss ideas and then feel morally righteous about it. I can't think of anything more anti-intellectual. If this attitude doesn't change I only see things becoming more polarized and nasty. We need people discussing ideas with those who don't always agree. That's the engine for progress.
  - door3 9y ago
    >I have no support for trump, but the level of identity politics was nowhere near comparable. This is when the phrase "check your privilege" became a meme - because it was being used to shut down the conversation. Progressives literally had a scorecard for if they'd consider talking to you. (Gay +1, Trans + 3, Black +2, Female + 1.5, Hetero Parents -5). This kind of PC-obsessed SJW seems to me to be a total fabrication of the right disconnected from what actual leftists and progressives are fighting for. #metoo wants men to stop harassing and assaulting women with impunity #blacklivesmatter wants cops to stop murdering black men with impunity You know what, I think these are issues where people should be polarized "morally righteous" about, whatever that means. They are real injustices that affect a large number of people on a daily basis. Activists rightly view these struggles as ideological battles to be won, not conversations to be had. What is the "other side" to affirming the basic humanity of women or black people?
    - smokeyj 9y ago
      > What is the "other side" to affirming the basic humanity of women or black people? But how much of politics is economic theory? We're split along the dismal science of welfare and taxation. It's unfair to the socially liberal and fiscal conservatives to shut down economic conversations on the basis of "you must hate blacks and women". That's really what I feel unjustly about. In the past people may have been more willing to discover your nuances, now it's a simple matter of red team or blue team.

by nugi 9y ago

andrepd 9y ago

>men seem much less interested in identity politics Ahahahaha. Somehow, I really doubt it. Do you have any statistics to back you up or is that just your bias talking?

kevinh 9y ago

> where men seem much less interested in identity politics I wouldn't be surprised if there's a bias to this. After the 2016 election, there was discussion about the focus of Democrats on identity politics, but Trump's campaign was almost entirely identity politics, which was rarely explicitly called out. It seems as though when the group that holds the most political power (men, white people, Christians) has concerns, it's not viewed as identity politics, whereas for political minorities, it is.

ygaf 9y ago
I still don't understand what identity politics is. (as opposed to politics)
- ajmurmann 9y ago
  This is really hard to respond to because the general definition is straight forward, but concrete examples get controversial really quick. As I understand it identity politics is dominated by in-group and out-group thinking. The group can be racial, cultural, gender based, didn't really matter. Extreme examples are: You aren't allowed to speak about the situation of women in the work place without identifying as a woman; if you are pro abortion and don't smoke you are likely against guns and the crucial part: might be shunned from your social group of you aren't; funny example from a recent article here: if you are a true Vegan you also can't eat processed food like Quorn.
  - ygaf 9y ago
    So identity politics is when you try to make other people invalid. That's a more radical definition than the one(s) in wikipedia, thanks though.
    - ygaf 9y ago
      Multiple downvotes for acknowledging replies, wow. There's some real clowns out there.
- superioritycplx 9y ago
  Trudeau making half of his office female, even though much less were actually elected, is identity politics.
- booleandilemma 9y ago
  Identity politics is calling a black person who voted for McCain or a mexican-american who voted for Trump a traitor.
- kelukelugames 9y ago
  May I suggest the wikipedia page? The term has historical significance. It's usually applied to underprivileged groups and associated with democrats. For some reason no one calls it identity politics when Trump divides us into patriots and sons of bitches. Or real Americans vs coastal elites, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_politics
  - ygaf 9y ago
    I wouldn't ask about single words/concepts without wiki'ing first. It's when even wikipedia leaves me blank that I pray for the interpretation of a HNer (or stackexchanger etc). Wikipedia says identity politics is people holding political positions in the interests of their religion, social class or caste, culture, dialect, disability, education, ethnicity, language, nationality, sex, gender identity, generation, occupation, profession, race, political party affiliation, sexual orientation, settlement, urban and rural habitation, and veteran status. Well damn, that's everything.
    - kelukelugames 9y ago
      Yes, it covers everything. But in the US the term "identity politics" became popular during the Civil Rights Era. So it has been used to describe issues impacting African Americans. They vote overwhelmingly Democrat, so Republicans use the term in a derogatory manner.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
ajmurmann 9y ago
I've heard the point made that the Democrat's identity politics caused the Trumpian identity politics as a backslash. If topics are frequently about solving issues for groups that are explicitly different from you, you get framed as the problem and frequently even prohibited from having a voice backslash is inevitable especially by people who don't agree with the problem statement in the first place. That approach is not a productive way to have any discussion.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > I've heard the point made that the Democrat's identity politics caused the Trumpian identity politics as a backslash. Well, it's true that white identity politics in the US was a response to abolitionism and the upswing since the mid-20th century a response to the civil Rights movement, and the Republican Partt embrace of white identity politics a direct response to LBJs embrace of civil rights, so there's a long term historical sense where (accounting for the flip in party positions over history) that's true. More immediately, Trumpian identity politics is more a direct reaction to neoliberal globalism with a rhetorical veneer directed at Democratic identity politics. On the other hand, Democratic identity politics are currently the major distraction from the fact that the dominant Democratic faction is dedicated primarily to neoliberal globalism, so there is that.
- marcosdumay 9y ago
  > the Democrat's identity politics caused the Trumpian identity politics as a backslash Trump's campaign made sure to groom this backslash and harvest the maximum amount of polarization from it. As did Hillary's campaign on the other side. The next step in "bettering society" seems to be creating some kind of resistance towards that thing.
smokeyj 9y ago
> It seems as though when the group that holds the most political power (men, white people, Christians) has concerns, it's not viewed as identity politics, whereas for political minorities, it is I have no support for trump, but the level of identity politics was nowhere near comparable. This is when the phrase "check your privilege" became a meme - because it was being used to shut down the conversation. Progressives literally had a scorecard for if they'd consider talking to you. (Gay +1, Trans + 3, Black +2, Female + 1.5, Hetero Parents -5). It's disheartening to see people turn down the opportunity to discuss ideas and then feel morally righteous about it. I can't think of anything more anti-intellectual. If this attitude doesn't change I only see things becoming more polarized and nasty. We need people discussing ideas with those who don't always agree. That's the engine for progress.
- door3 9y ago
  >I have no support for trump, but the level of identity politics was nowhere near comparable. This is when the phrase "check your privilege" became a meme - because it was being used to shut down the conversation. Progressives literally had a scorecard for if they'd consider talking to you. (Gay +1, Trans + 3, Black +2, Female + 1.5, Hetero Parents -5). This kind of PC-obsessed SJW seems to me to be a total fabrication of the right disconnected from what actual leftists and progressives are fighting for. #metoo wants men to stop harassing and assaulting women with impunity #blacklivesmatter wants cops to stop murdering black men with impunity You know what, I think these are issues where people should be polarized "morally righteous" about, whatever that means. They are real injustices that affect a large number of people on a daily basis. Activists rightly view these struggles as ideological battles to be won, not conversations to be had. What is the "other side" to affirming the basic humanity of women or black people?
  - smokeyj 9y ago
    > What is the "other side" to affirming the basic humanity of women or black people? But how much of politics is economic theory? We're split along the dismal science of welfare and taxation. It's unfair to the socially liberal and fiscal conservatives to shut down economic conversations on the basis of "you must hate blacks and women". That's really what I feel unjustly about. In the past people may have been more willing to discover your nuances, now it's a simple matter of red team or blue team.