"Identity politics is the handmaiden of neoliberalism"

[Thermodolia]

Horsecocky.

Identity politics are collectivist, and therefore against liberalism.

^this

[Salus Maior]

And than the rich just looked at it and smacked their lips happily knowing that this is a movement they can support to forever (or at least temporarily) cripple the one weapon that those under them have, unity. When man fights woman and black fights white nobody gets to fight the Clintons, Obamas and Trumps of this world as they sit together in the same room, black and white, female and male and sip campaign laughing at the battle going on outside.

Amen.

[Herskerstad]

Identity politics, coupled with multiculturalism and mass migration is a pretty awful combination.

[Vassenor]

Identity politics, coupled with multiculturalism and mass migration is a pretty awful combination.

For what reasons?

[Herskerstad]

Identity politics, coupled with multiculturalism and mass migration is a pretty awful combination.

For what reasons?

It pillarizes and alters the society, often to the point of ghettoising regions with cultures that hold nothing to little in common with the host nation.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Basic take on the overall topic:

Further micronization of who we are politically keeps us more and more divided, more focused only on issues we see as directly concerning 'us' as a small group, and to hell with 'the rest' because of hot words like 'privilege' and 'race' and 'gender' and a plethora of other things the powers that be, and the interests behind them want us nitpicking over and pointing fingers angrily here there and everywhere else but where we really ought to be focusing our energy and efforts.

Does this mean people shouldn't hold individual identities, or that it shouldn't matter in regards to who you are or how you view yourself as a person? Not really. Where it hurts is when we continue to divide down from basic human rights, and make it seem as if those rights are a limited quantity that our government gets to dole out, and that we have to fight over to make sure 'we' get our 'fair share' of them.

Here's a big secret - they aren't.

Ideally, a basic human right would apply to ALL of us. Not just one group, or another, or especially this one or that one, but only if certain situations are applicable. We would be covered whatever gender we are, whatever color, creed, religion, lack of religion, political bent, education and income level, or any other factor. Things such as a right to fair trials and knowing what our legal options are, or fair treatment in the workplace, with an expectation of fair payment in return for our service, maybe the right to equal access to health care that falls at least in the ballpark of affordable, to be able to be ourselves and not face discrimination for any of the aforementioned categories humans seem so hell-bent on placing themselves in, to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - surely that hasn't changed just because politics have devolved into petty bickering and self-serving representatives more concerned with their tenuous hold on the power rather than the people they were voted into office by.

United we stand, divided we fall. Case in point, the recent protests and violence stemming from and around them - not just Charlotteville but going back to Standing Rock and the ranchers, the BLM efforts, and all the varied approaches law enforcement, the government, and the media has treated them with, often strongly illustrating the inherent differences, even hypocrisy in how each was dealt with. Look at how much more angry everything has become. Look at how little we are changing our government's stances compared to 50, 60 years ago even. Look at how much energy is being expended to keep us distracted, to keep us at one another's throats, to keep us stirred up and mad as hell, whatever happens to be going on.

Look at the goram mess we have on our hands, where violence, intimidation, and threats are trying to be spun as 'free speech', and well-intentioned people are stooping to the same levels in their outrage over it. Look at how, in the act of dividing us, the lines defining what makes one thing acceptable and another not are being blurred and glossed over, depending on which voice happens to be loudest one minute to next.

Folks, we've got to get our shit together, as I've continually harped on. Don't care how much we may dislike one another at heart, so long as we can figure out how to coexist, and like it or not, treat one another with as much equality as is humanly possible. We can't /be/ equal - its impossible given the varied lifestyles, incomes, beliefs, etc that come into play. But we /can/ get ourselves to a point where we can expect to be treated the same as anyone else, to have the same access to basic services as anyone else, to have the same opportunities to create success for ourselves as anyone else, to get the same level of education as anyone else, to be treated with the same civility as anyone else.

Lets find that middle ground, the one where we can acknowledge, however grudgingly, that we are all people, we all bleed red, and we all have basic needs that need addressed. And that we all have the right to live without the threat of violence, intimidation, even death simply because of who we are, or how we were born. And then lets share those differences rather than use them to further divide, and see if some of the grudging attitudes can't be turned around with a bit of neighborliness and education, neh?

