3 ms·

The point is if one person is a “Leftist” for whom class is most important and the other is a “Leftist” for whom it takes a back seat to race/gender/sexuality/e

The point is if one person is a “Leftist” for whom class is most important and the other is a “Leftist” for whom it takes a back seat to race/gender/sexuality/etc - then the one word (“Leftist”) is being used to mean two different things. What do queer theory, intersectional feminism and critical race theory have in common with Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, etc? I don’t think they have much in common at all. Calling both the former and the latter “leftists” just makes the word meaningless

Dalewyn 4y ago
Whether you're talking about how much money, or what genes, or what genitals someone has, or what genitals someone thinks they have, you're still overtly concerned with what someone is and how that can be used to discriminate. So no, I don't see any difference of substance. The terminology changes, but the substance remains the same. Not to mention, the left also still talks about class. Remember the "We are the 99%!" craze?
- skissane 4y ago
  > you're still overtly concerned with what someone is and how that can be used to discriminate. But aren’t many people on the Right “overtly concerned with what someone is” and even with “how that can be used to discriminate”? I think your definition of “Left” is too broad, because it ends up encompassing much of the “Right” in its terms.
  - Dalewyn 4y ago
    Your response vindicates my position.
    - skissane 4y ago
      What does that mean?
      - Dalewyn 4y ago
        You evaded my argument and tried to reframe it into a "But the other side!" conversation, which is worse than worthless because you have refused to engage in discourse. If you won't (or more likely can't) refute my argument, it stands to reason my position is vindicated: There is no difference of substance between the left talking about class and the left talking about race and sexuality. To put it another way, you are failing to convince me to your ideas.
        skissane 4y ago
        You proposed a definition of “Left”. I pointed out your definition doesn’t work because taken literally it incorporates things which nobody in their right mind would call “Left”. I am engaging in discourse-I don’t feel like you are.
        Dalewyn 4y ago
        The "We are the 99%!" crowd were decidedly left, but that is beside the point. I said I see no difference of substance between class, race, and sexuality insofar as politics is concerned, it's all identity politics all the way down. You have provided nothing to suggest otherwise.
        skissane 4y ago
        > The "We are the 99%!" crowd were decidedly left, but that is beside the point. That was more than 10 years ago though. A lot has changed in the decade+ since. 2023 “progressivism” differs in many ways from its 2011 incarnation, to the point that you have to ask if it is still the same thing, or has evolved (or been hijacked) into something else > I said I see no difference of substance between class, race, and sexuality insofar as politics is concerned, it's all identity politics all the way down. “Identity politics” isn’t exclusive to “the Left” however-nationalism is a form of “identity politics” too, and while there are “left” versions of it, the majority of it is usually considered “right”. White nationalism, Christian nationalism, Kahanism, Islamism, Nazism, “men’s rights activists”, “incels”, etc - all are examples of “right-wing identity politics”. So, defining “left” in terms of “identity politics” doesn’t work

Dalewyn 4y ago

Whether you're talking about how much money, or what genes, or what genitals someone has, or what genitals someone thinks they have, you're still overtly concerned with what someone is and how that can be used to discriminate. So no, I don't see any difference of substance. The terminology changes, but the substance remains the same. Not to mention, the left also still talks about class. Remember the "We are the 99%!" craze?

skissane 4y ago
> you're still overtly concerned with what someone is and how that can be used to discriminate. But aren’t many people on the Right “overtly concerned with what someone is” and even with “how that can be used to discriminate”? I think your definition of “Left” is too broad, because it ends up encompassing much of the “Right” in its terms.
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  Your response vindicates my position.
  - skissane 4y ago
    What does that mean?
    - Dalewyn 4y ago
      You evaded my argument and tried to reframe it into a "But the other side!" conversation, which is worse than worthless because you have refused to engage in discourse. If you won't (or more likely can't) refute my argument, it stands to reason my position is vindicated: There is no difference of substance between the left talking about class and the left talking about race and sexuality. To put it another way, you are failing to convince me to your ideas.
      - skissane 4y ago
        You proposed a definition of “Left”. I pointed out your definition doesn’t work because taken literally it incorporates things which nobody in their right mind would call “Left”. I am engaging in discourse-I don’t feel like you are.
        Dalewyn 4y ago
        The "We are the 99%!" crowd were decidedly left, but that is beside the point. I said I see no difference of substance between class, race, and sexuality insofar as politics is concerned, it's all identity politics all the way down. You have provided nothing to suggest otherwise.
        skissane 4y ago
        > The "We are the 99%!" crowd were decidedly left, but that is beside the point. That was more than 10 years ago though. A lot has changed in the decade+ since. 2023 “progressivism” differs in many ways from its 2011 incarnation, to the point that you have to ask if it is still the same thing, or has evolved (or been hijacked) into something else > I said I see no difference of substance between class, race, and sexuality insofar as politics is concerned, it's all identity politics all the way down. “Identity politics” isn’t exclusive to “the Left” however-nationalism is a form of “identity politics” too, and while there are “left” versions of it, the majority of it is usually considered “right”. White nationalism, Christian nationalism, Kahanism, Islamism, Nazism, “men’s rights activists”, “incels”, etc - all are examples of “right-wing identity politics”. So, defining “left” in terms of “identity politics” doesn’t work