Gotchu, fam:
Thanks for the unhelp link. I’ve tried it before.
Identity politics are 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.
I don’t see how that differs from normal “politics”, which puts me back to not knowing what identity politics actually is or why the term is so important.
Gotchu, fam:
I kind of agree of you. That list of examples is so large is pointless. The normal, run of the mill politics someone believes in is already affected by who you are (age, sex, nation, religion, economic class, profession, etc). That kind of decision (if you are left, right or whatever) doesn’t arise in a vacuum, but from from all that.
But that’s the point. It’s not different from normal politics but it sounds different from normal politics, so people can use that as justification for attacking it or belittling it.
It’s a bit like being politically correct. In reality, another word for politically correct is just being polite or considerate. But by labelling it PC, you can suddenly attack people for being polite, and justify being a rude asshole.
It’s all just a trick to label some people’s concerns as different and illegitimate.
I don’t think that’s very accurate at all.
Identity politics, when used as a pejorative, is the idea that because you are a member of a certain immutable group (e.g. race, gender, or ethnicity) you must all act as one political unit and want the same things. It’s basically the opposite of the melting pot theory of American politics that was the dominant one for most of the country’s history.
To make up an example in an attempt to keep it from being too emotionally charged: I’m left-handed. Under the melting pot theory, that’s just trivia. I align myself politically with whatever movement best fits my views and support what I individually think is best: progressives, libertarians, greens, etc. Under the identify politics theory, the fact that I’m left-handed defines what politics I support and becomes one of my defining characteristics: I vote for left-handed candidates and “left-handed issues”.
The reason people are against identity politics is not an attempt to label people’s concerns as different and illegitimate. It’s an attempt to avoid tribalism and division, where people are separated by immutable characteristics and think if themselves that way.
I understand that your example is supposed to be ridiculous, but how is that any different from politics ever?
In the Netherlands, you had Catholic Newspapers and Protestant News People until the last few decades.
But did all the Catholic Newspapers advocate for the same policies? (I’m asking, I don’t know much of politics in the Netherlands.) I was mostly focused on American politics, because they haven’t been as historically dominated by identity politics. If someone in the Uas tells you they’re Catholic, you really don’t know what sort of politics they support…American Catholics don’t tend to vote in a block, as Catholic isn’t really an identity in the US.
Pretty much.
The USA also has had identity politics since the beginning. Hell, the Civil War could was Identity politics at its core!
And I guess I’d just say, look how well THAT turned out. Freeing the slaves was absolutely the right thing, but it would have been nice if it could have been accomplished without killing 620,000 people.
Now I don’t think anything coming out of Riot Games is going to be worthwhile because they don’t have even one leg to stand on, but am I surprised that they would fire the employees who are trying to address their problem instead of the ones sending dick pictures to everyone… hah, no. And if you don’t see the reason I think it’s hilarious you would even try to defend that management and their decision to fire and push out anyone who has anything counter to their bros only culture, then I really don’t know what to tell you.
[/quote]
So you believe that the ends justify the means. That is somehow acceptable to tell customers to kill themselves or “f*** off” because it supports your point. I find it laughable that you would defend such statements. Two wrongs do not make a right. The more you speak the more it becomes apparent that you do not want equality. You want, to use an old phrase, to punish the son for the sins of the father.
Take any statement of opinion or situation regarding race or gender. If you think the statement is acceptable, try reversing the races/gender. If now you think it is somehow sexist or racist, guess what? It was sexist and/or racist when you thought it acceptable.
The RPS article on this was quite literally the worst version of this story they could publish, on par with what breitbart does with their stories. Telling customers to “f*** off” and kill themselves is described as “mild criticisms”. Frankly, I detest both equally. Facts are facts. Trying to spin misdeeds by your side, whatever side that is, into something it was not is simply despicable. I am on the side of fairness because that is the only road that leads to equality.
Yeah, it wasn’t pretty, but we freed the slaves! There wasn’t much else that could happen though. The South was unable to give up their way of life, except through force of action. We had tried compromising in 1820, and that had failed. It was a terrible compromise. On par with Neville Chamberlain and Hitler since it just kicked the can down the road.
We could have no more avoided a civil war than we could have avoided World War 2. Evil people were causing trouble and the Federal Government had to act.
One of the results were that we become one of the largest industrialized powers in the world though. Which allowed us to kick the Nazi’s ass, and keep the USSR in check. So, silver lining.
You must be speaking for yourself. Now take your sentence, replace “white” with “black” or “guys” with “women” and read it again. Do you find it offensive? Then your statement must be inherently racist and/or sexist. Which it is.
No, I think it’s just trying to rebalance the scales. You’ve read the Magic the Gathering example, so I’m not sure what else to tell you. If you are being robbed and ripped off ever day, just having that stop doesn’t put you on parity with the person doing the robbing and stealing. You are still behind.
Or, since I’ve been playing Age of Empires 2 recently. If you’ve had half your villages killed by ‘allies’ in Age of Empires 2, it doesn’t matter that you survived the raid and that raids have ceased, eventually you will lose because you will always be behind in villagers from that point on. Not unless other players start slinging you resources or helping you defending you base, so that you can focus on your economy will you reach the same point as other players.
And this case, I am using the term ‘allies’, because in this example, it’s colleagues, coworkers, follow Americans that are doing the damage.
It feels sucky, because it feels like you are losing out, but that’s not actually the case. It just feels like it. And feelings, aren’t reality.
“Guys guys guys, not that I am keeping score or anything, but this is about ethics in games journalism.”
This summed it up for me:
“La raza” was a source of pride for many Latinos, the most militant of whom adopted the motto: “Por la raza todo, fuera de la raza nada” — “For the race, everything, outside the race, nothing.” But it drew resistance from many leaders who sought a place for their people within the broader American society. Cesar Chavez was one of the most outspoken critics.
There are no win-win states in identity politics. Everything going to another group is a loss for you. Every win your group gets is a loss for them. Cooperation is for chumps. Integration or assimilation is the murder of the individual’s sacred identity.
Sounds like the GOP platform in a nutshell.
I know you are trying to be cute, but that’s pretty dishonest.
The fuck it is.
Yes, anyone to the right of you is a Nazi, I’m sure.