Here's to hoping.

[Ariddia]

Basic take on the overall topic:

Further micronization of who we are politically keeps us more and more divided, more focused only on issues we see as directly concerning 'us' as a small group, and to hell with 'the rest' because of hot words like 'privilege' and 'race' and 'gender' and a plethora of other things the powers that be, and the interests behind them want us nitpicking over and pointing fingers angrily here there and everywhere else but where we really ought to be focusing our energy and efforts.

Does this mean people shouldn't hold individual identities, or that it shouldn't matter in regards to who you are or how you view yourself as a person? Not really. Where it hurts is when we continue to divide down from basic human rights, and make it seem as if those rights are a limited quantity that our government gets to dole out, and that we have to fight over to make sure 'we' get our 'fair share' of them.

Here's a big secret - they aren't.

Ideally, a basic human right would apply to ALL of us. Not just one group, or another, or especially this one or that one, but only if certain situations are applicable. We would be covered whatever gender we are, whatever color, creed, religion, lack of religion, political bent, education and income level, or any other factor. Things such as a right to fair trials and knowing what our legal options are, or fair treatment in the workplace, with an expectation of fair payment in return for our service, maybe the right to equal access to health care that falls at least in the ballpark of affordable, to be able to be ourselves and not face discrimination for any of the aforementioned categories humans seem so hell-bent on placing themselves in, to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - surely that hasn't changed just because politics have devolved into petty bickering and self-serving representatives more concerned with their tenuous hold on the power rather than the people they were voted into office by.

United we stand, divided we fall. Case in point, the recent protests and violence stemming from and around them - not just Charlotteville but going back to Standing Rock and the ranchers, the BLM efforts, and all the varied approaches law enforcement, the government, and the media has treated them with, often strongly illustrating the inherent differences, even hypocrisy in how each was dealt with. Look at how much more angry everything has become. Look at how little we are changing our government's stances compared to 50, 60 years ago even. Look at how much energy is being expended to keep us distracted, to keep us at one another's throats, to keep us stirred up and mad as hell, whatever happens to be going on.

Look at the goram mess we have on our hands, where violence, intimidation, and threats are trying to be spun as 'free speech', and well-intentioned people are stooping to the same levels in their outrage over it. Look at how, in the act of dividing us, the lines defining what makes one thing acceptable and another not are being blurred and glossed over, depending on which voice happens to be loudest one minute to next.

Folks, we've got to get our shit together, as I've continually harped on. Don't care how much we may dislike one another at heart, so long as we can figure out how to coexist, and like it or not, treat one another with as much equality as is humanly possible. We can't /be/ equal - its impossible given the varied lifestyles, incomes, beliefs, etc that come into play. But we /can/ get ourselves to a point where we can expect to be treated the same as anyone else, to have the same access to basic services as anyone else, to have the same opportunities to create success for ourselves as anyone else, to get the same level of education as anyone else, to be treated with the same civility as anyone else.

Lets find that middle ground, the one where we can acknowledge, however grudgingly, that we are all people, we all bleed red, and we all have basic needs that need addressed. And that we all have the right to live without the threat of violence, intimidation, even death simply because of who we are, or how we were born. And then lets share those differences rather than use them to further divide, and see if some of the grudging attitudes can't be turned around with a bit of neighborliness and education, neh?

Here's to hoping.

Very well put. I agree with pretty much every word.

The self-isolating anger of increasingly narrow, closed 'communities' does very little to address either the issues that may be specific to them, or the far more numerous issues that are common to many people of varied backgrounds. What it certainly does achieve is, as you said, to be a distraction from attaining things like fair pay or affordable healthcare that should be a common aim for everyone.

[Catochristoferson]

For what reasons?

It pillarizes and alters the society, often to the point of ghettoising regions with cultures that hold nothing to little in common with the host nation.

You're complaining about Identity Politics, despite the fact that Cultural Nationalism is a form of Identity Politics.

How ironic.

[Brocialist]

Horsecocky.

Identity politics are collectivist, and therefore against liberalism.

^this

Liberalism and the liberal media are the ones pushing idpol. Liberalism is hardly collectivist, as liberalism is a capitalist ideology.

