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

[Tom Sawyer]

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.

Either that or people's own rational self-interest factors into their decision making somehow.

 

[ruby sparks]

In the case of Feminism, yes, I do define Feminism to distinguish it from Egalitarianism.

So .....you're using your own particular definition to label persons in an identity group that you consider 'other' and criticise what they do and probably in many cases are effectively telling them what identity they have even if it's different from how they self-identify.

And.....you're the one who decries Identity Politics?

 

[Worldtraveller]

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.

You realize you're making ld's point for him, right?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

In the case of Feminism, yes, I do define Feminism to distinguish it from Egalitarianism.

So .....you're using your own particular definition to label persons in an identity group that you consider 'other' and criticise what they do and probably in many cases are effectively telling them what identity they have even if it's different from how they self-identify.

And.....you're the one who decries Identity Politics?

Are you just engaging in a protracted game of gotcha? I've stated 3 times now that I'm fine with "identity politics" if all you mean by it is people holding particular chosen views. If that is what you insist on it meaning, then it loses all value as a word, and it is identical to "politics".

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

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.

You realize you're making ld's point for him, right?

First, should I take your dodge as a yes or a no? Do you believe truth is democratic? If everyone told me something false is true, am I supposed to change my mind and agree with them?

Second, no. Pointing out that LD is responding with a truism that is irrelevant to what he quoted doesn't further verify the truism.

 

[ruby sparks]

I've stated 3 times now that I'm fine with "identity politics" if all you mean by it is people holding particular chosen views. If that is what you insist on it meaning, then it loses all value as a word, and it is identical to "politics".

I gave you the wiki definition and a link to the page. If all you can trot out is the incorrect "that's identical to 'politics' " then......nice try. I can see how that would work for you, with your predilection for engaging in Identity Politicking. When it suits. But only with things outside your preferred definition. A bit like with Feminism.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I've stated 3 times now that I'm fine with "identity politics" if all you mean by it is people holding particular chosen views. If that is what you insist on it meaning, then it loses all value as a word, and it is identical to "politics".

I gave you the wiki definition and a link to the page. If all you can trot out is the incorrect "that's identical to 'politics' " then......nice try. I can see how that would work for you, with your predilection for engaging in Identity Politicking. When it suits. But only with things outside your preferred definition. A bit like with Feminism.

I've tried to engage you in actual conversation. You clearly are not interested and ignore what I write in favour of trying to score points and make judgments. Good for you. Hurrah. Here's a cigar. Next.

 

[ruby sparks]

Example: Women's issues.

Identity politics (often in the form of Feminism) can and does usefully raise awareness of and lead to improvements for women. By the same token, if taken too far.......

You get the gist. Similarly for race issues and so on.

I think that when some people here refer to Identity Politics they really mean 'Identity politics which has in some ways gone too far in very recent times in the USA '. This is of course not the same as 'Identity Politics'; it is or would be if it is the case just a local, current trend within Identity politics.

And yet, even then, I want to ask, as an outsider, is it really the bogeyman, the big problem that it is said to be? Iow, are the problems associated with it overstated, possibly because Trump got elected (which might have happened for a whole variety of reasons anyway, including that it was the Republicans 'turn'? It wasn't, as I understand it, a landslide victory. It was very close, was it not?).

There is a case, I believe, that recent changes of emphasis in racial Identity Politics in the USA arose because 'race-blind' policies were not delivering. If true, we could see why the change in emphasis was justified. Maybe it has just gone too far the other way?

 

[laughing dog]

You realize you're making ld's point for him, right?

First, should I take your dodge as a yes or a no? Do you believe truth is democratic? If everyone told me something false is true, am I supposed to change my mind and agree with them?

Second, no. Pointing out that LD is responding with a truism that is irrelevant to what he quoted doesn't further verify the truism.

Pointing that out indicates you have no clue what is being discussed. A definition is a tool to facilitate communication. It has no independent external verification. Definitions evolve over time because of "majority rule" usage. Claiming that truth is not subject to democracy when it comes to definitions is literally an irrelevant claim because truth has absolutely nothing to do with definitions.

You wish to define "identity politics" to suit your ideology and rhetorical uses. Other people understand "identity politics" to mean something different than your idiosyncratic claim. That is the truth. Your definition is no more closer to the "truth" than anyone else's, and it is much further from the common understanding.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Pointing that out indicates you have no clue what is being discussed. A definition is a tool to facilitate communication. It has no independent external verification. Definitions evolve over time because of "majority rule" usage. Claiming that truth is not subject to democracy when it comes to definitions is literally an irrelevant claim because truth has absolutely nothing to do with definitions.

Exactly. You may want to tell that to the person I was responding to. That quote is where definition was mixed with "truth", as I pointed out.