6 ms·

I agree with this sentiment, with some caveats. I think Americans are totally done with identity politics based on race, gender, religion, sexuality, etc. We’v

I agree with this sentiment, with some caveats. I think Americans are totally done with identity politics based on race, gender, religion, sexuality, etc. We’ve had those arguments and the battle lines were drawn, but at the end of the day we all just live our lives. There seems to have developed somewhat of a “gentleman’s agreement” in most public spaces (explicitly political forums like protests notwithstanding) along be lines of “don’t provoke me for my religious beliefs and I won’t provoke you for your homosexuality”. I do still think we have a long way towards navigating those differences as they play out on an interpersonal level. A classic example is sexual harassment in the workplace: women are justifiably upset by it, but men are also upset at the blowback. Fact is, it’s pretty easy for a man to be threatening to a woman without realizing he is — most men don’t understand how much the sheer size/strength difference intimidates most women when emotions get heated. Navigating this environment takes empathy from both sides and is something that has to be established on a person-to-person basis. IMO this is just the new normal. There was a time when people could hide their differences, but with social media and such I’m not sure that’s reasonable. So we actually have to learn to navigate the differences rather than pretending they don’t exist. That, in my mind, is progress.

ManFromUranus 8y ago
>I think Americans are totally done with identity politics based on race, gender, religion, sexuality I don't see that happening at all, that would be nice, but that's not the general direction. I think things are getting worse as far as that's concerned. Society is polarizing and separating into different groups. At this point it is almost impossible to talk to the "other side" about certain issues. There is MASSIVE distrust of the government and authority that is getting increasing day by day. I think America is becoming a polarized, low-trust society with no common interests and the future looks like regional secession to me. Sub-state entities seceding from other states, states seceding from the greater US etc.
- stronglikedan 8y ago
  > Society is polarizing and separating into different groups. At this point it is almost impossible to talk to the "other side" about certain issues. I only see that online. The many, many people I engage with in real life rarely act like they are in a biased information silo. The ability to hide behind a computer screen just brings out the worst in people, IMHO.
croon 8y ago
> A classic example is sexual harassment in the workplace: women are justifiably upset by it, but men are also upset at the blowback. Fact is, it’s pretty easy for a man to be threatening to a woman without realizing he is — most men don’t understand how much the sheer size/strength difference intimidates most women when emotions get heated. Navigating this environment takes empathy from both sides and is something that has to be established on a person-to-person basis. That might be true in some edge/fringe cases, but your characterization as an equal push-pull here is wildly misleading. There is a change happening, very much for the better, but that is clearly in one direction, and not rooted in "both sides". > There seems to have developed somewhat of a “gentleman’s agreement” in most public spaces (explicitly political forums like protests notwithstanding) along be lines of “don’t provoke me for my religious beliefs and I won’t provoke you for your homosexuality”. Given the previous quote, are the "religious beliefs" in this case relating to sexuality? In that case, one thing is not like the other. You can (and I personally have) grow out of judging people based on their sexuality, grounded in your inherited religion. You can however not grow out of your sexuality. One has to be accepted, religious prejudices (IMHO) don't. "Meeting in the middle" doesn't work, if the middle is way off to the side of where rationality lives. I don't think we can judge thinks purely objectively, but trying on different optics at least helps to inform our argument, whatever that is. This is the goal I hope we reach.
- assblaster 8y ago
  The problem with your statement on religious intolerance, is that wanting someone to change the fundamentals of their religion can be equated with intolerance of that religion, even having a term specific to it: Islamophobia. I think reform of Islam must involve accommodating people who are considered sinners. The problem is that communicating this critique of Islam can be considered hate speech by the tribalists.
  - ModernMech 8y ago
    When people talk about religious tolerance in the US as an issue, they usually are referring to letting white evangelicals get their way politically and culturally. For instance, I know many people who feel their religious liberty was infringed when gay marriage was legalized, but also voted for a guy who called for the "complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the US". It's not about religious liberty as a concept or ideal. It's about I win You lose.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
virtuexru 8y ago
> I think Americans are totally done with identity politics based on race, gender, religion, sexuality, etc. As someone who's living in New York I'd have to say you couldn't be further from the truth. But then again I guess it depends what part of the country you are in.
- humanrebar 8y ago
  Agreed. For example: https://www.newyorker.com/culture/annals-of-gastronomy/chick-fil-as-creepy-infiltration-of-new-york-city https://www.newyorker.com/culture/annals-of-gastronomy/chick...
  - exelius 8y ago
    I’m saying to step outside the “constant outrage” bubble that is the media and out into the actual real world people inhabit. If I walked in to a Chick-fil-a in Manhattan, would I be aware of any controversy?
    - humanrebar 8y ago
      People talk about how they don't like Chic-Fil-A in casual conversation. I'm not sure the worlds are so separate.