Identity politics, coupled with multiculturalism and mass migration is a pretty awful combination.

Lol white nationalism is identity politics buddy.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

^this

Liberalism and the liberal media are the ones pushing idpol. Liberalism is hardly collectivist, as liberalism is a capitalist ideology.

idpol is collectivist.

[SD_Film Artists]

I still don't get what "identity politics" is anyway.

It's a cynical political movement by the modern "left" who claim to represent "oppressed" minorities against the evil white male. Their primary premise lays on the fundamental belief that racism, sexism, religionism and just about every other ism they can come up with is absolutely 100% true. Race, gender, religion, sexual orientation and others are, according to them, fundamental properties a person which define him much more than upbringing, culture or individual personality ever will.

Some of them have influenced the autistic rights movement too. I've been part of the movement for 10 years and it used to be about positive awareness and fighting against anti-autistic groups like the ironically named Autism Speaks. And in a way it's still about that, but in the last 3 to 5 years we've received more interest and co-opting from the hard-left wing of the LGBT community. The result of this is that a small but very vocal minority of "autism" groups have the unwritten rule that you have to be a socialist, misandrist Anglophobe if you want to join the club. And instead of being diagnosed by a professional and thus treating autism with the scientific respect that it deserves, they instead prefer their followers to "identify as autistic", as if autism gives a single fuck about whether you identify with it or not.

[Khalisako]

It's a cynical political movement by the modern "left" who claim to represent "oppressed" minorities against the evil white male. Their primary premise lays on the fundamental belief that racism, sexism, religionism and just about every other ism they can come up with is absolutely 100% true. Race, gender, religion, sexual orientation and others are, according to them, fundamental properties a person which define him much more than upbringing, culture or individual personality ever will.

Some of them have influenced the autistic rights movement too. I've been part of the movement for 10 years and it used to be about positive awareness and fighting against anti-autistic groups like the ironically named Autism Speaks. And in a way it's still about that, but in the last 3 to 5 years we've received more interest and co-opting from the hard-left wing of the LGBT community. The result of this is that a small but very vocal minority of "autism" groups have the unwritten rule that you have to be a socialist, misandrist Anglophobe if you want to join the club. And instead of being diagnosed by a professional and thus treating autism with the scientific respect that it deserves, they instead prefer their followers to "identify as autistic", as if autism gives a single fuck about whether you identify with it or not.

I think your concept of autism may vary from the actual workings autism..?

[SD_Film Artists]

Some of them have influenced the autistic rights movement too. I've been part of the movement for 10 years and it used to be about positive awareness and fighting against anti-autistic groups like the ironically named Autism Speaks. And in a way it's still about that, but in the last 3 to 5 years we've received more interest and co-opting from the hard-left wing of the LGBT community. The result of this is that a small but very vocal minority of "autism" groups have the unwritten rule that you have to be a socialist, misandrist Anglophobe if you want to join the club. And instead of being diagnosed by a professional and thus treating autism with the scientific respect that it deserves, they instead prefer their followers to "identify as autistic", as if autism gives a single fuck about whether you identify with it or not.

I think your concept of autism may vary from the actual workings autism..?

How so?

[Purpelia]

I think your concept of autism may vary from the actual workings autism..?

More like he is talking about groups formed to help people with a genuine mental condition and combat idiots who try to make money off scamming said people into buying miracle cure snake oil being co opted by healthy political activists who see said people as easy targets for exploitation for their own political ends. You see that happening a lot to any vulnerable group in society, most commonly the poor.

[Khalisako]

I think your concept of autism may vary from the actual workings autism..?

More like he is talking about groups formed to help people with a genuine mental condition and combat idiots who try to make money off scamming said people into buying miracle cure snake oil being co opted by healthy political activists who see said people as easy targets for exploitation for their own political ends. You see that happening a lot to any vulnerable group in society, most commonly the poor.

Aahhhh, I see now. Okay.

[SD_Film Artists]

I think your concept of autism may vary from the actual workings autism..?

More like he is talking about groups formed to help people with a genuine mental condition and combat idiots who try to make money off scamming said people into buying miracle cure snake oil being co opted by healthy political activists who see said people as easy targets for exploitation for their own political ends. You see that happening a lot to any vulnerable group in society, most commonly the poor.

