4 ms·

Look at politics today, though. The party that is speaking out vociferously against climate change and inequality is the Democratic party, whose voters are stat

Look at politics today, though. The party that is speaking out vociferously against climate change and inequality is the Democratic party, whose voters are statistically much younger, more educated, more urban, less white, less religious, more female. Now look at the GOP, which handed out huge tax breaks to the rich/corporations, and who denies climate science...GOP voters (and the politicians themselves)_are older, whiter, more rural, more male, and much less likely to believe in climate change. It's just simple demographic facts that Boomers are politically much, much more likely to not care about climate change and financial inequality. Yes, it sucks that older folks who do care are being painted with a broad brush, but that's the nature of quick and dirty articles.

PeterStuer 7y ago
That is not the nature of 'quick and dirty articles'. That is precisely the nature of identity politics, which treats everyone not as an individual with a personal identity and personal believes and responsibilities, but as a generic instanced clone of some immutable class assigned by birth, all members of which need to prostrate to a perpetual divisive ideological war.
- Miner49er 7y ago
  Identity politics is just a useful way to refer to groups of people. You can't really have (useful) politics without identity politics. For example, how do you talk about helping homeless people, without using their shared identity (the fact that they are homeless)? Obviously it's not always a useful thing, and grouping people by shared identities can be messy. I don't understand how it can be avoided though, unless you just want the world to stay exactly the same it is.
  - PeterStuer 7y ago
    'Homeless people' are in the context of homelessness policy are not a 'shared identity' but an accurate identification of the (mutable) attribute the policy should target. It is the exact opposite of the (immutable) identity politics approach.
    - Miner49er 7y ago
      That doesn't really make much sense. Why should it matter if the identity is immutable or not? What matters is whether or not it is a useful way to talk about an issue and people. It's immutable that a kid is a kid. It's immutable that some kids have cancer. What's so wrong to use identity politics to say we should help kids that have cancer?

PeterStuer 7y ago

That is not the nature of 'quick and dirty articles'. That is precisely the nature of identity politics, which treats everyone not as an individual with a personal identity and personal believes and responsibilities, but as a generic instanced clone of some immutable class assigned by birth, all members of which need to prostrate to a perpetual divisive ideological war.

Miner49er 7y ago
Identity politics is just a useful way to refer to groups of people. You can't really have (useful) politics without identity politics. For example, how do you talk about helping homeless people, without using their shared identity (the fact that they are homeless)? Obviously it's not always a useful thing, and grouping people by shared identities can be messy. I don't understand how it can be avoided though, unless you just want the world to stay exactly the same it is.
- PeterStuer 7y ago
  'Homeless people' are in the context of homelessness policy are not a 'shared identity' but an accurate identification of the (mutable) attribute the policy should target. It is the exact opposite of the (immutable) identity politics approach.
  - Miner49er 7y ago
    That doesn't really make much sense. Why should it matter if the identity is immutable or not? What matters is whether or not it is a useful way to talk about an issue and people. It's immutable that a kid is a kid. It's immutable that some kids have cancer. What's so wrong to use identity politics to say we should help kids that have cancer?