I see no downside in seeing people as individuals with myriads of traits, some of my high they share with other individuals. I rarely see situations where identity politics has value, and even rarer are cases where such value exceeds the harm. Identity politics is almost always founded on prejudice.
-
Features
Gay ice skater Adam Rippon Wants You to Vote Democrat this November
- Thread starter ruby sparks
- Start date
ruby sparks
Contributor
The problems with going 'blind' about group or identity issues have been highlighted for you many times, including by me way, way back, in more detail than I am inclined to go into again, and were alluded to by zorq in this thread. 'Blind' policies are as open to shortcomings and misuse as their 'identity' equivalent. That you are still saying you see no downside to the former is, frankly, very puzzling.
Last edited:
ronburgundy
Contributor
Rippon provides zero reason to vote for these candidates other than their sexual orientation, as though that is in itself their most important feature, so it is sufficient to determine one's vote.
Promoting the idea of voting for a candidate because they are a member of your own group simultaneously promotes the idea that people not in that group have less reason to vote for that person. When that group is a statistical minority, that is a self-destructive strategy. Plus, when that group membership is not directly tied to a person's political views and interests overall, then even when successful in getting those people elected, it would fail to reliably advance the interests of people in that group.
Applying Rippon's approach means that if the GOP strategist to win a seat by putting up a gay candidate in San Francisco, that gay people should vote for that candidate to "increase their representation".
Contrary to the arguments in this thread that rest on a false dichotomy, the alternative does not require being "blind" to the political issues around sexual orientation. The fact that the Dems have put up so many LGBT candidates is politically relevant, because it speaks to the values of the party and its base, namely that they quite unlike the GOP and its base who are bigoted towards people in that community which is why that party rarely nominates and even less often elects any candidate in that community. That doesn't suggest one should vote for these candidates because they a part of that community, but rather it implies that you should vote to increase the power of the Democratic party, if you want to promote LGBT rights and reduce the power of the party of bigots.
In fact, 7% of the LGBT candidates are running as Republican, although all for minor local offices because widespread support for gay candidates by GOP voters is near impossible. Should people in the LGBT community or those sympathetic with their political struggles vote for these Republicans over non-LGBT Democrat opponents? No, because their victory means more political power for the party of anti-LGBT bigots (and racists and misogynists). So, as is often the case even when choosing between 2 Democrats in a primary, voting for the person not in that community can be the better way to promote the rights of people in that community, which is the kind of thing that should be considered and inform one's voting.
Promoting the idea of voting for a candidate because they are a member of your own group simultaneously promotes the idea that people not in that group have less reason to vote for that person. When that group is a statistical minority, that is a self-destructive strategy. Plus, when that group membership is not directly tied to a person's political views and interests overall, then even when successful in getting those people elected, it would fail to reliably advance the interests of people in that group.
Applying Rippon's approach means that if the GOP strategist to win a seat by putting up a gay candidate in San Francisco, that gay people should vote for that candidate to "increase their representation".
Contrary to the arguments in this thread that rest on a false dichotomy, the alternative does not require being "blind" to the political issues around sexual orientation. The fact that the Dems have put up so many LGBT candidates is politically relevant, because it speaks to the values of the party and its base, namely that they quite unlike the GOP and its base who are bigoted towards people in that community which is why that party rarely nominates and even less often elects any candidate in that community. That doesn't suggest one should vote for these candidates because they a part of that community, but rather it implies that you should vote to increase the power of the Democratic party, if you want to promote LGBT rights and reduce the power of the party of bigots.
In fact, 7% of the LGBT candidates are running as Republican, although all for minor local offices because widespread support for gay candidates by GOP voters is near impossible. Should people in the LGBT community or those sympathetic with their political struggles vote for these Republicans over non-LGBT Democrat opponents? No, because their victory means more political power for the party of anti-LGBT bigots (and racists and misogynists). So, as is often the case even when choosing between 2 Democrats in a primary, voting for the person not in that community can be the better way to promote the rights of people in that community, which is the kind of thing that should be considered and inform one's voting.
ruby sparks
Contributor
Not really, because he's specifically campaigning for the Democratic Party, which as you say is politically relevant.
And whose arguments in this thread rest on a false dichotomy between 'blind' policies and 'identity' ones? Speaking for myself, I've explicitly suggested the opposite, that the ideal is a judicious mix of the two. A dichotomy is the last thing on my mind, and even thinking of the two things as binary options is arguably part of the problem.
Yes.