ManFromUranus 8y ago

>I think Americans are totally done with identity politics based on race, gender, religion, sexuality I don't see that happening at all, that would be nice, but that's not the general direction. I think things are getting worse as far as that's concerned. Society is polarizing and separating into different groups. At this point it is almost impossible to talk to the "other side" about certain issues. There is MASSIVE distrust of the government and authority that is getting increasing day by day. I think America is becoming a polarized, low-trust society with no common interests and the future looks like regional secession to me. Sub-state entities seceding from other states, states seceding from the greater US etc.

stronglikedan 8y ago
> Society is polarizing and separating into different groups. At this point it is almost impossible to talk to the "other side" about certain issues. I only see that online. The many, many people I engage with in real life rarely act like they are in a biased information silo. The ability to hide behind a computer screen just brings out the worst in people, IMHO.

croon 8y ago

> A classic example is sexual harassment in the workplace: women are justifiably upset by it, but men are also upset at the blowback. Fact is, it’s pretty easy for a man to be threatening to a woman without realizing he is — most men don’t understand how much the sheer size/strength difference intimidates most women when emotions get heated. Navigating this environment takes empathy from both sides and is something that has to be established on a person-to-person basis. That might be true in some edge/fringe cases, but your characterization as an equal push-pull here is wildly misleading. There is a change happening, very much for the better, but that is clearly in one direction, and not rooted in "both sides". > There seems to have developed somewhat of a “gentleman’s agreement” in most public spaces (explicitly political forums like protests notwithstanding) along be lines of “don’t provoke me for my religious beliefs and I won’t provoke you for your homosexuality”. Given the previous quote, are the "religious beliefs" in this case relating to sexuality? In that case, one thing is not like the other. You can (and I personally have) grow out of judging people based on their sexuality, grounded in your inherited religion. You can however not grow out of your sexuality. One has to be accepted, religious prejudices (IMHO) don't. "Meeting in the middle" doesn't work, if the middle is way off to the side of where rationality lives. I don't think we can judge thinks purely objectively, but trying on different optics at least helps to inform our argument, whatever that is. This is the goal I hope we reach.

assblaster 8y ago
The problem with your statement on religious intolerance, is that wanting someone to change the fundamentals of their religion can be equated with intolerance of that religion, even having a term specific to it: Islamophobia. I think reform of Islam must involve accommodating people who are considered sinners. The problem is that communicating this critique of Islam can be considered hate speech by the tribalists.
- ModernMech 8y ago
  When people talk about religious tolerance in the US as an issue, they usually are referring to letting white evangelicals get their way politically and culturally. For instance, I know many people who feel their religious liberty was infringed when gay marriage was legalized, but also voted for a guy who called for the "complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the US". It's not about religious liberty as a concept or ideal. It's about I win You lose.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

virtuexru 8y ago

> I think Americans are totally done with identity politics based on race, gender, religion, sexuality, etc. As someone who's living in New York I'd have to say you couldn't be further from the truth. But then again I guess it depends what part of the country you are in.

humanrebar 8y ago
Agreed. For example: https://www.newyorker.com/culture/annals-of-gastronomy/chick-fil-as-creepy-infiltration-of-new-york-city https://www.newyorker.com/culture/annals-of-gastronomy/chick...
- exelius 8y ago
  I’m saying to step outside the “constant outrage” bubble that is the media and out into the actual real world people inhabit. If I walked in to a Chick-fil-a in Manhattan, would I be aware of any controversy?
  - humanrebar 8y ago
    People talk about how they don't like Chic-Fil-A in casual conversation. I'm not sure the worlds are so separate.