|
You know what the alt-right really hates? identity politics. Crazy, right?
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 12:01 |
|
|
7c Nickel posted:Ok sure. But "I wish she had used stronger language" is a pretty far cry from "She suggested we not touch economic issues at all". She still engaged in the either or bs. Which you claim doesn't exist. JeffersonClay posted:You know what the alt-right really hates? identity politics. Crazy, right? You know if effectronica was not a caricature of their stereotype of leftists I might not think they are a troll.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 02:33
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:She should not say if. They should be broken up. Period. Also why not instead say I'll do it and support everyone when you are denied equal pay. When they say your lifestyle prevents them from renting to you. When they say your gender means they cannot provide your health. So she said good stuff but didn't say all the right good stuff all the time?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:She still engaged in the either or bs. Which you claim doesn't exist. What? No she didn't. She went on to say we need a candidate who can tackle economic and identity issues at the same time. The whole thing was a way of criticizing Bernie for turning to the same economic stump speech for every question. Are you just hoping no one will actually look at the video?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 02:37
|
|
|
apokaladle posted:The terminology is allowing people who sincerely do want to push minority rights aside to blend in among those who sincerely want to fight against oppression on all fronts. That is my concern. Yes, this is a legitimate problem. There definitely do exist a bunch of (white male) leftists who would rather ignore minority/gender issues. But at the same time "Democrats should add more economic populism to their message/platform" is in no way an inherently racist/bigoted message, and it does not directly translate to "let's appeal to white men" (since it's not like white people are the only people who care about economic populism). Basically, it's a situation where "not all leftists" is actually a valid defense, but at the same time it's important to be aware of (and counter) the subset of leftists who would rather ignore "identity politics." My personal feeling is that there's nothing wrong with identity politics (I disagree with the idea that it's somehow splitting up leftists), but that Democrats do need to focus significantly more on leftist economic policy. These issues aren't really related in my mind, and there's no need to talk less about minority/gender issues in order to talk more about other issues as well. I do feel that Democrats are using "identity politics" as a way to define themselves as "leftist" without actually doing anything that would upset their donors (and the "educated well-paid professionals" class that also trends heavily Democrat). So there's nothing wrong with identity politics itself, but Democrats are using it as an excuse to ignore other ideas that might not be palatable to the wealthier portions of their base.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 02:45
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:The problem with pushing about diversity among elites is that the elites can just find people like Margaret Thatcher and Clarence Thomas that will check that box while still completely enforcing the status quo, which is incidentally what Trump is doing right now. The reason diversity among elites is important is because people should not be barred from high positions simply because of their gender or skin color.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 02:47
|
|
|
stone cold posted:pig. You are literal trash. I hope that can put things into perspective for you. The reason is that the sum total of your life is apparently to have poo poo ideas. Torpor fucked around with this message at 02:51 on Dec 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 02:47
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Yeah this is why I think that poster is right. No one could be this obsessed with people who disagree with them in small areas. You are some alt right troll. Go back to the daily stormer. He's like some kind of dictator, "you are the wrong stripe of liberal, so you are a brainless loving idiot who should die". Instead of saying "Hey liberals maybe you should consider x, y z" but it comes across in such a hostile, condescending manner that nobody is going to be persuaded by it. Can't we tell him we aren't your enemy? I get liberals aren't as radical as you want them to be but calm down. It's not just about what you want, but all of us, democratically, should decide what we want. If we democratically decide we want a fascist regime then that's what we deserve to get.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 02:54
|
|
|
Confounding Factor posted:He's like some kind of dictator, "you are the wrong stripe of liberal, so you are a brainless loving idiot who should die". Instead of saying "Hey liberals maybe you should consider x, y z" but it comes across in such a hostile, condescending manner that nobody is going to be persuaded by it. Whoa man, if you've got some suppressed suicidal ideation, that's all on you. I don't think I've ever said anyone should die in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Yes, this is a legitimate problem. There definitely do exist a bunch of (white male) leftists who would rather ignore minority/gender issues. But at the same time "Democrats should add more economic populism to their message/platform" is in no way an inherently racist/bigoted message, and it does not directly translate to "let's appeal to white men" (since it's not like white people are the only people who care about economic populism). i agree with you completely, but i'm probably a bit more suspicious than you about people's intentions, as "identity politics" are usually brought up in the first place in attempts to discredit them. it's not like progressives are saying "let's work on economic equality" and the accursed liberals are busting through the door shouting "no! no! Identity Politics first!!". these conversations always start with white progressives saying apropos of nothing that we need to stop talking about minority rights immediately.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 02:56
