|
The issue is less about Identity Politics, and more about the culture around Identity Politics. issues relating to Fiscal Policy and Foreign policy are ignored for Social Policy, which causes friction between those who consider Fiscal important (i.e every poor leftist atm) and those who consider Foreign Policy important (immigrants, humanitarians). They've basically "adopted" internationalist thought to exclusively pertain to different social injustices, rather than the interlinked web of leftist policy. The problem here is that they are punching up, and not in a "row row fight the powa" way; they assume that, because they may have the demographic advantage later down the line, that they no longer need the rest of the leftist base, and so should be openly hostile to groups that might consider their issues equally important. They don't have that edge right now though, so they're just burning bridges and making themselves look unappealing. Its like trying to walk out on a check before your food is even done cooking. It paints a negative picture of this group being very FYGM and wholly prepared to throw allies under the bus. I say this as someone who very much considers social policy important, is in a minority group affected by social policy, and as someone who cut his teeth on leftism with social policy, then foreign policy, then fiscal policy.
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 01:46 |
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:A pretty good example of why "we need both" is a facile lie is that the people saying it are pushing respectability politics for the minorities. Thus, since LGBT people can't put pressure on society in general because that's "alienating" and can't put pressure on corporations because that's "neoliberalism", what would actually happen in Freddie the Boor's ideal leftism is that LGBT liberation and LGBT people as a class would slowly get strangled into oblivion. This isn't at all what people have been talking about, like in the slightest What's being discussed is how an entire wing of leftism can be accused of racism or apathy towards minorities because they consider fiscal policies important. What you're describing is tonal arguments. This is also ignoring that there has been a strong streak of socialism in the history of LGBQT culture. It's not a case of "don't make corporations change things, don't scare white people", it's "don't oppress one side of your own group because you're terrified they might oppress you". White people are not enemies of leftism, let alone change.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Usually dumbass quasi whiteboy cishet leftists get mad about identity politics because they "distract from the class struggle." They actually do. Really, Really often. Because they're accused of exactly this. Really, Really often. Source: I'm a gay socialist
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:It's both. Do you believe that there is nothing leftism can do to make supporting immigrants good from a fiscally left point of view?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Interesting that you put the "Q" before the "T", Neurolimited. Pretend I'm posting the ever-expanding rolleyes gif here.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
stone cold posted:If we're bringing anecdotes to the table, then being told by people like you that dismantling patriarchal values and racism will occur after we smash the capitalists, and having any and all concerns dismissed about POC and noncis nonmen voices being drowned out as identity politics nicely negates out your +1 gay socialist. Nobody has said that either needs to supercede the other. That's the entire point here; social leftists are trying to exclude fiscal leftists from the fight by reading tea leaves and divinating word usage to uncover a hidden plot to abandon social leftists because that happened before 50+ years ago. It's a bizarre ritual that happens only because the social leftists are already trying to abandon fiscal leftists, so clearly fiscal leftists must be trying to do the same.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
Rexicon1 posted:I have no loving clue what you clods are talking about in this thread. Everyone's talking past each other with smug satisfaction in their righteous cause without listening to a goddamn thing anyone says. Apparently there are 49 different definitions of identity politics and no one knows what the gently caress the problem is. quote:Interesting that you put the "Q" before the "T", Neurolimited. Bip Roberts posted:Have you thought that maybe we need to allow unions to exclude blacks. OwlFancier posted:Sorry folks, getting rid of racism and sexism is pie in the sky daydreaming, now let me tell you about the communist utopia I have planned. Those responses to "Fiscal Leftism is important and we shouldn't backstab allies" are a pretty good definition of identity politics.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:What are you going to do to dismantle identity politics? It's pretty simple; ignore it, vote for candidates who aren't squeamish about fiscal leftism, don't support primary candidates whos only message is "we're not like Trump!" Identity Politics is not the enemy of fiscal leftism. It's a roadblock at best, a bizarre internalization of the labels granted by the elite to divide them, taken with pride.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
