The End of Identity Liberalism(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
The End of Identity Liberalism
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/opinion/sunday/the-end-of-identity-liberalism.html
72 comments
Also, the AltRight is explicitly about adopting identity politics for the white majority.
"I care about us more. That's all I'm saying. But I respect identitarians of other races. And I actually can see eye to eye with them in a way that your average conservative can't."
http://www.npr.org/2016/11/17/502476139/were-not-going-away-...
And of course, many are arguing Trump's campaign was an appeal to white identity, although I realize a lot of Trump voters take issue with that characterization.
"I care about us more. That's all I'm saying. But I respect identitarians of other races. And I actually can see eye to eye with them in a way that your average conservative can't."
http://www.npr.org/2016/11/17/502476139/were-not-going-away-...
And of course, many are arguing Trump's campaign was an appeal to white identity, although I realize a lot of Trump voters take issue with that characterization.
I know a number of people who proudly adopt the label, none of whom had even heard of Richard Spencer before NPR and the like started talking him up. I haven't been able to find anyone who even knows anyone who thinks it's accurate to call Richard Spencer the, or even a, leader of the alt-right.
If anyone can fairly be said to stand in that role, it'd be Milo Yiannopoulos, so I suppose it's not entirely unreasonable that someone at NPR confused his picture for that of Spencer and stuck it on the linked transcript. On the other hand, it's not reasonable to call Yiannopoulos a white supremacist, either, so overall I'm not sure what to make of the piece, except to say that I'd think twice about taking it at face value. There is a great deal of nuance here which NPR has no reason to represent fairly, and every reason not to.
If anyone can fairly be said to stand in that role, it'd be Milo Yiannopoulos, so I suppose it's not entirely unreasonable that someone at NPR confused his picture for that of Spencer and stuck it on the linked transcript. On the other hand, it's not reasonable to call Yiannopoulos a white supremacist, either, so overall I'm not sure what to make of the piece, except to say that I'd think twice about taking it at face value. There is a great deal of nuance here which NPR has no reason to represent fairly, and every reason not to.
I agree it is not reasonable to say Milo is a white supremacist, in fact they seem to hate him. This says something, I think, about how the term alt right is used.
While white supremacists coined the term, they clearly don't own it anymore. Whomever Milo is the leader of, they don't overlap well with white supremacists. alt-right.
While white supremacists coined the term, they clearly don't own it anymore. Whomever Milo is the leader of, they don't overlap well with white supremacists. alt-right.
They hate him, all right. He's half Jewish. That's enough.
Did white supremacists coin the term, though? I haven't been able to substantiate that, either.
Did white supremacists coin the term, though? I haven't been able to substantiate that, either.
I definitely shouldn't have said 'coined', since coining usually refers to the first time that the term is used in a particular way. I have no idea if white nationalists coined the term.
I meant to say: 'brought the term to a level of prevalence such that their definition for the word is the most common usage', but even with that watered-down concept of "coining", I don't even know for certain that this is correct - that it was white nationalists who first did this.
I meant to say: 'brought the term to a level of prevalence such that their definition for the word is the most common usage', but even with that watered-down concept of "coining", I don't even know for certain that this is correct - that it was white nationalists who first did this.
Spencer is not a white supremacist (he says) but a white nationalist. He was the one who coined the term alt-right.
I'm positive Milo is a patriotic Yiannopoulos Supremacist.
I don't think either of the two would be eligible to join Aryan Brotherhood or any group of genuine article white supremacists.
I think the distinction between 'nationalist' and 'supremacist' should be sharply defined. Mixing the terms is like using socialism and communism interchangeably.
I myself am NRX but not any kind of nationalist because I believe that model for determining an in-group is too hit and miss. Don't forget that nation state nationalism is mostly a 20th century phenomenon. Note the paradox of nationalists working together across borders, classical nationalism is going meta.
I'm positive Milo is a patriotic Yiannopoulos Supremacist.
I don't think either of the two would be eligible to join Aryan Brotherhood or any group of genuine article white supremacists.
I think the distinction between 'nationalist' and 'supremacist' should be sharply defined. Mixing the terms is like using socialism and communism interchangeably.
I myself am NRX but not any kind of nationalist because I believe that model for determining an in-group is too hit and miss. Don't forget that nation state nationalism is mostly a 20th century phenomenon. Note the paradox of nationalists working together across borders, classical nationalism is going meta.
> I'm positive Milo is a patriotic Yiannopoulos Supremacist.
Oh, to be sure! All gay men are narcissistic to some degree, and Milo I think more than most. He uses the trait, though, rather than letting it use him, and he's been doing God's work since before it was cool.
