Identity Politics

Racism is just one manifestation of the Right-Wrong Game.
Identity politics is the generalisation of it all. Identity politics
makes all those not of the identity given privileged note or demanding equality the notion they are wrong (... not right, responsible, must change etc). Neither unity of purpose nor
compassion will evolve out of such dynamics. The only way for
things to get better in society is for emphasis to be put on
what is common & focus on:

human being

Comments

Mark de LA says

Tolerance alone does not work because it fluctuates from time to time & is context dependent. What may be tolerable for neighbors living next together may not be tolerable for their children going to school with each other. What is mandated by the state under threats of punishment rarely works at all.

Mark de LA says

The branch of the tolerate thesaurus which I most often associate with the word is: ( Seth, yours are to the left & below.

Mark de LA says

IMHO, there is no challenge to tolerate someone who does not impinge upon your world. If they get close enough to your world to engage or stimulate the RWG it becomes another matter.

Mark de LA says

M 2012-05-21 09:45:48 16022

seth 2012-05-21 09:26:45 16022

I seems to me that the central point of your thesis here is expressed in your sentence ...

source: from main item above
"Identity politics makes all those not of the identity given privileged note or demanding equality the notion they are wrong (... not right, responsible, must change etc)"

... unfortunately i have tried to parse that enumerable times with no success. What are expressing here ... perhaps in other words ?

Very well then ... identity politics panders privileges & political favors to separate groups for votes. Those who are not in those groups & hence not partakers in the privileges & favors feel left out; often the political favors & privileges make one identity group wrong with respect to another. The prime example there is the black-white thingy. If nothing else, money devoted by politicians to one group vis-a-vis another or from taxes creates a RWG. Another example is the intrusion of government into the business & traditions of the churches, mosques, synagogues & temples making religions wrong vis-a-vis secular values. E.g. the provision in Obamacare to pay for contraception violates decades of church doctrine. Such things will not be resolved in a RWG or tolerance context.

Seth says

M 2012-05-21 11:28:58 16022

M 2012-05-21 09:45:48 16022

seth 2012-05-21 09:26:45 16022

I seems to me that the central point of your thesis here is expressed in your sentence ...

... unfortunately i have tried to parse that enumerable times with no success. What are expressing here ... perhaps in other words ?

Well a politician's constituents consist of every interest group (minority or majority) which they represent. Seems to me that (A) they should not ignore those interests but should represent them. Also it seems to me that (B) the government should provide equal protection under the law ... and hence should not pass any law that favors or disadvantages any group over another. Any politician pandering to a group, promising to advantage them over another, is then just as despicable as ignoring their legitimate concerns, whether they are the majority or a minority.

Your term "RWG or tolerance context" seems to me to join things that do not usually go together ... because RWG is not tolerance ... it is almost the opposite. But yes, RWG is, almost by definition, not a context in which anything is resolved ... tolerance, however, is.

Mark de LA says

M 2012-05-22 10:50:42 16022

Yep, you ignored the pandering part which is exactly what politicians do. They are now disposed to represent themselves first & their constituents only so far as they get votes from them. Throwing money at one group or another, class warfare, & bankrupting the nation to get votes from a majority who benefit is free bread, clowns & circuses NOT tolerance & NOT representation.

IMHO, of course!

BTW, interest groups is NOT the same thingy as identity group. Identity groups are like blacks, whites, homosexuals, poor, rich, etc. Interest groups are single cause usually like abortion.

Mark de LA says

M 2012-05-22 11:25:57 16022

See how your tolerance works on this one. Obama is going to pander to the anti-war activists by closing down the official war in 2014 - hoping for more votes from that group. Kewl, eh? OTOH, the Afghanis well get ~ 4.1 Billion Dollars per year from NATO for the following TEN years - the bulk of it coming from the USA. How do you feel about this particular transaction? It does affect you because at least 2 billion$$ comes out of our taxes. You may or not tolerate it because it is so burried in this:

Mark de LA says

M 2012-05-22 10:53:34 16022

M 2012-05-22 10:50:42 16022

IMHO, of course!

BTW, interest groups is NOT the same thingy as identity group. Identity groups are like blacks, whites, homosexuals, poor, rich, etc. Interest groups are single cause usually like abortion.

I should probably elaborate the distinction thus: an identity group doesn't change itself , i.e. those based on race, religion, sex, national origin, & other relatively unchangeable properties. I sometimes wonder whether ignorance isn't an identity group (techinically not). Wikipedia gives a better definition in terms of minorities.

Mark de LA says

I.E. The Afghanistan war was a bad example. Anti-war is an interest group issue. Amnesty for illegal aliens or any racial issue would be a good example. Obviously not all people from an identity group think alike.

Seth says

M 2012-05-23 08:06:13 16022

M 2012-05-22 10:53:34 16022

M 2012-05-22 10:50:42 16022

IMHO, of course!

