Jordan Peterson

[ruby sparks]

But are they? I agree that they should. I agree that they're the most damaged by it. But they're not. Leftist media seems to lack completely a mechanism with which to sort the idiots from the talent. Which I think is down to (idiotic) identity politics. If somebody is a Muslim FtF transgendered midget African-Penguin, they can say pretty much anything unoposed by the left, and get published and spread. They'll just clap their hands and say "good on you for trying". And not to put a too fine a point on it... but that is racism, sexism and everything else that belittle's people. Judging people's words on the merit of the words themselves is the only way to go. And the left is failing this test.

Jordan Petersen seems to have more respect for "minorities" than the left does.

I don't fully understand the objections to Identity Politics. I can get the objections to some of the outcomes of some proponents of Identity politics who may arguably go too far, but to refer to them all as a homogenous group ('the left') or to Identity Politics as a homogenous thing is, er, itself using Identity Politics to object to other people using Identity Politics, ironically, and one reason I think many of the objections are often weak and inconsistent (and involve stereotypes and caricatures and selective analysis and misrepresentation).

I also do not share your optimism that the underlying motives of such objectors, including Peterson, are particularly benign. Consider me unconvinced on that one. Peterson, for example, clearly has slightly paranoid (what he calls) 'marxist' conspiracy theories at the heart of his utterances, and I see him not as someone more supportive of minorities than the 'left' but someone essentially reactively trying to defend, via intellectual sophistry and a dash of scare-mongering, the status quo of a by and large relatively privileged, white, male, possibly straight majority. I could be wrong, but after having seen his apologetics on white privilege, I'm tempted to see that (and a few other things) as a bit of a red flag.

When I hear 'conservatives' complaining about reverse racism and sexism, I hear much the same thing as when Christian institutions say they are being picked on in increasingly secular societies. By and large (with some exceptions) it's more that they are losing privileges they had for a long, long time, which can feel unfair to those losing them. And I say that as a white, straight male with quite a few privileges.

'Bloody Marxists' trying to take over and jokes about Intersectionalists killing everyone? This is surely, when not dressed up, the 'barbarians at the gate' rhetoric to be heard shouted from inside the citadel?

 

[ruby sparks]

That's a spoof, right? That's not his actual voice?

Well, anyway, whoever it is narrating, and if it's not satire, they're very confusedly attacking 'evil' postmodernism (or at least their take on it) using a postmodern narrative deconstruction. This could go into the box labelled 'ironic' along with using identity politics to attack identity politics.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I don't fully understand the objections to Identity Politics. I can get the objections to some of the outcomes of some proponents of Identity politics who may arguably go too far, but to refer to them all as a homogenous group ('the left') or to Identity Politics as a homogenous thing is, er, itself using Identity Politics to object to other people using Identity Politics, ironically, and one reason I think many of the objections are often weak and inconsistent (and involve stereotypes and caricatures and selective analysis and misrepresentation).

Because if you factor in minority status into what you are saying you are cementing that status. You make it important to belong to a special category/group.. rather than what you have to say. That's my problem with Nazism for example. I think it's essentially the same faulty thinking. I think it's pure evil. I don't think it helps minorities either. I think this kind of thinking only destroys. I completely agree with Jordan Petersen on this.

I also do not share your optimism that the underlying motives of such objectors, including Peterson, are particularly benign. Consider me unconvinced on that one. Peterson, for example, clearly has slightly paranoid (what he calls) 'marxist' conspiracy theories at the heart of his utterances, and I see him not as someone more supportive of minorities than the 'left' but someone essentially reactively trying to defend, via intellectual sophistry and a dash of scare-mongering, the status quo of a by and large relatively privileged, white, male, possibly straight majority. I could be wrong, but after having seen his apologetics on white privilege, I'm tempted to see that (and a few other things) as a bit of a red flag.