> Note the paradox of nationalists working together across borders, classical nationalism is going meta.
Is that so paradoxical? History is replete with examples of nations allying for mutual benefit without dilution of anyone's sovereignty.
As far as in-group determination goes, I'm not sure I see why it can't be made to work on roughly the lines of the classical American model - that is, a privilege earned in exchange for bringing specific and substantial value. A lot of countries do this even today, usually under the rubric of some kind of points system. Such schemes have been slandered in the US under the name of "immigration quotas", but, again, this has occurred as a matter of political expediency - one cannot, after all, import captive voters by the million in the presence of such a system. It worked for us for many years - those of my ancestors who weren't transportees earned their citizenship that way. It works for many countries today. It could very easily be made to work for us again.
> I think the distinction between 'nationalist' and 'supremacist' should be sharply defined.
It is sharply defined. But in a political environment where nuance is anathema, no one pays the distinction much heed. Progressives equate the concepts for reasons of political utility, and their narrative has such hegemonic power that even rejecting this bogus prior for what it is takes some effort of reason and will. To try to convince anyone else on the matter is much harder still. (And ethnic nationalism, or supremacism, or whatever you want to call it, complicates the issue still further by being for the most part a lot of damnfoolishness. What matters is culture, not race. Regarding the latter as metonymous of the former indicates a failure to have fully thought the matter through.)
Well. Their narrative had such hegemonic power, anyway. That's taken quite a blow in the last couple of weeks, and whatever else comes of a Trump presidency, that by itself strikes me as worthwhile. It won't be easy, I think, for anyone to unring that bell. My immediate concern is that we start working to reduce the breaches their quest for power has driven into our polity, rather than crowbarring them still wider. Notwithstanding Schumeresque tantrums about Toronto, we all still have to live with one another. That progressives have so forgotten this is all the more reason for us to bear it firmly in mind. Let us comport ourselves so as to earn the favorable judgment of history, and the rest will attend to itself. Let us do otherwise, and a generation from now our kids will be fighting the same damn war in the same damn trenches.
Oh, to be sure! All gay men are narcissistic to some degree, and Milo I think more than most. He uses the trait, though, rather than letting it use him, and he's been doing God's work since before it was cool.
> Note the paradox of nationalists working together across borders, classical nationalism is going meta.
Is that so paradoxical? History is replete with examples of nations allying for mutual benefit without dilution of anyone's sovereignty.
As far as in-group determination goes, I'm not sure I see why it can't be made to work on roughly the lines of the classical American model - that is, a privilege earned in exchange for bringing specific and substantial value. A lot of countries do this even today, usually under the rubric of some kind of points system. Such schemes have been slandered in the US under the name of "immigration quotas", but, again, this has occurred as a matter of political expediency - one cannot, after all, import captive voters by the million in the presence of such a system. It worked for us for many years - those of my ancestors who weren't transportees earned their citizenship that way. It works for many countries today. It could very easily be made to work for us again.
> I think the distinction between 'nationalist' and 'supremacist' should be sharply defined.
It is sharply defined. But in a political environment where nuance is anathema, no one pays the distinction much heed. Progressives equate the concepts for reasons of political utility, and their narrative has such hegemonic power that even rejecting this bogus prior for what it is takes some effort of reason and will. To try to convince anyone else on the matter is much harder still. (And ethnic nationalism, or supremacism, or whatever you want to call it, complicates the issue still further by being for the most part a lot of damnfoolishness. What matters is culture, not race. Regarding the latter as metonymous of the former indicates a failure to have fully thought the matter through.)
Well. Their narrative had such hegemonic power, anyway. That's taken quite a blow in the last couple of weeks, and whatever else comes of a Trump presidency, that by itself strikes me as worthwhile. It won't be easy, I think, for anyone to unring that bell. My immediate concern is that we start working to reduce the breaches their quest for power has driven into our polity, rather than crowbarring them still wider. Notwithstanding Schumeresque tantrums about Toronto, we all still have to live with one another. That progressives have so forgotten this is all the more reason for us to bear it firmly in mind. Let us comport ourselves so as to earn the favorable judgment of history, and the rest will attend to itself. Let us do otherwise, and a generation from now our kids will be fighting the same damn war in the same damn trenches.
> Oh, to be sure! All gay men are narcissistic to some degree, and Milo I think more than most.
That's quite a bold statement. Can you elaborate more on this or provide some evidence (honest question, I'm not trying to get into an argument)?
That's quite a bold statement. Can you elaborate more on this or provide some evidence (honest question, I'm not trying to get into an argument)?