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Whoa man, if you've got some suppressed suicidal ideation, that's all on you. I don't think I've ever said anyone should die in this thread. All one has to do is see your colorful rap sheet history that proves I'm right. Do you really think insulting other liberals is the appropriate tact to get your views across and spur one to critically think about them? Or is it you don't really care but enjoy belittling others while feeling you are intellectually superior?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 02:59
|
|
|
Confounding Factor posted:All one has to do is see your colorful rap sheet history that proves I'm right. Do you really think insulting other liberals is the appropriate tact to get your views across and spur one to critically think about them? Or is it you don't really care but enjoy belittling others while feeling you are intellectually superior? I agree, it's better to be polite to bigots than dare to disagree with them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 03:00
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:So she said good stuff but didn't say all the right good stuff all the time?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
Confounding Factor posted:All one has to do is see your colorful rap sheet history that proves I'm right. Do you really think insulting other liberals is the appropriate tact to get your views across and spur one to critically think about them? Or is it you don't really care but enjoy belittling others while feeling you are intellectually superior? But I'm not a liberal? I'm a communist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 03:03
|
|
|
stone cold posted:I agree You are an unfunny version of LF. Though I am pretty sure that the funniest version of LF actually joined the YPG and died in Syria.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 03:04
|
|
|
Confounding Factor posted:He's like some kind of dictator, "you are the wrong stripe of liberal, so you are a brainless loving idiot who should die". Instead of saying "Hey liberals maybe you should consider x, y z" but it comes across in such a hostile, condescending manner that nobody is going to be persuaded by it. That's an incredibly silly notion. Also liberals and socialists really aren't likely to get on especially well because their ideas are fairly opposing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 03:04
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:So you are for ID politics then? I think that there are two different arguments regarding this. One side is actually against "identity politics" while the other just believes Democrats should add more economic populism to their message and platform. I agree with the latter and am suspicious of the former (due to the aforementioned historical issues with leftists abandoning minorities). Venuz Patrol posted:i agree with you completely, but i'm probably a bit more suspicious than you about people's intentions, as "identity politics" are usually brought up in the first place in attempts to discredit them. I think the issue here is more about the way Democrats chose to brand themselves. Even though their platform in this election included some pretty exciting stuff (the free college thing + minimum wage increase), it seems like the core branding revolved around minority/gender issues (or so-called "identity politics"). My feeling is that the Democrats should have made economic populism a more prominent part of their pitch, while still continuing to speak to minority groups. Another big issue with the Democrats in this election was how they made "we're on the right track" such a big element of their message ("America is already great" + talking about how we'll continue in Obama's footsteps). If your life has been poo poo for the last 8+ years, that's an extremely tone-deaf message. A very low info voter (which is the sort of undecided person we need to convince) is going to hear "Make America Great Again" and "America is Already Great" (or worse "I'm With Her", ugh) and realize that only the former makes any reference to significant change*. And change is what they want, because they're suffering under the status quo. * I think this is largely because life actually has been really good for the sort of people who run the Democratic Party. If you're a well-educated, well-paid east/left-coast professional, your life has probably been looking pretty positive over recent years. So that perspective then influences the messaging Democratic Party leadership chooses. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 03:10 on Dec 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 03:07
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:But I'm not a liberal? I'm a communist. I know you aren't because true leftists upset liberals and they get very defensive, as you see in this thread. I've been called a racist, homophobe, etc in the past here eventhough I don't identify as a liberal (nor a communist). While I do have an appreciation for zeal, perhaps its best to follow a proper decorum. I know SA isn't the most polite place on the internet but abrasion can turn good ideas into enemies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