I also think his paranoia about socialism is dumb. He should visit Sweden. Socialism has worked out great for us. The "inevitable" slide into totalitarianism didn't happen for us. He seems low on theories to explain that.

He's a conservative. So he thinks that society and societies rules have evolved over time because they work. The system is smarter than any people. If we mess with it, we're likely to just fuck it up. I don't agree. But that's his argument. Certainly many revolutions have failed. Most have failed. I still think it's worth it to keep trying.

When I hear 'conservatives' complaining about reverse racism and sexism, I hear much the same thing as when Christian institutions say they are being picked on in increasingly secular societies. By and large (with some exceptions) it's more that they are losing privileges they had for a long, long time, which can feel unfair to those losing them. And I say that as a white, straight male with quite a few privileges.

But he's not. Lots of alt-rights are whining about such stuff. But Jordan Petersen isn't. He attacks "white privilige" not because he disagrees with it. But because he thinks its counter productive to do anthing about it. I think some of the stuff he says about this is solid, and I agree with him. But he overplays his hand IMHO

 

[ruby sparks]

Because if you factor in minority status into what you are saying you are cementing that status. You make it important to belong to a special category/group.. rather than what you have to say. That's my problem with Nazism for example. I think it's essentially the same faulty thinking. I think it's pure evil. I don't think it helps minorities either. I think this kind of thinking only destroys. I completely agree with Jordan Petersen on this.

Ok, for brevity, I'm going to focus on this. I think it will cover some of the rest of your post too. I'll set aside the potential (if valid) Godwin and the 'pure evil'.

If I understand you right, I don't agree, or at least I don't agree that it's necessarily true (the bit in bold) and may to some extent be a red herring. One can go too far with anything, obviously, so it's not necessarily untrue either.

I agree that it might, in some ways, run the risk of cementing that status, especially in some instances, but by and large, I don't think this is what generally causes the cementing of the status (there are several factors, imo, a 'minority-group-internal' one of which might in fact be non-acknowledgement of minority group discrimination by the majority!) and I don't think status-cementing is the bigger risk, I think discrimination is the bigger risk, of the two, at least more often.

How, on earth, can minority issues be properly addressed without citing/factoring-in minorities, as groups? I don't think the suggestion that you can do that has fantastic legs in practice and while I'm on the subject of risks, such a minority-blind approach, which I accept may in theory and even in practice, if moderate, have some advantages, risks sweeping minority issues conveniently (for the majority) under the carpet, so it's a double-edged, complicated and nuanced issue and I don't think one should come out or can justify coming out on only one side of it.

I have not been in many minority/disadvantaged groups in my life. I've been very lucky that way. One exception was growing up in a protestant family in a very, very strongly Catholic State (The Republic of Ireland). Another was being a chronic depressive in a society of (mostly) non-chronic depressives. I do not see how factoring in minority status as a way of trying to ensure that unfair discrimination by the majority is mitigated against is not a good thing, by and large, risks of cementing the status notwithstanding, because I would see the former (mitigating discrimination) as much more important than the latter.

I'm a huge fan of balanced arguments. I realise they are not by and large the currency in today's mass media, for a variety of reasons. What you and I should, imo, be agreeing on is that balance, tolerance, objectivity, reasonableness and nuance should be what we should applaud (not least because they're apparently in short supply). I can't applaud Peterson any more than I could applaud any radical and potential wingnut from any corner. In a way, it's a question of trust (I would not trust him to sit the right way on a toilet) and a desire for high intellectual and rational standards (if possible) over shoddy and simplistic thinking. I'm not generally a fan of winkling out the little valid nuggets among the manure of (sometimes pseudo-empirical) extremist rhetoric, because for one thing, they are usually, even of themselves, subtly marinaded in manure.

In other words, I'm not necessarily against cherry-picking out his 'good' points, but I tend to be very wary of holding them up to the light in isolation, 'as if' they contained the same message and import that they might do if put forward by a more reasonable person as part of a balanced argument, so that's a background caveat/concern I would keep near the front of my brain if discussing his 'good' points.