Exactly.
To be fair, some of them do genuinely have autism (or as genuine as they can be while openly opposing the medical community) but they're so busy looking for tiny ideological things to be offended by that they don't see the big picture. For example, alot of the SJW autistics (rather than the old-school autistics like myself) are against Temple Grandin because she has a bias towards high-functioning autistics rather than low-functioning, she wants autistic people to get jobs and she is *gasp* a capitalist! What the SJW autistics don't seem to understand is that Temple Grandin defeated terrible amounts of sexism, anti-autistic discrimination and other horrible acts of prejudice (not always against her, but it was around), she helped to give autistic people more acceptance in the world and what do the SJW autistics do with those new rights and freedoms? They criticise her because she doesn't conform to their cookie-cut ideology.

I don't really like using the term 'SJW' as it's used a lot by the alt-right, but as the demon doesn't want to be named we have no other name to give.

And I guess I could be being pedantic as you seem to already know enough about our movement without me lecturing you, but I would like to point out that autism is not an illness and thus we are all 'healthy political activists'

[Purpelia]

Exactly.
To be fair, some of them do genuinely have autism (or as genuine as they can be while openly opposing the medical community) but they're so busy looking for tiny ideological things to be offended by that they don't see the big picture. For example, alot of the SJW autistics (rather than the old-school autistics like myself) are against Temple Grandin because she has a bias towards high-functioning autistics rather than low-functioning, she wants autistic people to get jobs and she is *gasp* a capitalist! What the SJW autistics don't seem to understand is that Temple Grandin defeated terrible amounts of sexism, anti-autistic discrimination and other horrible acts of prejudice (not always against her, but it was around), she helped to give autistic people more acceptance in the world and what do the SJW autistics do with those new rights and freedoms? They criticise her because she doesn't conform to their cookie-cut ideology.

I don't really like using the term 'SJW' as it's used a lot by the alt-right, but as the demon doesn't want to be named we have no other name to give.

And I guess I could be being pedantic as you seem to already know enough about our movement without me lecturing you, but I would like to point out that autism is not an illness and thus we are all 'healthy political activists'

Far from enough to claim any sort of expertise. But I am generally familiar with the rough outlines of your situation in terms of the struggles you face with the anti science/vaccines cause autism/buy my snake oil/have your children drink bleach to poop the autism worms away/... crowd. And no, I am not making that last one up. And honestly I just find it infuriating that people would perpetuate these things for their own benefit. And than you get the SJW's who march in and do the same thing just for political power instead of money.

I also know that it's basically a spectrum where you have very high functioning individuals who have fewer problems and very low functioning individuals that have a lot of them. And that from what I've gathered there is more political gain to be had by painting you all as the second group and thus victims of society and exploiting that for political points with the rest of us who don't know any better. Just like there is more to gain economically by scarring parents into thinking every case of autism is going to be the worst possible case and that they should buy your patented bleach solution to get the autism worms out. Same mechanism really.

It's like every time I think my faith in humanity can't get lower someone comes up with a glowing smile and singing "yes it can".


As for the terminology I basically don't know how to call your situation in english. It's not my native tongue and medical words in it are not my thing.

[SD_Film Artists]

Exactly.
To be fair, some of them do genuinely have autism (or as genuine as they can be while openly opposing the medical community) but they're so busy looking for tiny ideological things to be offended by that they don't see the big picture. For example, alot of the SJW autistics (rather than the old-school autistics like myself) are against Temple Grandin because she has a bias towards high-functioning autistics rather than low-functioning, she wants autistic people to get jobs and she is *gasp* a capitalist! What the SJW autistics don't seem to understand is that Temple Grandin defeated terrible amounts of sexism, anti-autistic discrimination and other horrible acts of prejudice (not always against her, but it was around), she helped to give autistic people more acceptance in the world and what do the SJW autistics do with those new rights and freedoms? They criticise her because she doesn't conform to their cookie-cut ideology.

I don't really like using the term 'SJW' as it's used a lot by the alt-right, but as the demon doesn't want to be named we have no other name to give.

