Gay ice skater Adam Rippon Wants You to Vote Democrat this November

[ruby sparks]

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.

I consider your analysis narrow and not well balanced. Also, as ever, it's highly anecdotal, usually only highlighting the negative. It's your soundbite mantra in other words, and you've been peddling it since I got here.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I consider your analysis myopic and not well balanced. Also, as ever, it's highly anecdotal, usually only highlighting the negative. It's your soundbite mantra in other words, and you've been peddling it since I got here.

Your judgement is noted. You asked a question and I answered. You can think what you want. I don't find your argument convincing either, and I will continue to denounce identity politics wherever I see such tribalism and prejudice being pushed.

 

[ruby sparks]

I will continue to denounce identity politics wherever I see such tribalism and prejudice being pushed.

But not when it can and has been used to a good and useful end.

Gotcha. Go you.

I suppose that's one of the drawbacks of soundbite mantras.

 

[ruby sparks]

Worse, you apparently routinely flaunt your own hypothetical standards by decrying Identity Politics while simultaneously using them when it suits you! What is the term, 'Identitarians' for example, if it's not defining a supposed group as 'tribally other' in the way you seem to be using the term 'Identity Politics'? Which way to some extent I have to guess, because you haven't yet offered a definition.

Though it appears you have at least one ally. Apparently Dr Zoidberg agrees with you. I look forward to hearing his views.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Worse, you apparently decry Identity Politics while using it! What is the term, 'Identitarians' for example, if it's not defining a supposed group as 'other' in the way you seem to be using the term 'Identity Politics'?

No, that is a chosen position or politic being pushed, not an unchangeable personal trait like race, gender, etc, and we covered this already a page ago. I don't feel like repeating myself.

Though it appears you have at least one ally. Apparently Dr Zoidberg agrees with you.

I don't know Dr. Zoidberg's view on this. I wouldn't be so quick to presume it or present it to others.

 

[untermensche]

Tribalism is another right wing trigger word.

It has no specific meaning or definition.

Is taking care of your child tribalism?

Not much of a tribe without doing that.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Tribalism is another right wing trigger word.

A decade ago conservatives were calling it a left wing trigger word. What changed?

 

[SimpleDon]

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQc_S1UGnRg[/YOUTUBE]



I do not know the ins and outs of American elections or this one in particular. I'm temporarily presuming that voting for LGTBQ candidates would not dilute a Democrat vote in the sense that it would not take votes away from a more prominent (as in likely to win) candidate on the same voting card.

Basically, what I'm asking is (and this particular case may or may not be a good example of it) is promoting 'minority groups' (of all kinds) a good idea for the Democrats, given the sometimes aired-in-the-media reservations (and hand-wringing) about what is called Identity Politics?

I had not heard of this supposed 'identity politics problem' for the Democrats until I came to this forum. Nor am I familiar with something similar here, though I may have merely missed it.

Personally, I can't decide (from afar) whether this issue actually is a significant problem for the Democrats, or whether it is merely claimed or felt to be, either by Republicans or by Democrats and other liberals disappointed by losing the presidential election (to Trump).

My natural instincts would be to say that Democrats should continue to promote such things, albeit cotton on to not sidelining the common (non-minority) voter in doing so because it seems Trump cashed in on that demographic big time (even though I personally doubt he was particularly sincere).

Looking at things in the round, a Democrat president had just had two terms, in the midst of economic woes, and he was black. As such, was it really surprising that a white Republican got in? It's not as if it wasn't quite a close thing, as I understand it. As such, is the identity politics problem being overstated in the search for explanations?

Identity politics is a problem, not just for the Democrats, but for the whole country and for our society.

The partitioning off of the members of society into identifiable groups whose interests supposedly oppose each other and the abandoning of any sense of shared society-wide common goals and aspirations has cost us dearly. We have abandoned the idea that our society should be progressing toward making life better for all of us and instead are moving toward a selfish individualism, greed is good, where it is every man for himself.