> That's quite a bold statement.
Oh, I don't think so.
I don't have any n=20 psych undergrad studies to cite on the subject, but I do have a reasonable degree of firsthand experience with gay men, in bed and out, and it's that experience which gives me to espouse the conclusion you quoted. That conclusion is also not unique to me, or for that matter even original; the man from whom I first heard it, quite a few years ago now, is not only himself gay and much more widely experienced than I am, he's also a great deal more intelligent and insightful, possessing a widely accomplished intellect and the postnominal letters to prove it. He and I have disagreed, whether seriously or for fun, on almost everything - but nothing I've seen gives me reason to doubt this claim in particular.
I get the impression that "narcissistic" in this usage might be read as some kind of denigration, as though I'm alleging that all gay men have a personality disorder. This is not the case. If anything, I think it's just that the focus of our sexual interest, specifically on people who much more closely resemble us than is true for straight men, tends to intensify what I might describe as the narcissistic aspect of male sexuality in general - and, again, the word "narcissistic" doesn't imply a disorder. You don't need to fall in love with your reflection to find worthwhile looking in a mirror every now and again.
Oh, I don't think so.
I don't have any n=20 psych undergrad studies to cite on the subject, but I do have a reasonable degree of firsthand experience with gay men, in bed and out, and it's that experience which gives me to espouse the conclusion you quoted. That conclusion is also not unique to me, or for that matter even original; the man from whom I first heard it, quite a few years ago now, is not only himself gay and much more widely experienced than I am, he's also a great deal more intelligent and insightful, possessing a widely accomplished intellect and the postnominal letters to prove it. He and I have disagreed, whether seriously or for fun, on almost everything - but nothing I've seen gives me reason to doubt this claim in particular.
I get the impression that "narcissistic" in this usage might be read as some kind of denigration, as though I'm alleging that all gay men have a personality disorder. This is not the case. If anything, I think it's just that the focus of our sexual interest, specifically on people who much more closely resemble us than is true for straight men, tends to intensify what I might describe as the narcissistic aspect of male sexuality in general - and, again, the word "narcissistic" doesn't imply a disorder. You don't need to fall in love with your reflection to find worthwhile looking in a mirror every now and again.
> Is that so paradoxical? History is replete with examples of nations allying for mutual benefit without dilution of anyone's sovereignty.
Yes it is. However those examples will nearly always be specific instances and special circumstances with a few exceptions like the Hapsburgs.
What I see now is sustained transnational political collaboration. That suggests the formation of a larger political unit based on shared ideals and an external threat (this is always true). I don't mean that this networking is equivalent to the EU's attempts, it is more organic than that.
The analogy I would use is TCP/IP vs the OSI. The EU is doing OSI. The nationalists are doing TCP/IP.
> As far as in-group determination goes, I'm not sure I see why it can't be made to work on roughly the lines of the classical American model - that is, a privilege earned in exchange for bringing specific and substantial value.
Right. And/or ideological terminal goal continuity. The Sikh and western Chinese are very much aligned with us, they are almost never a problem. This is one of the problems with the 'integration narrative' the center-left/right don't want to consider. There exist examples of non-integration and zero conflict.
The American experiment proves that Europeans can work together. That's the good news. After centuries of ethic and religious warfare no less. A larger political unit was successfully forged, which is still remarkable in historical context. Australia is another example just to show it isn't luck.
I also foresee no real political problems with Hispanics and Asians, I think this election has shown that.
The problem is that, especially in Europe, large portions of some subgroups have decided to reject the West and desire to establish a parallel state. The evidence for this is overwhelming, everything from secret courts to large caches of guns being discovered.
There is also a considerable number of native born citizens who are a real problem. To understand why take a look at this article by Charlie Stross:
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2016/11/playtime...
In my view they are like RINOs, except that they are Westerners In Name Only. These people are contributing to a very dangerous polarization between the Muslims and other inhabitants of our territories. I believe that if civil conflict breaks out they will work against attempts to unify and establish civil order and this shall have horrifying consequences. The blunt end of the State, the army, the police, the intelligence, are all right wing to a man. I've seen sectarianism before, it's not a pretty sight.
> It is sharply defined. But in a political environment where nuance is anathema, no one pays the distinction much heed ... What matters is culture, not race. Regarding the latter as metonymous of the former indicates a failure to have fully thought the matter through.)
I know that, but the newspapers are very attached to their caricature of reality and that exerts influence. In Germany and Sweden the Pravda-ization is out of control. There is 'progress' and there is 'hitler'.