And I guess I could be being pedantic as you seem to already know enough about our movement without me lecturing you, but I would like to point out that autism is not an illness and thus we are all 'healthy political activists'

Far from enough to claim any sort of expertise. But I am generally familiar with the rough outlines of your situation in terms of the struggles you face with the anti science/vaccines cause autism/buy my snake oil/have your children drink bleach to poop the autism worms away/... crowd. And no, I am not making that last one up. And honestly I just find it infuriating that people would perpetuate these things for their own benefit. And than you get the SJW's who march in and do the same thing just for political power instead of money.

I also know that it's basically a spectrum where you have very high functioning individuals who have fewer problems and very low functioning individuals that have a lot of them. And that from what I've gathered there is more political gain to be had by painting you all as the second group and thus victims of society and exploiting that for political points with the rest of us who don't know any better. Just like there is more to gain economically by scarring parents into thinking every case of autism is going to be the worst possible case and that they should buy your patented bleach solution to get the autism worms out. Same mechanism really.

It's like every time I think my faith in humanity can't get lower someone comes up with a glowing smile and singing "yes it can".

Indeed, Autism Speaks took that to an extreme by creating a video saying that autism is like cancer and it will ruin your marriage. Fortunately the main UK charity (National Autistic Society) condemned the advert, but it is just another example of how groups are happy to perpetuate harmful stigmas if there's some cash to be gained. Other groups are more well-intentioned yet still damaging by making it look as if autism is only found in male children; it's rare to see autism-based media featuring adult women.

As for the terminology I basically don't know how to call your situation in english. It's not my native tongue and medical words in it are not my thing.

We have a condition. The "healthy people" we'd say are neurotypicals.

[The Salian Realm]

It's more like the handmaiden of the tribal violence that it shares a justification with.

[MERIZoC]

I'm not of the view that identity politics are necessarily problematic for the left, or somehow run counter to goals of solidarity and collectivism, but I think there are liberal pitfalls in the concept, and that people run into those more often than they should.

Encouraging them to identify according to individual, race or sexual identity––of course, often causes of being oppressed––instead of as economic victims, denies them a common voice.

Why does consciousness of discrimination regarding gender identity, race, or sexuality necessarily have to be mutually exclusive with consciousness of discrimination with regards to class? There is nothing anti-socialist in saying "As a black woman, I face a unique form of prejudice directed against me." Such a unique form of prejudice exists, and it can't be addressed without recognizing that. Identity politics employed to this degree are good and productive.

Where things get more insidious is when identity politics are used to reify capitalist structures (and with that, discriminatory ones!), either involuntarily in good faith, or in bad faith. "White men don't understand oppression" is a patently absurd statement that anyone can easily refute. This kind of argument just drives a wedge and doesn't further solidarity. At its worst, identity politics is nothing more than a weapon for liberals to wield. "You have no right to disagree with Kamala Harris (for example) on [issue]. As a POC woman, she understands oppression more than you" is the kind of line I've seen time and time again, and never mind if the figure in question is just going to bat for crony capitalism and exploitation. And there have been plenty of times I've seen (white) liberals parrot the line that "socialism is for white men and doesn't address the concerns of minorities." When confronted on this by black or brown leftists, the liberals often ignore them. When white leftists point this out, they are often accused of "trying to speak for minority groups" by the liberals. This line of identity politics is not only a tactic to reinforce neoliberal systems, it's pretty clearly racist as well.

[Liberalter]

I'm not of the view that identity politics are necessarily problematic for the left, or somehow run counter to goals of solidarity and collectivism, but I think there are liberal pitfalls in the concept, and that people run into those more often than they should.

Encouraging them to identify according to individual, race or sexual identity––of course, often causes of being oppressed––instead of as economic victims, denies them a common voice.

Why does consciousness of discrimination regarding gender identity, race, or sexuality necessarily have to be mutually exclusive with consciousness of discrimination with regards to class? There is nothing anti-socialist in saying "As a black woman, I face a unique form of prejudice directed against me." Such a unique form of prejudice exists, and it can't be addressed without recognizing that. Identity politics employed to this degree are good and productive.