We are Democrats or Republicans, black or white, religious or not, evangelical or mainstream, rich or poor, conservatives or liberals, faith-based or reality-based, young or old, disabled or able-bodied, sick or healthy, etc. We can't talk to anyone or about any subject until after we are certain of the labels attached to them, then our minds close, already made up.

There have always been elements of this problem in the US, but there was always the aspiration that we should be eliminating these divisions in our society. What has changed in my lifetime is that now we not only tolerate these divisions, we revel in them and adopt them into the very core of our personal identities.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

We are Democrats or Republicans, black or white, religious or not, evangelical or mainstream, rich or poor, conservatives or liberals, faith-based or reality-based, young or old, disabled or able-bodied, sick or healthy, etc. We can't talk to anyone or about any subject until after we are certain of the labels attached to them, then our minds close, already made up.

Indeed, and good luck being a minority within a minority. You are expected to speak, vote, think, and act the way your assigned group identity does.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

We are Democrats or Republicans, black or white, religious or not, evangelical or mainstream, rich or poor, conservatives or liberals, faith-based or reality-based, young or old, disabled or able-bodied, sick or healthy, etc. We can't talk to anyone or about any subject until after we are certain of the labels attached to them, then our minds close, already made up.

Indeed, and good luck being a minority within a minority. You are expected to speak, vote, think, and act the way your assigned group identity does.

Well, it's not that you're expected to do things that way, but it's that if you are a member of a given group, there are various issues which will more likely personally impact you in certain ways and these personal experiences will affect your voting and behaviour accordingly.

 

[Worldtraveller]

I consider your analysis myopic and not well balanced. Also, as ever, it's highly anecdotal, usually only highlighting the negative. It's your soundbite mantra in other words, and you've been peddling it since I got here.

Your judgement is noted. You asked a question and I answered. You can think what you want. I don't find your argument convincing either, and I will continue to denounce identity politics wherever I see such tribalism and prejudice being pushed.

Unless, of course, they agree with JP's identity politics and agenda.

Everyone in the world could disagree with JP, and he'd still insist on being right for all the wrong reasons. But keep up the good fight, ruby.

 

[ruby sparks]

No, that is a chosen position or politic being pushed, not an unchangeable personal trait like race, gender, etc, and we covered this already a page ago. I don't feel like repeating myself.

Well, at least that's a clue to your definition, though I don't see why the definition should be limited to only 'unchangeable traits' instead of 'issues one identifies with' since the former is merely a part of the latter and better serves the use of the word 'Identity' (and would for example include religious beliefs). So imo that's your first subjective/arbitrary limitation on the definition.

Granted, it allows you to generalise in group or tribal terms about 'chosen' positions such as Feminism and what you call Identitarianism. I can see how that works.

don't know Dr. Zoidberg's view on this. I wouldn't be so quick to presume it or present it to others.

I have it on very good authority (horse's mouth)

And it seems SimpleDon agrees too.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

We are Democrats or Republicans, black or white, religious or not, evangelical or mainstream, rich or poor, conservatives or liberals, faith-based or reality-based, young or old, disabled or able-bodied, sick or healthy, etc. We can't talk to anyone or about any subject until after we are certain of the labels attached to them, then our minds close, already made up.

Indeed, and good luck being a minority within a minority. You are expected to speak, vote, think, and act the way your assigned group identity does.

Well, it's not that you're expected to do things that way, but it's that if you are a member of a given group, there are various issues which will more likely personally impact you in certain ways and these personal experiences will affect your voting and behaviour accordingly.

I disagree. Anyone who has been in the minority within the minorities of race, gender, or sexual orientation knows they are often expected to conform to the group thought directives of that minority. I have seen this many times within both race and sexual orientation firsthand. "There is a special place in hell for women who don't support Hillary Clinton" was a high profile example of it within gender.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Well, at least that's a clue to your definition, though I don't see why the definition should be limited to only 'unchangeable traits' instead of 'issues one identifies with' since the former is merely a part of the latter and better serves the use of the word 'Identity' (and would for example include religious beliefs). So imo that's your first subjective/arbitrary limitation on the definition.