> Well. Their narrative had such hegemonic power, anyway. That's taken quite a blow in the last couple of weeks, and whatever else comes of a Trump presidency, that by itself strikes me as worthwhile ... Let us comport ourselves so as to earn the favorable judgment of history, and the rest will attend to itself. Let us do otherwise, and a generation from now our kids will be fighting the same damn war in the same damn trenches.
I think America will have indigestion but ultimately be fine. I cannot say the same about Europe. It is a horror show unfolding in front of us, a few more attacks and reprisals are sure to start.
The only solutions that would prevent this are deemed politically impossible and so we shall deal with the political inevitable.
Yes it is. However those examples will nearly always be specific instances and special circumstances with a few exceptions like the Hapsburgs.
What I see now is sustained transnational political collaboration. That suggests the formation of a larger political unit based on shared ideals and an external threat (this is always true). I don't mean that this networking is equivalent to the EU's attempts, it is more organic than that.
The analogy I would use is TCP/IP vs the OSI. The EU is doing OSI. The nationalists are doing TCP/IP.
> As far as in-group determination goes, I'm not sure I see why it can't be made to work on roughly the lines of the classical American model - that is, a privilege earned in exchange for bringing specific and substantial value.
Right. And/or ideological terminal goal continuity. The Sikh and western Chinese are very much aligned with us, they are almost never a problem. This is one of the problems with the 'integration narrative' the center-left/right don't want to consider. There exist examples of non-integration and zero conflict.
The American experiment proves that Europeans can work together. That's the good news. After centuries of ethic and religious warfare no less. A larger political unit was successfully forged, which is still remarkable in historical context. Australia is another example just to show it isn't luck.
I also foresee no real political problems with Hispanics and Asians, I think this election has shown that.
The problem is that, especially in Europe, large portions of some subgroups have decided to reject the West and desire to establish a parallel state. The evidence for this is overwhelming, everything from secret courts to large caches of guns being discovered.
There is also a considerable number of native born citizens who are a real problem. To understand why take a look at this article by Charlie Stross:
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2016/11/playtime...
In my view they are like RINOs, except that they are Westerners In Name Only. These people are contributing to a very dangerous polarization between the Muslims and other inhabitants of our territories. I believe that if civil conflict breaks out they will work against attempts to unify and establish civil order and this shall have horrifying consequences. The blunt end of the State, the army, the police, the intelligence, are all right wing to a man. I've seen sectarianism before, it's not a pretty sight.
> It is sharply defined. But in a political environment where nuance is anathema, no one pays the distinction much heed ... What matters is culture, not race. Regarding the latter as metonymous of the former indicates a failure to have fully thought the matter through.)
I know that, but the newspapers are very attached to their caricature of reality and that exerts influence. In Germany and Sweden the Pravda-ization is out of control. There is 'progress' and there is 'hitler'.
> Well. Their narrative had such hegemonic power, anyway. That's taken quite a blow in the last couple of weeks, and whatever else comes of a Trump presidency, that by itself strikes me as worthwhile ... Let us comport ourselves so as to earn the favorable judgment of history, and the rest will attend to itself. Let us do otherwise, and a generation from now our kids will be fighting the same damn war in the same damn trenches.
I think America will have indigestion but ultimately be fine. I cannot say the same about Europe. It is a horror show unfolding in front of us, a few more attacks and reprisals are sure to start.
The only solutions that would prevent this are deemed politically impossible and so we shall deal with the political inevitable.
vuanotino(1)
I hope that does not happen [and hoping the new admin does not succumb to the allure]. It was bad enough with the manner in which the left embraced identity politics to further their causes [good as they might be] because it didn't seem to lead to constructive politics, but rather the opposite because there was one big group of disenfranchised population which was disregarded and often dismissed with 'white privilege'. They might be white, but economically they share little with the professional class.
What I can see happening is poor/disadvantaged of all races coalesce around their shared economic frustration so that the major parties begin to address the economics which affect them so negatively in a comprehensive manner.
What I can see happening is poor/disadvantaged of all races coalesce around their shared economic frustration so that the major parties begin to address the economics which affect them so negatively in a comprehensive manner.
The term "alt right" is used so inconsistently by the media, the term has become nearly meaningless.
There appear to be many people who consider themselves 'alt right' who have no interest in 'white identity.'
There appear to be many people who consider themselves 'alt right' who have no interest in 'white identity.'
To paraphrase a commenter on the Times, identities aren't a problem, liberalism isn't a problem, but combined they can mutate into a regressive form of political correctness, where the inability to move on from or ignore the identity politics (on either side!) grinds any form of debate or disagreement to a halt.
