Problematic Stuff

[Forty Two]

The thing is, it doesn't. http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 0#p1771757

The civil rights movement was not a grouping of blacks to form an "exclusive" political alliance. It was a universalist movement toward unification of divided races under a banner of equality and which included the principle of not judging a person by the color of their skin.

The civil rights movement does not fit the definition of identity politics because the civil rights movement did not seek "to form an exclusive political alliance." The followup explanations I provided elucidated that feature of the definition. Where identity politics differs, for example, is in forming exclusive political alliances based on skin color or sex or gender, and basing rights and such on mere membership in said exclusive groupings. Also, identity politics involves notion that judgments should be skin color, sex or gender neutral is considered racist, sexist or phobic. Under the civil rights movement, race neutrality was the goal. Under identity politics, race neutrality is racist.

You are tiresome, and it's a neverending snipe-fest with you.... but, you have no ability to discuss topics. You can only fight and bark.

[JimC]

Forty Two wrote:

Also, identity politics involves notion that judgments should be skin color, sex or gender neutral is considered racist, sexist or phobic.

Would you care to re-phrase that? Currently, it does not compute...

I think you tend to take extreme examples to bolster your argument. Sure, when people's politics becomes very narrow, and focused entirely on their own particular group, it can become rather myopic. But a key issue is missing from your analysis, and that is the level of discrimination and lack of power felt by some groups, typically involving non-whites, non-males or non-straights. They have legitimate grievances, whether it be police shootings of black people or hate speech by red-neck loonies. White supremacist groups are in a very different category, one with zero ethical support, than say, Black Lives Matter.

[Hermit]

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

You have expressed your dislike of particular strands of identity politics. You have not come near explaining how the black civil rights movement was not at its core 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.

Source

The civil rights movement (also known as the African-American civil rights movement, American civil rights movement and other terms) was a decades-long movement with the goal of securing legal rights for African Americans that other Americans already held.

Source

[JimC]

The only thing that could be said is that the civil rights movement was generally a broader based grouping than some of the narrower identity groupings today. Although clearly there to remove discrimination against a particular group, it did not claim superiority, as many white-biased identity groups do, and it had widespread support from significant numbers of white people. It depends how broadly you want to define "identity politics"; I'm not convinced it is a useful term, it being used mostly in the pejorative sense...

[Hermit]

It depends how broadly you want to define "identity politics"; I'm not convinced it is a useful term, it being used mostly in the pejorative sense...

Who, apart from the alt-right, is using the term in the pejorative sense? I go with the definition I just quoted and which Seabass has quoted earlier. 42 has either not read it or is simply ignoring it in favour of the alt-right version. Now, I'm not saying he is a member of that mob, but he does increasingly quack like one.

[Seabass]

The only thing that could be said is that the civil rights movement was generally a broader based grouping than some of the narrower identity groupings today. Although clearly there to remove discrimination against a particular group, it did not claim superiority, as many white-biased identity groups do, and it had widespread support from significant numbers of white people. It depends how broadly you want to define "identity politics"; I'm not convinced it is a useful term, it being used mostly in the pejorative sense...

The only people who use it in the pejorative sense are right-wing loonies who want those uppity minorities to know their place.

[JimC]

It depends how broadly you want to define "identity politics"; I'm not convinced it is a useful term, it being used mostly in the pejorative sense...

Who, apart from the alt-right, is using the term in the pejorative sense? I go with the definition I just quoted and which Seabass has quoted earlier. 42 has either not read it or is simply ignoring it in favour of the alt-right version. Now, I'm not saying he is a member of that mob, but he does increasingly quack like one.

Who uses the term at all, apart from those who want to use it pejoratively like the alt-right?

It's certainly not used as a common and/or approving term in Oz; perhaps it is a US terminology...

[pErvinalia]

The thing is, it doesn't. http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 0#p1771757

The civil rights movement was not a grouping of blacks to form an "exclusive" political alliance. It was a universalist movement toward unification of divided races under a banner of equality and which included the principle of not judging a person by the color of their skin.

The civil rights movement does not fit the definition of identity politics because the civil rights movement did not seek "to form an exclusive political alliance." The followup explanations I provided elucidated that feature of the definition. Where identity politics differs, for example, is in forming exclusive political alliances based on skin color or sex or gender, and basing rights and such on mere membership in said exclusive groupings.

I'm not sure that is the case. SJWs form broad alliances across marginalised groups. Which if you accept probably means that SJWs don't engage in identity politics. I suspect, particularly given Hermit's(sorry, it was Seabass's) definition, that "exclusive" functionally means it doesn't apply universally. I'm not an expert on the civil rights movement, but I'm incredulous that it was "universalist". It was clearly about blacks and their oppression by whites.

You are tiresome, and it's a neverending snipe-fest with you.... but, you have no ability to discuss topics. You can only fight and bark.

Waaaaa waaaa waaaa. Jesus Christ!

[Seabass]

Now, I'm not saying he is a member of that mob, but he does increasingly quack like one.

I'll say it. He's alt-right. If you're pro-Trump, and your preferred "news" sources are Mike Cernovich, Infowars, Breitbart, News Busters, Daily Caller, Zero Hedge, True Pundit, Gateway Pundit, Political Insider, and other similar publications, you're probably alt-right.

[Scot Dutchy]

Does the "alt" mean alternative?

[pErvinalia]

I think so. To supposedly distinguish themselves from other conservatives. Essentially they are alternative-insane instead of regular-insane..

[Scot Dutchy]

If you defined yourself as right there is not much room to play in.

[Svartalf]

well, there used to be a moderately conservative right that was fairly sensible... Our general De Gaulle did a lot of social stuff, and he was a right wing dictator, Nixon was in favor of a universal revenue for all that he was a corrupt PoS on the side...

[Scot Dutchy]

De Gaulle was not a right wing dictator. He belonged to the pre war politics of the middle classes. Nixon is like Trump or Regan where political ideology was away above him.

[Svartalf]

Sorry to tell you, but De Gaulle was solidly planted in the Christian Right tradition, law and order and all that, and he even had a whole constitution crafted just so he could be a de facto dictator, albeit one that was democratically elected and ruled in part by plebiscite.

But after all, Julius Caesar too was made Dictator for life... some people including one Junius Brutus feared he'd take the next step and try to have himself crowned as king, follow some Ides of March shenanigans...