Confounding Factor posted:I know you aren't because true leftists upset liberals and they get very defensive, as you see in this thread. I've been called a racist, homophobe, etc in the past here eventhough I don't identify as a liberal (nor a communist). While I do have an appreciation for zeal, perhaps its best to follow a proper decorum. I know SA isn't the most polite place on the internet but abrasion can turn good ideas into enemies. I spent years and years doing that, and was treated exactly the same. This way, I can at least entertain myself while I'm doing it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
7c Nickel posted:What? No she didn't. She went on to say we need a candidate who can tackle economic and identity issues at the same time. The whole thing was a way of criticizing Bernie for turning to the same economic stump speech for every question. Are you just hoping no one will actually look at the video? She made it very clear she wasn't against the big banks by their very existence.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 03:14
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Yes, this is a legitimate problem. There definitely do exist a bunch of (white male) leftists who would rather ignore minority/gender issues. But at the same time "Democrats should add more economic populism to their message/platform" is in no way an inherently racist/bigoted message, and it does not directly translate to "let's appeal to white men" (since it's not like white people are the only people who care about economic populism). All the minority and lgbt activist groups are way to the left of the party economically anyway. Them growing more powerful has been a big part of the party moving economically to the left over the past few years and killing of the Reagancrats. The same demographics ranting about identity politics today seem to line up pretty nicely with the democratic factions that pushed economic conservatism ("moderates") the hardest in the 90's and early oughts, while still whining about identity politics. The venn diagram for the social and economic left of the democratic party have pretty much been a circle until recently, when rust belt whites and vaguely left young whites stopped saying "communism doesn't work lol, we don't need unions in america" and decided they felt bad about helping kill off unions but couldn't lay the blame at their own loving feet for it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
It seems at this point ITT we are all on the same page re: identity politics, more or less. Only one issue remains: I thought a "cishet" was that weird cat-raccoon animal that shits expensive coffee beans, but apparently not??
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 05:03
|
|
|
It stands for cisgender heterosexual
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 05:20
|
|
|
The 'problem' with identity politics is that the discourse around it has gotten so insanely toxic that it's impossible to tell whether Braniac Five is a well-meaning fellow who genuinely thinks howling abuse and death threats gets their point across, a very intricate lollypop from /pol/, or just mentally ill.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 05:34
|
|
|
I am a cishet, and an intricate lollipop as well
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 05:44
|
|
|
Nude Bog Lurker posted:The 'problem' with identity politics is that the discourse around it has gotten so insanely toxic that it's impossible to tell whether Braniac Five is a well-meaning fellow who genuinely thinks howling abuse and death threats gets their point across, a very intricate lollypop from /pol/, or just mentally ill. A pretty good example of the intellectual cowardice of the people who wail about the devil identity politics is that they decide to consider rudeness abusive. Since they generally are the kind of people to whine about safe spaces or sneer at "invented pronouns", what this amounts to is a sign that not only do they have glass jaws, their entire body is one big glass jaw. Their ability to interact with conservatives without immediately knuckling under is thus in real dispute, since any kind of resistance leads to a total surrender and demand for someone to punish the bad guy who's being mean.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 06:22
|
|
|
The problem with so-called identity politics is that they aren't actually political at all, but rather the affectation and career path of a tiny minority of liberal public intellectuals whose sole function seems to be to rhetorically position their respective "communities" in between the bourgeois establishment and the firebombs of their increasingly radical opposition from the left and right. Political consciousness arises from material conditions. The parade of professional upper-middle class champions of identity politics are quite happy to trade equality among classes for diversity within them and can no more be relied up to mount an effective opposition to neoliberalism than first-world leftists can be expected to seriously challenge imperialist intervention. The job of radicals is not to make facile assertions of a mutual identity with various groups along lines of identity (race, class, gender, etc.), but to dismantle an increasingly global and nakedly cynical system of economic exploitation. These groups need the support of black neoliberals and white fascists like they need another hole in their head.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 06:25
|
|
|
Byolante posted:Because neoliberals use it as a wedge issue to divide classes so they won't unite on economic issues This is the perfect business model description of CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, The New York Times, The Washing Post, and the Guardian.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 06:32
|
|
|