In general, 'accuracy', particularly in human affairs (as opposed to the 'hard' sciences) is often better achieved, oddly enough, by being less specific and more ambivalent, and if what I bolded above is what he and possibly some other opponents of Identity Politics are saying, I think it's a prime example. Worse than that, I think it may sometimes (not accusing you) involve disingenuity. I can't decide whether Peterson, who is obviously highly intelligent, is being disingenuous or whether he believes his own schtick too much. In keeping with what I just said about ambivalence, I'm happy to say that it could be a bit of both, plus other stuff (the famous line, 'there's enough there for a whole conference' said by the psychiatrist character about John Cleese's character in an episode of Fawlty Towers, keeps popping into my head, for some reason).

 

[DrZoidberg]

Because if you factor in minority status into what you are saying you are cementing that status. You make it important to belong to a special category/group.. rather than what you have to say. That's my problem with Nazism for example. I think it's essentially the same faulty thinking. I think it's pure evil. I don't think it helps minorities either. I think this kind of thinking only destroys. I completely agree with Jordan Petersen on this.

Ok, for brevity, I'm going to focus on this. I think it will cover some of the rest of your post too. I'll set aside the potential (if valid) Godwin and the 'pure evil'.

If I understand you right, I don't agree, or at least I don't agree that it's necessarily true (the bit in bold) and may to some extent be a red herring. One can go too far with anything, obviously, so it's not necessarily untrue either.

I agree that it might, in some ways, run the risk of cementing that status, especially in some instances, but by and large, I don't think this is what generally causes the cementing of the status (there are several factors, imo, a 'minority-group-internal' one of which might in fact be non-acknowledgement of minority group discrimination by the majority!) and I don't think status-cementing is the bigger risk, I think discrimination is the bigger risk, of the two, at least more often.

How, on earth, can minority issues be properly addressed without citing/factoring-in minorities? I don't think the suggestion that you can do that has fantastic legs in practice and while I'm on the subject of risks, such a minority-blind approach risks sweeping minority issues conveniently (for the majority) under the carpet, so it's a double-edged, complicated and nuanced issue and I don't think one should come out or can justify coming out on only one side of it.

I have not been in many minority/disadvantaged groups in my life. I've been very lucky that way. One exception was growing up in a protestant family in a very, very strongly Catholic State (The Republic of Ireland). Another was being a chronic depressive in a society of (mostly) non-chronic depressives. I do not see how factoring in minority status as a way of trying to ensure that unfair discrimination by the majority is mitigated against is not a good thing, by and large, risks of cementing the status notwithstanding, because I would see the former (mitigating discrimination) as much more important than the latter.

I'm a huge fan of balanced arguments. I realise they are not by and large the currency in today's mass media, for a variety of reasons. What you and I should, imo, be agreeing on is that balance, tolerance, objectivity, reasonableness and nuance should be what we should applaud (not least because they're apparently in short supply). I can't applaud Peterson any more than I could applaud any radical and potential wingnut from any corner. In a way, it's a question of trust (I would not trust him to sit the right way on a toilet) and a desire for high intellectual and rational standards (if possible) over shoddy and simplistic thinking. I'm not generally a fan of winkling out the little valid nuggets among the manure of (sometimes pseudo-empirical) extremist rhetoric, because for one thing, they are usually, even of themselves, subtly marinaded in manure.

In other words, I'm not necessarily against cherry-picking out his 'good' points, but I tend to be very wary of holding them up to the light in isolation, 'as if' they contained the same message and import that they might do if put forward by a more reasonable person as part of a balanced argument, so that's a background caveat/concern I would keep near the front of my brain if discussing his 'good' points.

In general, 'accuracy', particularly in human affairs (as opposed to the 'hard' sciences) is often better achieved, oddly enough, by being less specific and more ambivalent, and if what I bolded above is what he and possibly some other opponents of Identity Politics are saying, I think it's a prime example.