stone cold posted:I can hold social leftist and fiscal leftist positions without having to deal with leftboiis telling me to shut my whore mouth. Small wonder I don't want to engage so-called "fiscal leftists." Also, lol at whatever your abandonment complex is. It's no complex, friend. It happened in the primaries; any and all concerns about Hillary's competence in the GE and Sander's strength on both fiscal and social sides were handwaved with attempts to tar them as racist and sexist. It got to the point where Hillary surrogates were suggesting that there was a special place in hell for women who voted Sanders, and that Sanders obtained the vast majority of the 18-30 women's vote because they were strolling for dick.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:But you can't ignore it, this is my whole problem with this debate. Its easy to act like identity politics is some demon conjured up by the elite to keep us all divided but that does nothing about the fact that different interest groups (that aren't necessarily defined by class) still exist in society with specific and sometimes exclusive problems. You cannot win an election in the United States or anywhere else without finding a way to mobilize those groups and the horrible truth is that in this point in time Class Consciousness has next to no meaning to the vast majority of the population throughout the western world. Then those problems are tackled by the whole, and not ignored. You don't need to create a tribe against other leftists to get this accomplished. Class Consciousness may not exist within Jack Smith of Michigan's vernacular, but he knows that one candidate doesn't give a poo poo about him and the other's a racist conman, so he sits out the election and we lose. That's the path that attempting to oust fiscal leftism in some absurd attempt to solve discrimination without fiscal tools ends in. You can ignore Identity Politics, because it makes the assumption that they are the end-all be-all of politics despite not actually being that. They do most of the leg-work for you with their "my way or the highway" approach to ally-building.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:I'm sorry your candidate failed to win the Democratic primaries. Are you interested in discussing problems within the democratic party and pertaining to identity politics, or are you going to just keep rallying against fiscally left policies and throwing out zero-effort barbs.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:How is it even a roadblock? "Identity politics" divorced from the pejorative title are unambiguously good things. Because most people don't even know the word and its application to their problems, and those that do have an overwhelmingly high chance of associating it with kneejerk "I guess we need to become RACIST because we need Ignoring this tribal mindset doesn't make those good things disappear.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
stone cold posted:How exactly does pointing out the problems that need to be addressed in the so-called "fiscal left" equate as rallying against fiscal left policies? Because he's not. He's trying to imply that fiscal leftists are neoliberals unconcerned with the plight of their allies. That's not critique, that's being absurd. Brainiac Five posted:It's pretty relevant that the candidate of anti-identity politics people lost his campaign to be nominated by millions of votes, yes. Perhaps he shouldn't have made any nods to feminism or anti-racism, and then would have won. If we're going to discuss the primary race, then it's of note to compare the candidates: someone who had no name recognition beforehand, who only started gaining recognition weeks before vote registration would be ending, with little ties to the party before the race, vs. the biggest non-Obama figure in the Democratic Party, who has had multiple federal positions to establish outreach within minority groups over the span of decades, with support from the DNC and with a far higher amount of available funds from the start. In spite of all this, Bernie Sanders overwhelmingly won the 18-30 Democrat vote, achieving a near-unanimous majority between men and women in all demographics but black (was somewhere around 55 Sanders 45 Hillary) and Hispanic (70-30 or somesuch). Following this race, Hillary proceded to lose to an orange faced real-estate populist by failing to get hundreds of thousands of votes within key states that Obama managed to generate, that were polled to have gone to Sanders in the primaries. Those demographics are also darkly amusing; despite the constant insistence that time and history is on the side of the neoliberals, the vast majority of new democrats are on the side of Social AND Fiscal leftism.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:It's a real shame that George McGovern democratized the primaries, such that it became necessary to campaign for the nomination instead of just handing the nomination to Bernie Sanders outright. We're discussing identity politics, its future, and its problems. I don't understand your bizarre obsession with attacking a candidate that displayed this during the primaries via non-sequiturs that contribute nothing to the conversation. If you're trying to imply that the majority of democrats do not like Sanders, then that is simply wrong; over 90% of polled Hillary supporting democrats chose "very satisfied" when asked the question of "How would you feel if Bernie Sanders became president?". The majority of IRL voters didn't actually hate either candidate (despite hilarious articles implying otherwise).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I was going to type something up about "actually the issue is that those problems are frequently ignored by people who have a pretty useless definition of "no war but class war" but I think you illustrated that point quite well tbh. If you ignore that my prior posts established that when I speak of Identity Politics I refer specifically to a certain mindset that is toxic towards leftist allies, sure. khwarezm posted:They can, but they often aren't, in fact the history of leftist movements all around the world shows how difficult it can be to prompt them to take a proactive stance on issues, especially concerning race and gender, that aren't directly related to class. Within those movements you tended to have to have what was identity politics at work to try and force, say, the labour movement in America to try and shed its disdain for nonwhite workers, and they often failed to do so. This is a reasonable argument, and the best retort I can give is that we can only hope that our influence on the media has resulted in a