If you insist on defining "identity politics" as whatever you choose to identify as, including how you identify your political positions generally, then it has no useful meaning, and all politics are "identity politics". That's not what I or anybody else I'm aware of speaks of when they use the word and isn't what I or they object to. But still, congratulations on your gotcha moment. It was hard won.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, it's not that you're expected to do things that way, but it's that if you are a member of a given group, there are various issues which will more likely personally impact you in certain ways and these personal experiences will affect your voting and behaviour accordingly.

I disagree. Anyone who has been in the minority within the minorities of race, gender, or sexual orientation knows they are often expected to conform to the group thought directives of that minority. I have seen this many times within both race and sexual orientation firsthand. "There is a special place in hell for women who don't support Hillary Clinton" was a high profile example of it within gender.

Certain groups are reliable voting blocs on given issues because those issues directly impact them. For instance, if you're a black man, issues surrounding police harassment and brutality are likely more important to you because you are more likely to be personally affected by these things and more able to relate with those who targets of this. If you're a rural white man without a college degree, then you are more likely to have been specifically ignored and forgotten by the political establishment and guy who tells you he's going to fuck this establishment and improve your lot is more appealing to you than someone who's promising to help out someone else instead.

This is less because of expectations within that group as it is with members of that group reacting to things which personally impact them.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

This is less because of expectations within that group as it is with members of that group reacting to things which personally impact them.

Again, sure, but you are expected to adhere to group expectations and "proper" identity politics if you are assigned to a minority grouping based on a trait. You would recognize this if you'd ever been a right wing black person, anti-feminist woman, or anti-affirmative action "coloured person", etc. As I wrote above, you are expected to speak, vote, think, and act the way your assigned group identity does.

"Cultural Appropriation" accusations, "Acting White" accusations, etc also tend to rear their ugly heads in this arena.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Everyone in the world could disagree with JP, and he'd still insist on being right

I don't consider truth to be democratic. Do you?

 

[ruby sparks]

Well, at least that's a clue to your definition, though I don't see why the definition should be limited to only 'unchangeable traits' instead of 'issues one identifies with' since the former is merely a part of the latter and better serves the use of the word 'Identity' (and would for example include religious beliefs). So imo that's your first subjective/arbitrary limitation on the definition.

If you insist on defining "identity politics" as whatever you choose to identify as, including how you identify your political positions generally, then it has no useful meaning, and all politics are "identity politics". That's not what I or anybody else I'm aware of speaks of when they use the word and isn't what I or they object to. But still, congratulations on your gotcha moment. It was hard won.

Well, in the absence of a definition from you, I used the one from wiki, which is not 'all politics' as you suggest, but 'Identity Politics'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_politics

You appear to be using some limited version (which can't include religion but hey) and you appear to be only focusing on the negative aspects of even that and discounting the ways in which it can and has enabled positive changes for many groups, mostly when they themselves try to effect the changes.

Hey, maybe not enough for the one you most strongly identify with, eh? Men?

One hopes that's not your main or only reason for decrying it. There again, there's the clear pattern of your posting history on this forum................

 

[laughing dog]

Everyone in the world could disagree with JP, and he'd still insist on being right

I don't consider truth to be democratic. Do you?

The definition of a word is not "truth" but a tool for communication. If everyone is using a term differently from someone, that outlier is going to have a difficult time in communication.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Everyone in the world could disagree with JP, and he'd still insist on being right

I don't consider truth to be democratic. Do you?

The definition of a word is not "truth" but a tool for communication. If everyone is using a term differently from someone, that outlier is going to have a difficult time in communication.

The text I quoted was about being right or wrong, not about definitions.