You can acknowledge and be mindful of the race, sex, and sexual orientation of someone if that is the basis of discrimination against them. You don't have to engage in identity politics to do so. And infact it is better not to. That you have brown eyes is not important except to the extent that people harass or discriminate against you for it. It is a trait that could be any other and is irelavant and not a valid basis of discrimination. That's the whole point of anti-discrimination.
Now if we push importance into it, make claims that it makes people different and insist on categorizing people by it, and treat the group as a monolith, with interchangeable members, and with interests and "community" just because they share this trait, and now we get deep down the rabbit hole of identity politics.
The disease is othering. The disease is tribalism. The disease is not race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.
skepticalbip
Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2004
- Messages
- 7,304
- Basic Beliefs
- Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
Thank goodness, finally.
It is only three weeks until election day and I was starting to worry because I never vote until I get the advice of an ice skater.
It is only three weeks until election day and I was starting to worry because I never vote until I get the advice of an ice skater.
ruby sparks
Contributor
ronburgundy
Contributor
His message is not a support of the Democratic party in general but specifically for LGBT candidates on the grounds that they are LGBT. The fact that the vast majority of them are running as Democrats is incidental to his message and the sole reason he gives for voting for these candidates, namely that they are LGBT. He focuses on simply increasing the number of LGBT people in office, thus nothing in his promotion suggests that people should go vote for Democrats who are not LGBT but may actually do more for LGBT rights, or that people should vote at all in races where there is no LGBT candidate to vote for.
Jolly never implied that we should be blind to racism, sexism, and other bigotries. Yet, Zorg said that is the alternative to engaging in identity politics, and you agreed with him. The rational and non-destructive alternative is neither be blind nor engage in identity politics, nor a mix of the two. Neither should play any role. victims of bigotry and electing people who will help to fight such bigotry is not identity politics. It is, if anything, the opposite. It is voting based upon actual policy not on a candidates largely biologically determined traits that are not themselves a reflection of their policies. What Rippon is doing is advocating identity politics where such traits are in themselves the basis for voting with no mention of their policy and no recognition that people without those traits can also advance those policies, sometime even more effectively depending upon their skills and motivations.
Identity politics has a lot of value if it means that your caste, err, your group, is given advantage at the expense of the untouchable caste, err, group.
Indeed.
- - - Updated - - -
I noticed how you ignored the rest of my post. And I stand by what you quoted. You don't need to engage in group identity politics or disregard individualism to help people are discriminated against based on a trait of the individual.
ruby sparks
Contributor
True, 'vote for democrat gays' is not the same as 'vote for democrats', but you said that his approach would involve voting for a gay GOP candidate if there was one, and that wasn't his approach, because he was campaigning for the Democratic party, for what you agree are valid political reasons. It was you therefore who misread his message as simply 'vote for gays'.
Rereading zorq's post, I see that he, like Adan Rippon, didn't say quite what you say he said. And I didn't say it either. Referring to possible alternatives does not of itself make something a false dichotomy unless someone says it has to be only one thing or only the other. It can be an alternative emphasis and/or it can be situation-appropriate.
Yes, you can go too far with identity politics, but you can also go too far with 'blind' politics too.
Last edited:
ruby sparks
Contributor
No, but it is sometimes useful to help groups who are discriminated against by instigating group remedies, which involves focusing, politically, more on the group characteristics than on an individual case. But this doesn't appear to fall within your definition of identity politics, for some odd reason. To you, 'identity politics = bad identity politics, therefore identity politics is bad'. You do a similar thing with feminism. It's a sort of Orwellian manipulation of definitions.
Last edited:
No. It's not that. In the case of Feminism, yes, I do define Feminism to distinguish it from Egalitarianism.
In the case of identity politics I am making no such distinction. There may be some truly extreme circumstances in which it can be useful, but it is a form of prejudice and does more harm than good overall.
If you and I are discriminated against because we have brown eyes (hypothetically) that doesn't make having brown eyes important or something to rally around. It doesn't make you and I support the same politics, sports team, or anything else. It isnt in any way important, and placing importance onto it only empowers those who discriminate on its basis.
Eye colour, race, gender, sexual orientation, none of them are relevant when discrimination happens in their name. What is relevant is tribalism and othering. The traits used to do it are abritrary and meaningless, and placing the spotlight on them instead of on the othering does more harm than good, especially when done to the point of encouraging othering and tribalism within the "group" (minorities within minorities) and when done to the point of encouraging othering of the opposite group (ie, "reverse" racism).
