Problematic Stuff

[Forty Two]

The black civil rights movement was not about the superiority of blacks, or the need to keep "lesser" races in check. It was warmly supported by progressives of every colour and creed. It was fighting clear and evident injustice. To use some verbal sleight of hand to put it in the same category as the true exemplars of "identity politics", the current crop of ugly, red-necked white superiority groups, is an utter absurdity.

Indeed.

[pErvinalia]

I'm a bit confused as to what Jim is saying here, and what you are agreeing with.

[Seabass]

The black civil rights movement was not about the superiority of blacks, or the need to keep "lesser" races in check. It was warmly supported by progressives of every colour and creed. It was fighting clear and evident injustice. To use some verbal sleight of hand to put it in the same category as the true exemplars of "identity politics", the current crop of ugly, red-necked white superiority groups, is an utter absurdity.

The civil rights movement and the alt-right are both examples of identity politics. The former was motivated by a desire for racial equality, the latter is motivated by a belief in their own racial supremacy, but racial identity was central to both groups.


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

Identity politics refers to political positions based on the interests and perspectives of social groups with which people identify. 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. Not all members of any given group are involved in identity politics. Identity politics are used by minority and civil rights organizations to form a coalition with members of the majority.

The term identity politics came into being during the latter part of the 20th century, especially during the civil rights movement.

...

The term identity politics has been used in political discourse since at least the 1970s.[3] One aim of identity politics has been for those feeling oppressed to articulate their felt oppression in terms of their own experience by a process of consciousness-raising.

[pErvinalia]

There's a bit of weird problematic stuff going on here in Australia today. A mayor is accusing the federal minister for something or other of misogyny. As far as I can tell (from the recounting by the mayor herself), he just used swear words at her and she was offended.

[Hermit]

He asked you whether the black civil rights movement was pernicious. You replied by defining what identity politics was (a definition that fits the black civil rights movement, as far as I can see) and said that that was pernicious. And racist etc.

Don't insult the civil rights movement by comparing it to identity politics.

You're referring to the black civil rights movement, yes? If so, I put it to you that without blacks as a distinct identity in US history this movement would not have existed. The civil rights movement of which Martin Luther King was one of the leaders is an example of politics that is essentially based on social and political identity.

[Forty Two]

Already addressed that, Hermit: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 0#p1771767

[pErvinalia]

But it fits the definition of identity politics.

[Forty Two]

There's a bit of weird problematic stuff going on here in Australia today. A mayor is accusing the federal minister for something or other of misogyny. As far as I can tell (from the recounting by the mayor herself), he just used swear words at her and she was offended.

"He relocated his chair, pointing towards me and said 'you need to f***ing get over it, you need to f***ing make Senator Scullion your best friend'," Ms Miller said. She called it "misogynist." Why is it misogynist? Does she think men don't get talked to like that by this guy? In general? This is something women suffer in particular? http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-31/g ... or/9818938

This is related to a point I've made many times before, that part of modern day feminism is a return to 1950s mentality -- "you can't say that to women." Nobody would bat an eye if this guy said that to a guy, because men say that shit to each other all the time. You think Presidents and Prime Ministers, mayors and members of parliament, don't say "get fucking over it" to men all the time?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-31/g ... or/9818938

[pErvinalia]

The minister in question is a prancy little prat, so maybe she thought he was acting in a way he wouldn't with others. I don't know either way. But what he said to her and what he did is pretty standard practice for politics in this country.

[Forty Two]

But it fits the definition of identity politics.

Already addressed it.

The civil rights movement was a movement for equality of races - equal treatment under the law without regard for race.

Identity politics represents the exact opposite of the call to judge people by the ‘content of their character’. Instead, judging by skin colour is required in order to not be racist, as illustrated by dubbing as racist those who argue for colour-blind policies or the radical demands for racially segregated safe spaces on US campuses. Neutrality, said the identity politickers in the Lindsey Shepherd case, is part of the problem.

The civil rights movement was based on a universalist philosophy, not the special pleading on behalf of a variety of identity groups.

I've explained it three times now. If you're going to ignore the explanations, go for it.

[Forty Two]

The minister in question is a prancy little prat, so maybe she thought he was acting in a way he wouldn't with others. I don't know either way. But what he said to her and what he did is pretty standard practice for politics in this country.

It's pretty standard language among businessmen and male politicians here too, and it would hardly even be acknowledged as having been said if said to a man. It's more background noise than anything else. But, it's not surprising that a woman would be shocked at being talked to that way, because I think a lot of women are not accustomed to having men talk to them like that - they expect deference, and so it's a big surpise when they don't get it.

His big mistake is in apologizing. His better bet is to just say flat out, that salty language is par for the course in the hardscrabble political world among men, and he's had far worse said to him. Who among us has not heard and used that word?

By apologizing, he admits he's wrong, and his opposition has an opportunity to say it's not good enough. Then they can keep that ball in the air.

[pErvinalia]

But it fits the definition of identity politics.

Already addressed it.

Dude, YOU posted a definition of identity politics and it fits that. Hermit posted a definition of identity politics and it fits that. Therefore, it shouldn't come as a surprise that we view your "address" as total bollocks.

The civil rights movement was a movement for equality of races - equal treatment under the law without regard for race.

Identity politics represents the exact opposite of the call to judge people by the ‘content of their character’. Instead, judging by skin colour is required in order to not be racist, as illustrated by dubbing as racist those who argue for colour-blind policies or the radical demands for racially segregated safe spaces on US campuses. Neutrality, said the identity politickers in the Lindsey Shepherd case, is part of the problem.