Kinda like when that college professor (I forget the name) published a paper a while back showing a link between absent parents and stunted upward mobility for their children. He was swiftly accused of racism because there were significantly more absent parents in black families than white, even though the paper said little about the disparity itself.
Decades later, deindustrialization and opiate addictions are causing the same harm to white families and their children, just as predicted. But because of the accusations of racism, the warning went largely unheeded.
Kinda like when that college professor (I forget the name) published a paper a while back showing a link between absent parents and stunted upward mobility for their children. He was swiftly accused of racism because there were significantly more absent parents in black families than white, even though the paper said little about the disparity itself.
Decades later, deindustrialization and opiate addictions are causing the same harm to white families and their children, just as predicted. But because of the accusations of racism, the warning went largely unheeded.
I'm just curious, how would you expect the warning to have been "heeded"? I think the problems surrounding single parents are pretty well accepted, but it is just difficult to find morally acceptable solutions for.
If it's more generally accepted that single-parenthood can cause problems for children, that general knowledge in itself might make couples more cautious about having children, or be more wary of separating if things don't work out.
Emphasis on might! I'm not saying there's an easy solution; I'm not even 100% sure that I agree with the assumptions.
What I do feel is that it's not a good idea to avoid discussing things because they're uncomfortable. At least not as much as we often seem to be doing. To some extent we have to be able to discuss sensitive things if we want to evolve/develop/progress as humanity.
Emphasis on might! I'm not saying there's an easy solution; I'm not even 100% sure that I agree with the assumptions.
What I do feel is that it's not a good idea to avoid discussing things because they're uncomfortable. At least not as much as we often seem to be doing. To some extent we have to be able to discuss sensitive things if we want to evolve/develop/progress as humanity.
Why is this flagged? Is a well reasoned discussion of the entire future direction of American politics -- where Silicon Valley is -- somehow less relevant to the tech industry than "The Troubled Friendship of Leo Tolstoy and Maxim Gorky" or "Volkswagen plans 30k job cuts worldwide," both on the front page right now?
I suggest that there is a systemic bias on Hacker News: any article about identity politics that is less than unabashedly laudatory on the theme is almost immediately flagged -- though they often receive numerous upvotes and generate substantial and rational discussion.
I suggest that there is a systemic bias on Hacker News: any article about identity politics that is less than unabashedly laudatory on the theme is almost immediately flagged -- though they often receive numerous upvotes and generate substantial and rational discussion.
The user base of Hacker News is strongly informed by, and representative of, a very specific political strain, so it's not terribly surprising to see an article like this, which questions the foundation and value of one of that strain's core tenets, get flagged to oblivion by users.
I don't think it would be reasonable to assume the mods behave in a similar fashion. Were that the case, I can't imagine I, for example, would still be able to post here at all, let alone to do so and be seen by people who don't have showdead turned on in their profiles - I spent all yesterday arguing against gay marriage! I've run into ideologically driven suppression of discourse enough places on the Internet to recognize its absence when I see it.
Instead, I see a genuine commitment on the part of the moderation team to free and reasoned discussion, even when it tends in directions which I can't help but imagine make them uncomfortable. That's something which, especially in times like these, can't be too highly regarded, and it is in large part why I continue to consider participation on Hacker News a worthwhile use of my time.
I don't think it would be reasonable to assume the mods behave in a similar fashion. Were that the case, I can't imagine I, for example, would still be able to post here at all, let alone to do so and be seen by people who don't have showdead turned on in their profiles - I spent all yesterday arguing against gay marriage! I've run into ideologically driven suppression of discourse enough places on the Internet to recognize its absence when I see it.
Instead, I see a genuine commitment on the part of the moderation team to free and reasoned discussion, even when it tends in directions which I can't help but imagine make them uncomfortable. That's something which, especially in times like these, can't be too highly regarded, and it is in large part why I continue to consider participation on Hacker News a worthwhile use of my time.
It would be great if the mod team expressed such a commitment by manually reviewing flagged articles to remove the flag and prevent any further flagging in cases such as this, where it seems that the article was flagged for no other reason than that many HN readers disagree with its content and wish to suppress the diffusion thereof.
Disagreeing is fine, but then write a thoughtful reply rather than just hit "flag." "Flag" is supposed to be for spam and grossly off-topic articles, not for articles where you happen to dislike the author's conclusion.
Disagreeing is fine, but then write a thoughtful reply rather than just hit "flag." "Flag" is supposed to be for spam and grossly off-topic articles, not for articles where you happen to dislike the author's conclusion.
The moderators do sometimes unflag articles to foster discussion of controversial political topics, and they did so at least once in the immediate wake of the election. I don't think they have to do so every time, and in general, the quality of discourse here is sufficiently high that it's hard to make a strong case against the way they do their work.