We got to separate acknowledging the struggles by minorities, with stuff like affirmative action. Or even prescribed political correctness. It's got to be ok not to be politically correct. While not acceptable, at least tolerated. Or the public discourse dies.

We've reached a point where white people can't discuss race publicly, and where men can't really discuss gender issues without getting publicly crucified. So they have stopped. The only white men who dare have an opinion are the one's who fall within the progressive realm with a wide margin. Reasonable public debate is dead today. No shit Trump won.

Or to quote one of my absolute heroes, Stephen Fry "we should stop demanding political correctness, because I don't think it is working".

Without an insistance on political correctness identity politics wouldn't be a thing. So it's the same thing.

Better to just go the meritocratic route. Measure results, and ignore identity. If we want to help those who struggle in life, we help people based on their ability to reach given results. The minute we attach helping individuals to any kind of group identity (apart from youth) we've fucked ourselves. At least if we're aiming for some sort of equality in society. Identity politics will only act to cement inequalities and ossify social and oppressive structures. Counter productive pure evil IMHO.

And to Godwin the fuck out of this thread. Nazism is Identity Politics par excellance. Once gaining power the Nazi government set about trying to create clear cut boxes everybody could be put in.

Nazis only cared about a single trait... race. Look how rediculous it rapidly got after trying to make this into some sort of workable coherrent system:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Laws#/media/File:Nuremberg_laws_Racial_Chart.jpg

Add sexual identity, ethnicity, subculture, mental and physical handicaps with graded systems of comparable opression... It's damn rediculous. It's not a workable system.

Right now.. we're... just like Stalin's and Mao's adjutants... acting as if the decrees of the Great Leader makes sense by claiming, all the louder that it really does makes sense. Anybody who disagrees are shot. Again... this is why I think Trump won.

Smug feelings of superiority are only just that. Identity politics debaters are guilty of this crime. Just trying to outclever eachother with finding new aspects we should feel guilty about. Lots of whites and men love it... because they get to feel superior. They're not sure what they have done. But if there weren't so powerful, how could they have hurt so many people? So they must be badass and they need to feel ashamed.

There's so much about identity politics and political correctness that makes no sense. It got beyond lunacy a long time ago

 

[ruby sparks]

I accept that you're not a fan of Identity politics and I respect that and I disagree. It's too simplistic to be for or against it, because it's not one homogenous thing. For starters, despite what you say, it's not necessarily about political correctness, even if it sometimes is.

It has its plusses and minuses, and imo we should be seeking to maximise the plusses, which may involve not going along with certain aspects or manifestations of it. Equally, we should be seeking to maximise the plusses from alternatives too.

 

[ruby sparks]

The minute we attach helping individuals to any kind of group identity (apart from youth) we've fucked ourselves. At least if we're aiming for some sort of equality in society.

Far too simplistic and so I disagree on that basis. Also, many historical inequalities have been reduced by directly addressing the minority or identity discrimination aspect.

Identity politics will only act to cement inequalities and ossify social and oppressive structures.

So you keep saying. I disagree, and explained why in my previous post, offering a counter-example. Also, I doubt either of us know either way for sure, so surely you should be wary of making such a bald 'only outcome' claim unless you're aiming for over-simplicity.

Identity politics will only act to cement inequalities and ossify social and oppressive structures. Counter productive pure evil IMHO.

There you go again with the 'pure evil' thing, on top of Stalin, Mao, 'getting shot', 'fucked ourselves' and 'beyond lunacy' (not to mention Trump and nazis getting a mention, the latter reinforced). I'm going to assume you're doing it all for humourous effect. Either that or you're gradually morphing into a version of Jordan Peterson. Sheesh, and to think I fell for your 'moderate' facade up to now.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Far too simplistic and so I disagree on that basis. Also, many historical inequalities have been reduced by directly addressing the minority or identity discrimination aspect.