society that would not abandon minorities if an initiative failed to benefit them. If there are actions that can be taken to ensure that they also receive the help they need, then I know I'd certainly do what I can to help push it and sell it to my friends and allies. quote:And getting onto your example of Jack Smith here, what you seem to be saying is what I've been hearing a lot, that Clinton seemed as though she didn't give a poo poo about him and his plight. The thing is that Clinton had that problem across the board with almost all Democrat groups, including racial minorities. I find it very odd that people are choosing this time to bitch about Identity Politics when a major part of the problem that I can see for the Democrats was that they failed to show that they would really engage with the interests of the various identity groups in the US, while Trump was able to do with the largest identity group of them all. And yes, those interests can be primarily economic. Certainly, it's true that there's been a rather laser-focus on this one issue that Hillary had when she had issues across the board. I'd say that a part of it is vindication on the part of the less-listened segments of the D party, but it's still a good idea to look at why Hillary failed to motivate demographics across the board, irregardless of wealth. I can't speak for racial minorities, but I will say that her track record on LGBQT rights felt very convenient-timing of her, like a lot of Big Important Centrist Democrats.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:The problem, Neurolimal, is that putting forward a candidate who did what the anti-identity politics people wanted, failed. Democrats decided not to pick him as their first choice. So, either you can say he didn't go far enough on opposing identity politics, or you can conclude that minorities need to be reeducated on where their real interests lie, or you can conclude that your obsession with identity politics is the mark of a child, and put away childish things. Alternatively, the Clinton family had a lot of (well-earned) support among minority communities thanks to decades of outreach through the power only a federal billionaire family could hold, and that they liked Sander's message but simply felt in Clinton's debt, for being a politician who actually reached out to black community leaders. The race wasn't black-white (hurr) "Identity Politics vs. Fiscal Leftism", there were significant elements of trust and generational gaps at play which made the race such a compelling read.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Extra, extra! Man convinced that identity politics are the enemy of the left denies minorities agency, read all about it! How am I denying minority agency? If someone has proven through decades that they care about my issues more than the average politician, of course I'm going to hold some loyalty to them over any new figure arguing for nice things. Am I denying myself agency?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:But Bernie also voted to imprison them too? Because the VAWA was attached. He had the option to not vote for a bill he wanted, or vote for the bill he wanted attached to a bill he thought was bad but was supported by the communities it would affect. He made the best possible choice by opting to vote for the bill, but caution others of its potential exploitability and future harm. Do you think intentionally misrepresenting these individual facts helps or hinders the argument that ID leftists hold contempt for and superiority over other leftists?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Why can't minorities shut the hell up and join us in the class war? The vast majority of 18-30 democrats are in favor of fiscal and social leftism. This stretches across all minority demographics. "The minorities" are already engaged in the class struggle. You are not defending the honor of Every Oppressrd Group Ever in this thread.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I mean you certainly can if you don't feel the need to preface it with "enough about that stupid minority crap what we really need to talk about is how great communism is!" "Avoid social leftism or only be a social leftist" is pretty dumb. It's possible to champion a good cause in a terrible way. Thats not to comment on the fact that a discusdion of only fiscal leftism would be critiqued for ignoring social leftism. It's a damned if you do, damned if you dont situation.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
stone cold posted:I'm glad you, a white gay cisman, speak for all minorities. This is a mature reaction to someone pointing out that voting patterns show that minority groups are in favor of both social and fiscal leftism. As you yourself said, of you take such issue with the beliefs of the Democratic party, you could also join the Republicans.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:"Fiscal leftism" isn't a loving thing. It's just plain ol' liberalism 99.9999999% of the time. The remaining infinitesimal fraction is when someone dives into fascism inadvertently. Fiscal Leftism describes the push towards increasingly leftist fiscal policy, given traction by the increasing number of failures on tge part of fiscal conservatism and austrian economics. You're looking at "FULL COMMUNISM" and are excluding them because they aren't saying "FULL COMMUNISM NOW".
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Leftist economic policy has fuckall to do with fiscal policy, because fiscal policy is predicated upon the capitalist system as it currently stands. What is your plan for abandoning capitalism, if you denigrate the strategy of diluting capitalism with socialism until capitalism is left irrelevant.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Carefully stuffing people who say "fiscal leftism" and "identity politics" in a room well-stocked with printouts of Freddie de Boer's tweets and back issues of Jacobin is step one. That's a great and comedic mental image, now back to the quoted post at hand....