Woozy posted:The problem with so-called identity politics is that they aren't actually political at all, but rather the affectation and career path of a tiny minority of liberal public intellectuals whose sole function seems to be to rhetorically position their respective "communities" in between the bourgeois establishment and the firebombs of their increasingly radical opposition from the left and right. On the other hand, demanding that LGBT people give our lives through bashings, gay/trans panic-induced murders, and suicides, not to mention our blood and effort, all for a family of ideologies that has had an extremely dubious record when it comes to our existence, not just historically but even today, seems a bit absurdist. Now, you could argue that there's no need to refrain from countering these things, but then you're concluding that capitalism can be cleansed of racism, sexism, and LGBTphobia by reform, since radicals are not to do anything to counter violence against these groups except indirectly through class warfare. I disagree with that notion, strongly, and I can't really see how any radical worth their copy of The Wretched of the Earth or What Is To Be Done? could hold that notion for more than a moment in the garden of Gethsemane. But you apparently are a strict determinist, so I guess it's useless to question your beliefs, as they are by necessity locked in stone and impenetrable, unless you can be convinced it was willed beforehand that you were to be convinced at this very hour, and I don't have the masochism necessary to play such a stupid game.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 06:32
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The reason diversity among elites is important is because people should not be barred from high positions simply because of their gender or skin color. JeffersonClay posted:Thomas was approved on a 52/48 senate vote, and all the democrats who voted for him were blue dog southern democrats. The idea that the people pushing for diversity are interested in any POC or woman wasn't true then, and it certainly isn't true now. Carly Fiorina is the most obvious example of the problem that I can think of in the private sector. Female CEO of #20 company in the Fortune 500, ran HP like every other CEO of a soulless multinational that hates its employees. That's what you're really asking for, right? Because that's what you'll get when you demand women in positions that are run through a gatekeeping process that ensures uniformity, a process which is, incidentally, not threatened by a woman or minority holding the CEO position, but is threatened by doing anything that benefits women or minorities in a way that will negatively impact their share price, so the odds of getting that identity/policy disconnect goes up dramatically. This also ties into the problems of neoliberalism too, i.e. I don't think that we should be worshiping CEOs of giant multinationals in the first place, they loom large because of a system of drastically impairing social mobility and transferring wealth upward, which is responsible for their lack of diversity in the first place. We especially shouldn't be looking at them to be representatives of a demographic when their real job is to represent shareholders. In politics it's a different matter because a lot of the positions are supposed to be representative, but cabinet and judicial appointments aren't, and ultimately it's a line of attack where it's easy to deny an advantage by just finding a Thomas, Thatcher, Carson, Bachmann, etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 06:45
|
|
|
On the other hand, unless we're going to go full Khmer Rouge on everything, declaring that there's no point in putting women, people of color, openly gay or trans people, etc. in positions of power seems like you're just inviting trouble as you extend the process of transitioning to socialism and communism. Like, the USSR made huge strides in gender equality, but the actual power structure of the Party remained almost entirely white, straight-passing men, and a lot of that gender equality has evaporated in the aftermath of its collapse.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 06:49
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:On the other hand, demanding that LGBT people give our lives through bashings, gay/trans panic-induced murders, and suicides, not to mention our blood and effort, all for a family of ideologies that has had an extremely dubious record when it comes to our existence, not just historically but even today, seems a bit absurdist. Now, you could argue that there's no need to refrain from countering these things, but then you're concluding that capitalism can be cleansed of racism, sexism, and LGBTphobia by reform, since radicals are not to do anything to counter violence against these groups except indirectly through class warfare. Edith Windsor and her partner were loving vacationing in Italy during Stonewall. You don't think class politics should intervene on identity politics, but guess what? They already do. Take a broader view and it becomes obvious that LGBT people are already dying for an ideology. Specifically, one that privileges access to liberal bourgeois institutions over access to healthcare, outreach, and awareness. One can argue the relative benefits of marriage as a consciousness-raising or symbolic political victory but its absurd to suggest that all the support networks for LGBT people that were cut off from funding because they weren't involved in the marriage equality battle are not ideological casualties.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 06:50
|
|
|
Woozy posted:Edith Windsor and her partner were loving vacationing in Italy during Stonewall. You don't think class politics should intervene on identity politics, but guess what? They already do. Take a broader view and it becomes obvious that LGBT people are already dying for an ideology. Specifically, one that privileges access to liberal bourgeois institutions over access to healthcare, outreach, and awareness. One can argue the relative benefits of marriage as a consciousness-raising or symbolic political victory but its absurd to suggest that all the support networks for LGBT people that were cut off from funding because they weren't involved in the marriage equality battle are not ideological casualties. Oh dang, it's Ted Rall! You're pretty famous around these parts dude. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 07:00