Sure, when the solution was to remove a legal limitation on a group. Apartheid, civil rights... and so on. Or when we pass a law that requires companies that cater to the public... to cater to the whole public... limiting discrimination to discriminating against those who can't afford the service.

So you keep saying. I disagree, and explained why in my previous post, offering a counter-example. Also, I doubt either of us know either way for sure, so surely you should be wary of making such a bald 'only outcome' claim unless you're aiming for over-simplicity.

Subsidizing aid to people who are depressed isn't identity politics. That's just using the definition of sickness to aid those in need. If you want to bring identity politics you need to give extra aid to depressed people who also belong to some minority or another. As if special categories of humans get depressed more.

Identity politics will only act to cement inequalities and ossify social and oppressive structures. Counter productive pure evil IMHO.

There you go again with the 'pure evil' thing, on top of Stalin, Mao, 'getting shot', 'fucked ourselves' and 'beyond lunacy' (not to mention Trump and nazis getting a mention, the latter reinforced). I'm going to assume you're doing it all for humourous effect. Either that or you're gradually morphing into a version of Jordan Peterson. Sheesh, and to think I fell for your 'moderate' facade up to now.

The identity politics of the Nazis was dumb. For the same reason the modern version is

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Dr. Zoidberg has hit the nail square on the head here, and as he has said, it applies universally. It isn't just something on the left or on the right. It is more fundamental than that.

The abandonment of individual identity in favour of group treatment and "group interests" and "group rights" is a cancer on society that is eating it alive. I also agree that it is one of the the biggest reasons why Trump won. He played directly into that mindset, which the left has been pumping up as of late just as much if not more than the right.

 

[ZiprHead]

Dr. Zoidberg has hit the nail square on the head here, and as he has said, it applies universally. It isn't just something on the left or on the right. It is more fundamental than that.

The abandonment of individual identity in favour of group treatment and "group interests" and "group rights" is a cancer on society that is eating it alive. I also agree that it is one of the the biggest reasons why Trump won. He played directly into that mindset, which the left has been pumping up as of late just as much if not more than the right.

When has there ever not been identity politics? You make it sound like it's a recent development.

 

[ruby sparks]

Dr. Zoidberg has hit the nail square on the head here, and as he has said, it applies universally. It isn't just something on the left or on the right. It is more fundamental than that.

The abandonment of individual identity in favour of group treatment and "group interests" and "group rights" is a cancer on society that is eating it alive. I also agree that it is one of the the biggest reasons why Trump won. He played directly into that mindset, which the left has been pumping up as of late just as much if not more than the right.

When has there ever not been identity politics? You make it sound like it's a recent development.

Indeed. And since when was individual identity ever abandoned either? The 20th Century has been labelled 'The Century of the Self' ffs, and so far the 21st Century shows no sign of it changing course or slowing down.

Colour me deeply unconvinced by these claims.

 

[ruby sparks]

Dr. Zoidberg has hit the nail square on the head here, and as he has said, it applies universally. It isn't just something on the left or on the right. It is more fundamental than that.

The abandonment of individual identity in favour of group treatment and "group interests" and "group rights" is a cancer on society that is eating it alive. I also agree that it is one of the the biggest reasons why Trump won. He played directly into that mindset, which the left has been pumping up as of late just as much if not more than the right.

Right-o. Let's add 'cancer on society that is eating it alive' to Stalin, Mao, 'getting shot', 'fucked ourselves', 'beyond lunacy', 'pure evil', Trump and nazis.

It must be World Hyperbole Day or something. Lol.

 

[ruby sparks]

If you want to bring identity politics you need to give extra aid.....

No, you don't have to give extra aid to anyone. Unless by 'extra aid' you mean alleviating discrimination.

(and in fact you don't even need to be aiming for that either).

'Extra aid' in the form of, say, affirmative action, is not necessarily part of the equation and not necessarily part of Identity Politics. Duh. Are we to talk about complex issues in caricatures and soundbites? It seems that's about the level being offered by a few here.