I agree that this article might have been worth letting spend longer on the front page. But seeing it forced off so quickly is informative in its own right, however disappointing. When progressives feel themselves open to genuine dialogue, we'll be here. In the meantime, they may render themselves as irrelevant as they please.
I agree that this article might have been worth letting spend longer on the front page. But seeing it forced off so quickly is informative in its own right, however disappointing. When progressives feel themselves open to genuine dialogue, we'll be here. In the meantime, they may render themselves as irrelevant as they please.
I agree with everything you say here, and you're well-spoken and civil, someone I would be happy to engage with. Right up until your last two sentences. Why are those necessary? What do you they add to your message? How welcome would you feel if you read something like this?
When conservatives feel themselves open to genuine dialogue, we'll be here. In the meantime, they may render themselves as irrelevant as they please.
I know there are some people out there that would say it wouldn't bother them. But is it really polite? Don't get me wrong. I see similar tone all around, and then see people act surprised when tensions rise and discourse suffers.
I want to have discussions with people who have a different perspective. HN has a lot of thoughtful people. And that includes you. I want to hear from you how you think about things, rather than hear it second or third hand. But I hate being subjected to dismissive statements like this. I suspect I'm not the only one.
I think this is a primary reason a lot of these types of posts get flagged by users. Not because the topic is uninteresting to a lot of people. It's because in their experience, the discussion that results is empirically not worth it.
Here's hoping for open, civil, constructive discussion.
When conservatives feel themselves open to genuine dialogue, we'll be here. In the meantime, they may render themselves as irrelevant as they please.
I know there are some people out there that would say it wouldn't bother them. But is it really polite? Don't get me wrong. I see similar tone all around, and then see people act surprised when tensions rise and discourse suffers.
I want to have discussions with people who have a different perspective. HN has a lot of thoughtful people. And that includes you. I want to hear from you how you think about things, rather than hear it second or third hand. But I hate being subjected to dismissive statements like this. I suspect I'm not the only one.
I think this is a primary reason a lot of these types of posts get flagged by users. Not because the topic is uninteresting to a lot of people. It's because in their experience, the discussion that results is empirically not worth it.
Here's hoping for open, civil, constructive discussion.
This is an entirely reasonable and meritorious criticism. I appreciate it.
Having been on the receiving end of that kind of contempt for rather a long time, it is sometimes difficult to resist the temptation to give vent to the resulting resentment, especially at a time when those from whom such contempt has so often come are already reeling from a generally similar sort of backlash. One feels a certain urge to get one's own back while the getting is good.
But temptation is sent to be overcome, and there is no excuse for actually indulging in such unworthy behavior. I'm sorry for having done so. I'll try to do better next time.
Having been on the receiving end of that kind of contempt for rather a long time, it is sometimes difficult to resist the temptation to give vent to the resulting resentment, especially at a time when those from whom such contempt has so often come are already reeling from a generally similar sort of backlash. One feels a certain urge to get one's own back while the getting is good.
But temptation is sent to be overcome, and there is no excuse for actually indulging in such unworthy behavior. I'm sorry for having done so. I'll try to do better next time.
Brooks also has a related take on this [0]. Above all I would say that identity politics on all sides puts the vital practice of pluralism in grave danger. If we reject pluralism we are lost.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/opinion/the-danger-of-a-do...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/opinion/the-danger-of-a-do...
This is the ending of neoliberalism, with its focus on identity politics while staying cozy with business, and the re-dawning of the FDR liberalism.
I certainly fucking hope so. Your optimism is encouraging at least.
The failure is the liberals overexerting the intersectionality into that those of "FORCED intersectionality".
America and the people are always about "UNFORCED intersectionality".
Yet, the Democrats will continue their 9-year slide at representation until they get this.
America and the people are always about "UNFORCED intersectionality".
Yet, the Democrats will continue their 9-year slide at representation until they get this.
What do you mean by forced intersectionality and unforced intersectionality? Can you expand on this?
I'll take a stab at it.
One of America's many excellent traits is that it is a huge melting pot of diverse cultures and races, that all get along and individually work toward achieving the American Dream. This is the driving force that brings us as Americans together, a strong work ethic and a belief that everyone has the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. However, forced intersectionality is when policies force businesses and the government to diversify their workforce, and unforced is referring to this diversification happening naturally, without the intervention of regulations and explicit calls for diversification.