Except that neither of the definitions provided limit "identity politics" to this sort of action.

The civil rights movement was based on a universalist philosophy, not the special pleading on behalf of a variety of identity groups.

No one said they are the same thing. But they do both meet the definition of "identity politics".

I've explained it three times now. If you're going to ignore the explanations, go for it.

Man, either your own definition is wrong, or your subsequent "explanation" is wrong. It's pretty clear which one of those is the case.

[pErvinalia]

The minister in question is a prancy little prat, so maybe she thought he was acting in a way he wouldn't with others. I don't know either way. But what he said to her and what he did is pretty standard practice for politics in this country.

It's pretty standard language among businessmen and male politicians here too, and it would hardly even be acknowledged as having been said if said to a man. It's more background noise than anything else. But, it's not surprising that a woman would be shocked at being talked to that way, because I think a lot of women are not accustomed to having men talk to them like that - they expect deference, and so it's a big surpise when they don't get it.

I think it's more a case of her being a local councillor, and he being a federal politician. One is involved in nice congenial discussions around a bench in a nice room with nice natural light and a view, amongst a few people who she sees at the local shops every second day. The other is involved in a cauldron of hate and mockery and abuse. I don't think federal women politicians would be surprised at all with that language, and would almost certainly use it themselves.

His big mistake is in apologizing. His better bet is to just say flat out, that salty language is par for the course in the hardscrabble political world among men, and he's had far worse said to him. Who among us has not heard and used that word?

No, for once a politician did the right thing. It was right not because he might actually be sorry, but because he's killed the story dead straight away. The media will have forgotten about this in a day or two now. If he doubled-down it would get nasty and the media would fan the flames and then someone in the Labor party would out some dirt about him and he'd wind up sacked/resigning. So many politicians from the Coalition (Liberal and National parties governing group) have been caught out in shit and got their back up, and then eventually got canned. All that achieves is to make the PM look weak (coz he always without fail refuses to bench them right from the start, and more often than not puts his support behind them).

By apologizing, he admits he's wrong, and his opposition has an opportunity to say it's not good enough. Then they can keep that ball in the air.

In this case they won't. Swearing like that makes him more like a Labor policitian than a poncey private school lawyer who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. There's also a FAR bigger story going on at the moment. And another one that's pretty big, only because it involves the buffoon former deputy PM (who had to resign, despite him and the PM refusing to accept that he was wrong all along).

[Forty Two]

Dude, YOU posted a definition of identity politics and it fits that. Hermit posted a definition of identity politics and it fits that. Therefore, it shouldn't come as a surprise that we view your "address" as total bollocks.

I don't care what you view it as, because it's par for the course for you to not acknowledge any nuance or explanation. Once you've found some thread you think you can latch onto, you'll not let go. I've explained he meaning, and why the universal human rights features of the general civil rights movement is not the same thing as identity politics. I've provided examples to show how that's the case. Ignore them if you want.

Also, the civil rights movement does not fit the definition I provided, which suggests that the racial identity group would be "exclusive" and the civil rights movement was not an exclusionary group, it was inclusive by its terms. It sought to eliminate racial distinctions, and judge people based on their character, not their skin color. Note the exclusivity bit. The exclusivity bit is what is elucidated by the additional explanations provided.

The civil rights movement was a movement for equality of races - equal treatment under the law without regard for race.

Identity politics represents the exact opposite of the call to judge people by the ‘content of their character’. Instead, judging by skin colour is required in order to not be racist, as illustrated by dubbing as racist those who argue for colour-blind policies or the radical demands for racially segregated safe spaces on US campuses. Neutrality, said the identity politickers in the Lindsey Shepherd case, is part of the problem.

Except that neither of the definitions provided limit "identity politics" to this sort of action.

The material I provided did, and people aske me if I considered the civil rights movement "identity politics" and I don't, and I explained why.

The civil rights movement was based on a universalist philosophy, not the special pleading on behalf of a variety of identity groups.

No one said they are the same thing. But they do both meet the definition of "identity politics".

If that's what you think, that's up to you.

I've explained it three times now. If you're going to ignore the explanations, go for it.

Man, either your own definition is wrong, or your subsequent "explanation" is wrong. It's pretty clear which one of those is the case.

Or, the explanation elucidates nuance in the one line definition, except to those bent on fighting rather than mutual understanding.

[pErvinalia]

Dude, YOU posted a definition of identity politics and it fits that. Hermit posted a definition of identity politics and it fits that. Therefore, it shouldn't come as a surprise that we view your "address" as total bollocks.

I don't care what you view it as, because it's par for the course for you to not acknowledge any nuance or explanation. Once you've found some thread you think you can latch onto, you'll not let go.

I just don't understand why so often you can't handle inquiry into what you actually say. It's patently obvious that the definition that, again, YOU provided, fits the civil rights movement. As does Hermit's definition. You can whinge and carry on as much as you like implying that you are being unfairly targetted over and over, but you are demonstrably wrong. YOUR OWN definition fits the civil rights movement. If you don't like your own words being put back to you, then either don't say them, or think harder about what you are saying before you say it. Because I can tell you that when I see inconsistencies and falsehoods and misrepresentations in your "arguments", I'm going to point them out. And until you can find the humility to actually admit you've fucked up, I'm going to keep pointing out the words that YOU YOURSELF write.