.... to depressed people who also belong to some minority or another. As if special categories of humans get depressed more.

Er, not that it's a big point or anything, but being a chronic depressive, or mental illness generally, is arguably a valid category of itself.

And before you go all Jordan Peterson, that obviously does not imply anything other than what it says. What society does about it (and indeed any category, or indeed any individual scenario) is open to debate, and it doesn't have to be (and mostly isn't, except in simplistic arguments) either treating people only as parts of a group or only as individuals.

 

[ruby sparks]

Smug feelings of superiority are only just that. Identity politics debaters are guilty of this crime. Just trying to outclever eachother with finding new aspects we should feel guilty about. Lots of whites and men love it... because they get to feel superior. They're not sure what they have done. But if there weren't so powerful, how could they have hurt so many people? So they must be badass and they need to feel ashamed.

I'm sure this sort of thing exists, these suggestions from 'the left' as you call it that the reason people should address group/institutional/systemic inequalities is because we, the generally majority/privileged are 'bad' and should feel guilty, but I haven't seen a lot of it, and if I did see it I would disagree. I'm privileged, but by and large I'm not guilty about it and I don't feel like a bad person because of it. I do feel lucky though, and I do try to appreciate that many people are not as privileged and I'm not about to deny that there are group effects to that, because I'm not an idiot in denial.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Dr. Zoidberg has hit the nail square on the head here, and as he has said, it applies universally. It isn't just something on the left or on the right. It is more fundamental than that.

The abandonment of individual identity in favour of group treatment and "group interests" and "group rights" is a cancer on society that is eating it alive. I also agree that it is one of the the biggest reasons why Trump won. He played directly into that mindset, which the left has been pumping up as of late just as much if not more than the right.

When has there ever not been identity politics? You make it sound like it's a recent development.

It's again being held up as an ideal. And last time it didn't go so well. When people with power feel excluded from stuff they want, bad things happen.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Dr. Zoidberg has hit the nail square on the head here, and as he has said, it applies universally. It isn't just something on the left or on the right. It is more fundamental than that.

The abandonment of individual identity in favour of group treatment and "group interests" and "group rights" is a cancer on society that is eating it alive. I also agree that it is one of the the biggest reasons why Trump won. He played directly into that mindset, which the left has been pumping up as of late just as much if not more than the right.

Right-o. Let's add 'cancer on society that is eating it alive' to Stalin, Mao, 'getting shot', 'fucked ourselves', 'beyond lunacy', 'pure evil', Trump and nazis.

It must be World Hyperbole Day or something. Lol.

So you don't think the public discourse is suffering today?

On the left the acceptable things you're allowed to say is increasingly narrow.

On the right anything that criticises political correctness (included grabbing pussies non-consensually) is accepted.

I think it's a damn tragedy that more people on the left fail to see the tragedy. And we did this to ourselves. What's worse is that plenty of people are happy about it.

I don't think I'm being hypocritical

 

[ruby sparks]

So you don't think the public discourse is suffering today?

Is public discourse suffering today? Yeah. It always has. Is it worse now because of these issues you're highlighting? Dunno, it some ways it might be better for it, imo, in others worse. And where? Denmark? I can't speak for there. But the USA? Is there much of a far left let alone a left, in the USA? I doubt it. Marxists my arse. It's overblown. The primary, conservative, capitalist narratives are still in charge and as far as I can see the main players in the USA have always stamped down on anything resembling a challenge to that and this is just the latest version.

If you're asking me if things such as political correctness can go too far, I'd agree, but to be honest I think it's overplayed as a concern. Most of all, it's simplistic.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

But the USA? Is there much of a far left let alone a left, in the USA? I doubt it.

I agree. There isn't much left of the left in the USA. It was beaten down by the right, and the establishment Democrats continue to push towards the right rather than towards the left, always seeking the new and further rightward middle, and always telling those who are actually leftward to fall in line and vote for the lesser of two evils.