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:
This has happened as a result of the public being convinced that leftist policy is bad or ineffective, and leftist intellectuals becoming increasingly disconnected from the public they purport to support and protect. That's not to say that you aren't wrong that a socialist-capitalist system is unstable and a poor strategy. That's why I and many leftist writers are not in favor of leftist capitalism as a goal, but as a stepping stone towards a society free of capital.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:That was the plan of early 20th century social democrats too. Look where that got us. If one failure was enough to deter, then socialism and communism would have been abandoned long ago. And like I said, if you/effectronica don't care for this aplroach, then now is the time to preach a different viable strategy.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
7c Nickel posted:Really? This should be amusing. Please link this, and don't try and quote one sentence out of context. That would be too embarrassing for you. This is a bizarre attitude to have when that exact sort of thing has happened....from the pro-ID side.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
7c Nickel posted:Ok link that then. I have never seen anyone say that economic issues shouldn't be touched. Only that they're insufficient when trying to tackle some problems. I was referring to the "out of context" part. Bip Roberts on Sander's participation in the crime bill, and [unmemorable poster] chopping up posts to suggest I want to ignore social leftism are two notable examples.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:It's blatantly obvious on its face that it's a losing strategy though. Leaving power in the hands of people who want to destroy your ideology is not going to get you to the finishing line. And yeah, you shouldn't try the Russian approach either. You need to take the power out of the hands of capitalists, AND put it in the hands of the people. The social democrats failed at the former, the soviets at the latter. The thing is that failure isn't guaranteed, and even a mild failure results in relief for all workers. I doubt its controversial to say that social capitalism is better than austrian capitalism, and only slightly more controversial to say its easier to progress to a state free of capital from the former than the latter.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
I'm glad the most important posts were made on the first page, so nobody has to sift through what has become an endless chasm of pearl clutching and purity tests
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2016 07:24
|
|
|
It's possible for an elite minority to still face discrimination and pressure without feeling it at the levels that a poor minority may face. There's nothing wrong with pointing out this gap when critiquing a movement, and it doesn't nean that the rich minority hates nonrich minorities. like, I'm sure you feel like you've accomplished something by killing the thread down enough that Effectronica and Stone Cold make up 50% of the new pages, but all it really does is display the repulsive power endless kneejerk overreactions to minor criticisms causes. Nobody wants to argue against someone hiding behind centuries of minority suffering to avoid minor valid complaints about their method of resistance. Well thats my .02 as a mentally ill gay man who was raised in 5+ different apartments and a car when times got rougher, I hope someone found worrh in these posts, namaste
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2016 07:31
|
|
|
You're not wrong to feel that way; Human Rights Campaign (most notable for taking credit for local pride events they had nothing to do with and making people add red squares to their facebook) have always been low-key about trans rights, and have as late as the SC ruling been trying to shoo away trans allied protesters. We can pretend theres no intersection in fiscal and social leftism, but I don't think anyone will be surprised when fewer rich gay americans show up to the fight for trans rights. Though I wont be surprised if White Gays are used to scapegoat that eventuality.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2016 07:47
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Human Rights Campaign, noted for hating trans, had a, uh, trans woman speak for them at the DNC? Following backlash from their behavior at the ruling, yes
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2016 08:05
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Nice. Transphobia. I am sure Neurolimal and Woozy, heroes of trans people, will beat you into the metaphorical ground for this. Aaaany second now. Why do you assume Ahuviya's trans status is the source of the insult and not her partner abuse and preying on young transmen and transwomen? Or her multiple instances of Hypocrisy regarding her hatred of cis men followed by her enacting those same complaints towards her lovers?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2016 08:11
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:
It's possible for trans people to do bad things.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2016 08:29
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:
I was asserting that polls showing the opinions of minority demographics spoke for minorities polled. At no point have I said that I speak for all minority groups. They speak for themselves.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Oh man, how horrible it would be to punish someone for having the wrong opinions, such as being a fascist. Noted fascists, midwestern democrats who voted for Obama but not Clinton
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2016 17:27
|
|
|
Thalantos posted:Bashing someone in the sense that you insult her. Saying "Caitlin Jenner is an out of touch millionaire." Isn't a hate crime. Since this opinion isn't being respected when said by SA posters, I found a respected actor to explain it succinctly in twitter format: https://mobile.twitter.com/SamuelLJackson/status/796876742606528512
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
I feel like that last post explains much about effectronica's attitude towards tbe incredibly minor criticisms within this thread; he views the LGBQT community as beyond infighting or societal unease, and as such it is impossible for a queer rich person to not have the aims of the community as a whole in mind, or for queer human beings to display a tribal mentality, both in politics and in society. As such, any view that may conflict with this percieved hivemind of virtue must not only be wrong, but be enemies and fake-queers. Life just isn't that simple. Even at the movements youngest point you saw conflicts between feminine hippy-inspired queers and leather daddies. It's just human nature to find a smaller group to achieve societal progress, superiority, and comfort. If cishet people no longer existed we absolutely would see fracturing among the alliance. If not on fiscal class then of pettier reasons. Neurolimal fucked around with this message at 18:03 on Dec 4, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 01:46 |
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:You just outlined that people are incapable of anything but immoral behavior, which makes them inherently immoral, which term is a weaker way of saying "evil". I didn't read it like that, instead I believe she does not consider it possible to utterly vanquish bigotry, because time is infinite and every moment an opportunity to exploit perceived differences between folk. That the struggle is eternal and a final solution to the dreaded Poor White Man will not change that. Often the acceptance of various euro ethnicities into a homogenous White category has been pointed to as an example that eternal tolerance can be achieved, but this ignores the real fact that this happened as a result of said groups losing those identities over generations as traditions ended or were adopted by all american groups. One need only visit Europe once to realize this. Neurolimal fucked around with this message at 18:20 on Dec 4, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2016 18:06
|
|