|
|
|
Woozy posted:Edith Windsor and her partner were loving vacationing in Italy during Stonewall. You don't think class politics should intervene on identity politics, but guess what? They already do. Take a broader view and it becomes obvious that LGBT people are already dying for an ideology. Specifically, one that privileges access to liberal bourgeois institutions over access to healthcare, outreach, and awareness. One can argue the relative benefits of marriage as a consciousness-raising or symbolic political victory but its absurd to suggest that all the support networks for LGBT people that were cut off from funding because they weren't involved in the marriage equality battle are not ideological casualties. I'm an actual fag, breeder, not some gym-rat with the clone look either, so don't talk down to me. Squeaking like the little rat you are about how marriage rights are just "symbolism" and "consciousness-raising" makes it very clear what your position is on homos and other such degenerates- stay in your place. I mean, poo poo, you're going on about "outreach" and "awareness" over loving housing and employment discrimination laws. Seems a bit loving anti-materialist to me, but then again, it's abundantly clear where you stand. It is unfortunately somewhere where any LGBT person foolish or naive enough to stand with you will get stabbed in the back. What is interesting is that your argument is an identitarian one- that LGBT people, or even specific subgroups of LGBT people, are not a class, but an identity. Edith Windsor is a fake lesbian because she was relatively well-off, and there are no issues that unite all LGBT people, or all L people, all B people, all G people, all T people. Gayness, transness, these are things you can just shed. But, in the actual lived reality of even closeted, extremely-able-to-pass-for-straight or -cis people, this is not the case, except possibly for the upper reaches of the bourgeoisie. I suspect not even for them, they just get a looser leash. On the other hand, we could consider that, just like the proletariat and bourgeoisie are defined by their relationship to the means of production, LGBT people are defined by their existence as a policed sexuality, across all other categories, and that this makes them a class, and that winning "bourgeois" things like societal legitimacy for loving is, in fact, a good thing. Well, "we" excluding you, who has made up your mind already on these matters, and holds to your belief in the divine material conditions as to your assured rightness.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 07:03
|
|
|
My favorite part here is also the nasty gendered dimension as well, as if to imply the true villains are lesbians. Glad that if I settle down and want to marry a woman in the future it'll be because I'm a bougie bitch, not out of love and the many benefits marriage afford like adopting kids together or being able to see her in the loving hospital. Please tell me more about how to run my life, you breeding man-garbage!
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 07:08
|
|
|
Spironolactone is a bourgeois affectation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 07:11
|
|
|
Democrats and are currently in the process of burying Keith Ellison as an anti-Semite, so I guess chalk up another victory/casualty for identity politics. Will we even still be surprised when Trump roundly defeats the next milquetoast center-right patsy the Democratic party puts up in four years?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 07:11
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:I'm an actual fag, breeder, not some gym-rat with the clone look either, so don't talk down to me. Squeaking like the little rat you are about how marriage rights are just "symbolism" and "consciousness-raising" makes it very clear what your position is on homos and other such degenerates- stay in your place. My argument is very explicitly that LGBT are distributed across a number of different classes. On the hand, there's a class that is reduced to begging their friends and family for financial assistance, often unsuccessfully, in order to receive medical treatments that might go some way towards preventing the kind of suicide you cynically invoke in your defense of economic exploitation, and on another is a class who prattles on about "lived experience" from the comfort of their Manhattan apartments.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 07:11
|
|
|
Woozy Ralls into the thread at high speed, Ralling off the walls and braining himself on a statue of Slavoj Zizek
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 07:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 12:01 |
|
|
Woozy posted:My argument is very explicitly that LGBT are distributed across a number of different classes. On the hand, there's a class that is reduced to begging their friends and family for financial assistance, often unsuccessfully, in order to receive medical treatments that might go some way towards preventing the kind of suicide you cynically invoke in your defense of economic exploitation, and on another is a class who prattles on about "lived experience" from the comfort of their Manhattan apartments. Please stop using the most marginalized of the most marginalized as your whacksticks. Also what a stunner that you bring up class, and not say, how issues of race affect LGBTQ people, almost like you know loving dogshit! Ah yes, and you definitely can tell me exactly how difficult the poor LGBTQ experience is. You definitely have worked and advocated and interacted with members of say, homeless LGBTQ minorities!  Oh wait, no you can't because you haven't lived it, middle class white breeder fuccboi.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 07:18
|
|