Obama had a majority and he didn't even TRY for universal single payer health care. He started with a "public option", which still kept the for profit insurance companies in the mix, and settled from there. And when is the last time an establishment Democrat pushed for an FDR-like new new deal?

And look how Bernie Sanders has been treated by the establishment Democrats. The glimmer of hope is that Sanders and others like him ARE rising and there may actually be some actually liberal forces strong in the USA one day.

The other part of the destroyed left is more on topic to this thread, with the illiberal "liberals" eating up the left with identity politics and other regressive movements. We've seen more and more of an abandonment of free speech values, a stronger and stronger refusal to listen to the other, more authoritarianism, and a pushing for racism and sexism thinly disguised as the opposite. It isn't pushing a dream of black and white children playing together anymore, and is now more "black people can't be racist" and "you're a white male!" and "men should have nothing to say about abortion", etc. It is more and more divisive and less and less inclusive.

Marxists my arse. It's overblown. The primary, conservative, capitalist narratives are still in charge and as far as I can see the main players in the USA have always stamped down on anything resembling a challenge to that and this is just the latest version.

I agree with this too. The identity politics divisionism benefits this narrative you speak of as a distraction from its reform.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

As Peterson has said (and I think may even be in the clip referred to in the OP), intersectionality is the identity politics people realizing that we can't put everybody fairly into their little prejudiced boxes, and eventually they will come to realize if they keep looking into it, that you have to take it right down to the level of the individual.

His quip of "if they don't kill us all first" is uncalled for hyperbole, but don't let that ruin his point.

Prejudice is prejudice, prejudging and treating people according to their race or gender is racism and sexism. It doesn't stop being so based on whether the person doing it is liberal or conservative, or whether the person doing so is looking to help "the oppressed" or not.

 

[ruby sparks]

I do agree that there are indeed some problems with what I might call 'recent developments' in Identity politics or what I think we should call 'some forms of' Identity Politics. To me, even calling these 'divisive rather than inclusionary' does seem to be a tad overwrought (are LGBTQ's really at war with LGBTQQIAAP's?). That said, I might agree that the perception (or portrayal) of them as divisive might have been amplified and played upon by the 'right', in a sort of 'divide and rule plus fear mongering' strategy of their own, which may have contributed to 'Trump'. And correct me if I'm wrong, but a lot of the angst about Identity Politics does seem to me as an outsider to be a collective post-Trump wringing of hands and allocating blame.

Plus, I get the point about 'not especially privileged' white males being fed up with being told they're privileged.

What worries me (quite a bit) is the motives of the anti-IP's. Are they really for universality and inclusion and an end to inequalities, or are they secretly just trying to maintain the status quo?

Another reason I tend to be sceptical is the proposed solution: group-blindness (colourblindness for example). I did not see this working in the post-IP-origins era of the 1980's-90's and in fact my impression was that conservatives (who tended to be the white, male majority) 'used' (ie abused) colourblindness (for example) to resist real change in addressing longstanding imbalances. And now I wonder if it's not just a replay of that I'm hearing.

To me, the solution is not 'blind' policies, it's policies that aim for universality and inclusion of minorities, but without pretending they don't exist, as groups, or have real disadvantages, in group terms. In other words, the solution is what people like Martin Luther King was banging on about.

What's supposedly one of the 'worst' and most-cited examples of Identity Politics gone divisive? 'Black Lives Matter'? I've heard it said. I do not see a big problem. Black lives do matter and I'm not going to say that blacks, as a group, overall get fair treatment in the USA even today, there's still a lot of racism, some of it institutionalised, so let them say it. It's true, and it isn't saying other lives don't matter and this is often their defence, and I'm fine with it, because I believe them when they say they are not saying non-black lives don't matter or that black lives matter more. Accusing them of being divisive or racist might just be another subtle but convenient way of telling them to stfu.