BTW, interest groups is NOT the same thingy as identity group. Identity groups are like blacks, whites, homosexuals, poor, rich, etc. Interest groups are single cause usually like abortion.

Mark i did not ignore your "pandering part" ... please reread my original response in context above ...

source: seth above
"Any politician pandering to a group, promising to advantage them over another, is then just as despicable as ignoring their legitimate concerns, whether they are the majority or a minority. "

.

Drawing distinctions which make no difference to my (A) and (B) reasons, given above is not refuting them, rather is just arguing. What would end up happening is that the favorite groups of a partisan end up being not a "identity group" but the ones that are favorite of the opposition are "identity groups". Equal protection under the law means that the government should not advantage or disadvantage any group or special interest whatsoever. You can't pick and choose.

Mark de LA says

Your (A) & (B) & lumping everything into "equal protection" is just an equal outcome pseudo-intellectual pile of crap.

(A) - they must represent everyone not just the ones who vote for more free bread & circuses - EVERYONE! (including those who must be robbed to pay for the circuses)

(B) - change should to must & you get the problem. Suing & jailing politicians who spend you bankrupt is very hard to do since the constitution provides a measure of immunity for them. You have to catch a actual bribery, liable, slander (all of which are being done daily in the election 2012 campaign) red-handed & then sometimes you can't do anything about it in time. The "everyone does it" meme is prevalent; beaten-up on & ignored almost universally.

Equal protection does not mean equal outcome for all people. Not everyone gets to be rich nor all people uniformly poor. Not everyone gets to be an NBA star. People get sick & die! The equality domain referes to "rights" not equity & not the economic domain.

Mark de LA says

Note that the ruling class in China, North Korea, Russia (& the former Soviet Union) & Cuba live a fairly unequal privileged life compared to the uniformly poor worker class.

Mark de LA says

.. & here is a giant, fuck-you, in your face result of Obama's identity politics:

source: ...

The second sentence of the Associated Press story addresses the true impetus for the policy change; election-year politics. Obama, and today's Democrat party, see the electorate as a patchwork-quilt of interest groups. Sprinkle enough goodies on certain blocks of voters and they believe they can put together just enough support to win. It can work to a point. But, when the pandering to specific groups undercuts one's overarching narrative it can erode support in the overall electorate.

Obama's policy change sends a clear message to Hispanic voters. It also sends a clear message to non-hispanic voters. Namely, Obama has just added millions of workers to the legal labor force. Millions of illegal immigrants will now be able to legally compete with Americans for the very few jobs available. This message will not be lost on working-class voters.

... if they are conscious!

Mark de LA says

Obama Jobs Program: Help Illegals Compete with Americans for Scarce Jobs

Mark de LA says

Watch how the unemployment statistics change with this absorption, he... he... he...

Mark de LA says

OBAMA IS MORE OF A DIVIDER - DEFINITELY NOT A UNITER:

AP Dems, GOP disagree on part of Obama's executive order on illegal immigration that allows some applicants to avoid deportation despite having committed crimes.

OPINION: Obama's Immigration Move is a Smart, Fair Policy

OPINION: Decision Is Unconstitutional Disaster for Unemployed

EiamMagor says

seth 2015-06-14 12:36:13 16022

Believing in an "ideal human" causes the worst behaviors of identity politics ... the class "ideal human" being just one such instance of the offending identities. I find using anti-identity-politics as an excuse to rag on the behavior of others has at its core this irony. It is so strange that conservatives don't realize that irony ... but i assure you, those on the butt end of their mouth feel it's sting.

Are you an ideal human? Is that what you identify with? Is that the group to which you belong? I wonder who are the people who do not hail to that group?

NOPE! Not what I'm saying. Try harder.

... says

The guilting of America is now sharing the gulting of races. Some now have to identify as Afro-Americans or Hispanic-Americans instead of the uniting under the name:

AMERICANS
~
Give thanks to the divider in the WhiteHouse

(now when will they change that name?)

Seth says

Seth Russell Of course Republicans ... er, Conservatives ... eschew identity politics. Their narrative seems to imply that politically we are generic humans and must needs only relate to those features which we all share. So to a Conservative where our identities meet and converse and interact politically is a no-man's-land to be derided and mocked ... especially class. A conservative must deny class ... to them politically it cannot exist. With one brilliant stroke they have done away with a person's status and relegated it to the heap where it should slave in service of GDP, or rather just shut up and die.

The only response i can think of is to tell them, "to go to hell". They have themselves and my class quite intellectually check mated.

my comment to Simon StLarent’s interesting train of thought on Facebook

Mark de LA says
Likewise to you & him!

Identity Politics

human being

Tags

Comments

Obama Jobs Program: Help Illegals Compete with Americans for Scarce Jobs

See Also