Where things get more insidious is when identity politics are used to reify capitalist structures (and with that, discriminatory ones!), either involuntarily in good faith, or in bad faith. "White men don't understand oppression" is a patently absurd statement that anyone can easily refute. This kind of argument just drives a wedge and doesn't further solidarity. At its worst, identity politics is nothing more than a weapon for liberals to wield. "You have no right to disagree with Kamala Harris (for example) on [issue]. As a POC woman, she understands oppression more than you" is the kind of line I've seen time and time again, and never mind if the figure in question is just going to bat for crony capitalism and exploitation. And there have been plenty of times I've seen (white) liberals parrot the line that "socialism is for white men and doesn't address the concerns of minorities." When confronted on this by black or brown leftists, the liberals often ignore them. When white leftists point this out, they are often accused of "trying to speak for minority groups" by the liberals. This line of identity politics is not only a tactic to reinforce neoliberal systems, it's pretty clearly racist as well.

"Identity politics is racist" You're probably a cis white male who doesn't see the benefit of identity politics to minorities.
Kamala Harris does know more about oppression and politics than you, as she actually works for the government.
You are right that socialism isn't just for white men. The point isn't that "socialism is for white men" the point is that white men are co-opting the socialist movement to cater to white men rather than the more disadvantaged in society. Thus many moderate liberals get the idea that "socialism is for white men".

I really don't udnerstand the "classical" left's unnecessary hatred of liberalism. Liberalism and the liberal enlightenment is where a lot of socialist, Marxist, anarchist, and communist ideas come from.

[MERIZoC]

I'm not of the view that identity politics are necessarily problematic for the left, or somehow run counter to goals of solidarity and collectivism, but I think there are liberal pitfalls in the concept, and that people run into those more often than they should.

Why does consciousness of discrimination regarding gender identity, race, or sexuality necessarily have to be mutually exclusive with consciousness of discrimination with regards to class? There is nothing anti-socialist in saying "As a black woman, I face a unique form of prejudice directed against me." Such a unique form of prejudice exists, and it can't be addressed without recognizing that. Identity politics employed to this degree are good and productive.

Where things get more insidious is when identity politics are used to reify capitalist structures (and with that, discriminatory ones!), either involuntarily in good faith, or in bad faith. "White men don't understand oppression" is a patently absurd statement that anyone can easily refute. This kind of argument just drives a wedge and doesn't further solidarity. At its worst, identity politics is nothing more than a weapon for liberals to wield. "You have no right to disagree with Kamala Harris (for example) on [issue]. As a POC woman, she understands oppression more than you" is the kind of line I've seen time and time again, and never mind if the figure in question is just going to bat for crony capitalism and exploitation. And there have been plenty of times I've seen (white) liberals parrot the line that "socialism is for white men and doesn't address the concerns of minorities." When confronted on this by black or brown leftists, the liberals often ignore them. When white leftists point this out, they are often accused of "trying to speak for minority groups" by the liberals. This line of identity politics is not only a tactic to reinforce neoliberal systems, it's pretty clearly racist as well.

"Identity politics is racist"

This is the opposite of what I said.

[The Ben Boys]

As an old school communist I definitively do feel ideologically orphaned. The "left" has adopted right wing identity politics. It really is that simple. That's why I don't participate in the "left wing" discussions on this forum.

Barely any of the left wing discussions on this forum pertain to identity politics. Aren't you some sort of self confessed sociopath anyway? Is that what an old school communist is supposed to be?

This has always been an odd insult/burn to me, especially coming from leftists. Sociopathy is compulsive and a mental illness that usually sets in early in life or is genetic (essentially, entirely it of the subject's control). By insulting someone for being a sociopath, you're being a pretty flagrant bigot.

[Improved werpland]

And there have been plenty of times I've seen (white) liberals parrot the line that "socialism is for white men and doesn't address the concerns of minorities."

When has this happened?

[Liberalter]

And there have been plenty of times I've seen (white) liberals parrot the line that "socialism is for white men and doesn't address the concerns of minorities."

When has this happened?

It never has. It's simply a white brocialist projecting his white fragility onto black liberal women.

"Identity politics is racist"

This is the opposite of what I said.

You literally that "liberal idpol" is racist. With no evidence whatsoever. You're trying to hide your very obvious brocialism and failing miserably.