One of America's many excellent traits is that it is a huge melting pot of diverse cultures and races, that all get along and individually work toward achieving the American Dream. This is the driving force that brings us as Americans together, a strong work ethic and a belief that everyone has the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. However, forced intersectionality is when policies force businesses and the government to diversify their workforce, and unforced is referring to this diversification happening naturally, without the intervention of regulations and explicit calls for diversification.
Wow... best kept secret. Thank you, benbenolson.
The intent of "identity liberalism" (an awful neologism: I'd prefer "identity emphatic") is to try to end otherization of out-groups. But Lilla's point is right on. The result is often divisive rather than inclusive.
My white uncle is famous for saying "You should never discriminate against people because they're different. But why do those people keep coming over here?" o_0
My white uncle is famous for saying "You should never discriminate against people because they're different. But why do those people keep coming over here?" o_0
I'm not sure why you chose to mock your unvle after your first paragraph. Am I missing your /s tag or are you missing the irony
.. of calling your uncle your white uncle. why is that so important to have it his main attribute?
.. of emphasizing those people - was that really his emphasis or is it rather you who turns around his words into something he didn't say?
.. of not trying to understand his point, rather to immediately accuse him of bigotry. I read it as a dissatisfaction with economical migration when already many domestic people (who have basically a lot of sunken cost in this society) are left behind. I read his first sentance as an assurance that he doesn't care about race or ethnicity, rather, it's natural in-group vs. out-group thinking. If anyone who does that is a bigot, then boy, everyone is a bigot sometime - and the distinction is meaningless.
So if you weren't sarcastic I suggest rereading the article.
.. of calling your uncle your white uncle. why is that so important to have it his main attribute?
.. of emphasizing those people - was that really his emphasis or is it rather you who turns around his words into something he didn't say?
.. of not trying to understand his point, rather to immediately accuse him of bigotry. I read it as a dissatisfaction with economical migration when already many domestic people (who have basically a lot of sunken cost in this society) are left behind. I read his first sentance as an assurance that he doesn't care about race or ethnicity, rather, it's natural in-group vs. out-group thinking. If anyone who does that is a bigot, then boy, everyone is a bigot sometime - and the distinction is meaningless.
So if you weren't sarcastic I suggest rereading the article.
> If anyone who does that is a bigot, then boy, everyone is a bigot sometime - and the distinction is meaningless.
Nah. Different races are different, sure. In-group and out-group. But there's also a power element that you're not considering. Black vs white is in-group and out-group, but one of those groups is disenfranchised. That's where the racism comes in. It is anything but meaningless.
Nah. Different races are different, sure. In-group and out-group. But there's also a power element that you're not considering. Black vs white is in-group and out-group, but one of those groups is disenfranchised. That's where the racism comes in. It is anything but meaningless.
I truly think that if this thinking prevails, then liberalism in the US is doomed.
Sorry to become preaching here, but for the love of science, stop caring about race, gender snd ethnicity so much, instead care about class. There are at least as many white folks with no means to get ahead than black folks - and we haven't yet considered the other major ethnic groups. What you should care about is the 'glass ceiling' installed for a whole class of people who cannot offer their sons and daughters the chance to move up anymore. Liberals need to get back to tackling issues, not identities, that make the American nation such a divided one. And the obvious one to me is education. Forget about affirmative action, make high quality education accessible for any capable resident. Having less in-group vs. out-group thinking will follow automatically when people start thinking that everyone gets a fair chance again.
Sorry to become preaching here, but for the love of science, stop caring about race, gender snd ethnicity so much, instead care about class. There are at least as many white folks with no means to get ahead than black folks - and we haven't yet considered the other major ethnic groups. What you should care about is the 'glass ceiling' installed for a whole class of people who cannot offer their sons and daughters the chance to move up anymore. Liberals need to get back to tackling issues, not identities, that make the American nation such a divided one. And the obvious one to me is education. Forget about affirmative action, make high quality education accessible for any capable resident. Having less in-group vs. out-group thinking will follow automatically when people start thinking that everyone gets a fair chance again.
I'm all for doing whatever works. But white people aren't getting arrested for being white. They aren't getting redlined for bad loans. They aren't having their schools having resources getting directed away from them because the student body us predominantly white. It doesn't just cleave along lines for some. It cleaves along matrices.
Tbh. it's hard for me to imagine how the government can fail so hard as to have racist resource allocation for education. How hard can it be? You have state level funds for public schools right? Divide by nunber of pupils, have some budget controlling, done. How can resources even be redirected, if not for everyone in the state? Who's deciding this? Are they relying on sponsorship? If that's the case then get rid of that and raise taxes and public funds accordingly. I firmly believe that schools need to be egalitarian, everyone deserves the same resources and care at the start of his/her life, with the only exception being special care students.