The focus and fight should be against the arbitrary othering. There is no good reason why a gay racist or black homophobe should exist without extreme cognitive dissonance. They can because of identity politics.
Underseer
Contributor
If you say anything positive about someone who isn't a wealthy white male, then you risk a backlash from racists. The racists will specifically vote for your opponent if you actively promote not being racist or not being misogynist or not being homophobic. Thus, not being a prejudiced douchebag means you are engaging in "identity politics" which can have a negative impact on election day because America is a racist shithole full of woman-hating bigots.
"Identity politics" is just the latest code word for saying "Not a racist douchebag like me, therefore bad" because the only thing worse than not being racist or not being a woman-hater is being against fascism. Nothing is worse than being against fascism. Only monsters oppose fascism. "Anti-fascist" is pretty much the worst thing an American can be called by another American.
Terrell
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2006
- Messages
- 1,197
- Location
- DMV
- Basic Beliefs
- socially liberal/libertarian on most issues, but not all.
Do I agree with the candidates, and who they're likely to vote into leadership positions, in partisan terms, or not. Yes, then I vote for them, no then I vote against. I don't care if they like rooster, kitty, both, or neither.
ruby sparks
Contributor
Again, it seems to me you are continuing to only focus on the downsides of Identity politics, as if that was all there was to them. And I'm not sure I agree that that is all there is to it. I really am having trouble agreeing that it is only or mainly about prejudice, even if I agree that it sometimes is.
Maybe it would help if you give me your particular definition. Of 'Identity Politics'.
Or, I'll start by posting the wikipedia definition:
"Identity politics are political positions based on the interests and perspectives of social groups with which people identify."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_politics
Which is then elaborated as:
"Identity politics includes the ways in which people's politics are shaped by aspects of their identity through loosely correlated social organizations. Examples include social organizations based on age, religion, social class or caste, culture, dialect, disability, education, ethnicity, language, nationality, sex, gender identity, generation, occupation, profession, race, political party affiliation, sexual orientation, settlement, urban and rural habitation, and veteran status."
And then:
"The term "identity politics" has been in use in various forms since the 1960s or 1970s, but has been applied with, at times, radically different meanings by different populations".
Which suggests that different people at different times in different places or zeitgeists may mean different things when they use the term. I am aware, broadly, that it has become a pejorative term for some in the USA recently, but I do not know if that is how everyone uses it there, or whether when it is used pejoratively it is merely a mantra, and I note that there appears to be some disagreement (even in this thread). To me it seems that it would not be easy, in pragmatic terms, to do helpful things about, for example, identifying and tackling group discriminations (and other issues) on a group basis, without engaging in Identity Politics (as I see the term's broader meaning).
Last edited:
If you want to define Identity Politics as just politics, with people choosing their identities based on ideology, that I have no problem with at all. That isn't what it usually is. It is usually about characteristics like race, gender, sexual orientation, that people can not change. It is usually taking focus off of othering and creating tribalism rather than dismantling it. Yes, I see it as far more negative than positive.
ruby sparks
Contributor
But I didn't define Identity politics as just politics. My definition specifically cited the relevant considerations, like race, gender, sexual orientation and many more? I even bolded them for goodness sake.
Yes, I know you see it as far more negative than positive, but repeating over and over your personal opinion is not making a balanced or thorough case, nor is only citing certain negative aspects of something to bolster your personal opinion that it is negative. It just means you are focusing on the negative. In that sense, it's nothing more than your personal myopic hobbyhorse.
Look, Identity Politics is often and has often been the valid and useful focus on issues relating to disadvantaged groups, and it has, demonstrably, resulted in much positive change in the lives of, for example, women, ethic and religious minorities, non-heterosexual persons, disabled people, people of low social class, and several other groupings. And arguably even more to the point, it has been the rule rather than the exception that people in (or if you like identifying with) those groups raising the issues is what has in reality driven much of the change. And yet you sweep all that under the carpet on the basis of...what? That it is or was hypothetically possible to achieve the same improvements without a focus on the particular group issues? This is plainly not how it has actually happened, so it seems to me your hypothetical world is a bit pie in the sky and not the way the world tends to work.
Last edited:
What caused every one of the problems those movements began as reactions to? Yes. Identity politics did. So at best you've got a wash. But, what is the focus of every one of those movements when they make improvements instead of damage? Yes, to emphasize that the trait doesn't matter. "We just want to be treated like everyone else". That's the opposite of identity politics. That is a movement to abandon politics and group identity forced onto people.