> instead care about class
my hero!
my hero!
One of the key points in this article is that when you divide people into identity groups, some of those groups are going to feel neglected. As you get at, some of those groups that feel neglected are groups you and I would consider privileged and protected.
Yet... other people don't vote based on what you and I think or feel. They vote based on what they think and feel. If people are treated in a way that makes them feel like they are out-group, regardless of structural power, those people will tend to act like an out-group instead of a powerful in-group.
tl;dr: You can tell people that they're an enfranchised in-group, but if they don't feel that way it might backfire.
Yet... other people don't vote based on what you and I think or feel. They vote based on what they think and feel. If people are treated in a way that makes them feel like they are out-group, regardless of structural power, those people will tend to act like an out-group instead of a powerful in-group.
tl;dr: You can tell people that they're an enfranchised in-group, but if they don't feel that way it might backfire.
> You can tell people that they're an enfranchised in-group...
This is not (and should not be) very meaningful for the individual.
This is not (and should not be) very meaningful for the individual.
Many disagree. Consider the possibility that they might not be wrong in so doing.
You're right! Many people rightly consider this very relevant to the lives of individuals. This is something that should always be considered.
Yet, the issue remains - if you tell someone that they are an enfranchised member of an in-group and their lived experience seems to contradict that, two things are likely to happen. First, they will tend to favor their lived experience over your carefully considered claims. Second, they will tend to discount and disregard anything further you might say, as you have damaged your credibility by invalidating their lived experiences.
So, please, consider the possibility that what one expects to be meaningful to a person's life and what that person considers meaningful to a person's life may differ in potentially significant ways.
Yet, the issue remains - if you tell someone that they are an enfranchised member of an in-group and their lived experience seems to contradict that, two things are likely to happen. First, they will tend to favor their lived experience over your carefully considered claims. Second, they will tend to discount and disregard anything further you might say, as you have damaged your credibility by invalidating their lived experiences.
So, please, consider the possibility that what one expects to be meaningful to a person's life and what that person considers meaningful to a person's life may differ in potentially significant ways.
Sorry, I wasn't clear. My intent was precisely in accord with what you say, and I appreciate you clarifying the point in the way which I should have but did not.
I think more simply, if you think "black" vs "white" is the axis that matters in American politics you'd better be "white", simply because there are more whites and they are going to win when it comes to a vote.
I think of the Jewish people who went down the South to support the civil rights movement, who were people who generalized their own experience of oppression to have emphathy and solidary for somebody else's experience of oppression.
I think of the Jewish people who went down the South to support the civil rights movement, who were people who generalized their own experience of oppression to have emphathy and solidary for somebody else's experience of oppression.
[deleted]
Was identity politics a concrete thing or a construction? It seems HRC bet her entire campaign on that and it backfired spectacularly. Were they hoping that it would catch on? Based on what evidence?
Probably just hoping the Obama coalition would just automatically flow over to her, with no specific outreach on her part.
Most of them did (the biggest share of popular votes) just not quite enough to win the Electoral College.
Most of them did (the biggest share of popular votes) just not quite enough to win the Electoral College.
Clinton was down over 5M votes compared to even Obama in 2012.
Either the voting machines were hacked, or she did an abysmal job in outreach... her hiring of David Brock (of Correct the Record) to essentially character-assassinate Sanders supporters might have had something to do with her loss - she won the battle then lost the war.
Either the voting machines were hacked, or she did an abysmal job in outreach... her hiring of David Brock (of Correct the Record) to essentially character-assassinate Sanders supporters might have had something to do with her loss - she won the battle then lost the war.
Decades of scandals and corruption might have had something to do with it, too. The Democrat nomination process was rigged from the beginning which was necessary for Clinton to win given her high negatives and the fact that there was a candidate who was largely scandal-free that had generated a huge groundswell of support (Sanders). I personally think Sanders is an idiot, but I respect that he is a principled person in a way few other politicians on any side are.
Then there's Clinton's penchant for insulting large sections of the country every time she opens her mouth (much like Obama). On top of that, the naked prostitution of much of the mainstream media for her campaign. The media has long stopped pretending to be impartial, but this time around they didn't pretend to be anything other than in the tank for Clinton.
Then there's the fact that Clinton simply isn't a likable person. She's old, ill, has a shrill voice and tons of baggage with substantially more coming out every week during the final months of the campaign season with Wikileaks.
These are all things that Obama lacked in 2008 and 2012. There are a lot of lessons for Democrats to learn from this election, but I'm not sure they will learn them. (Ditto the Republicans for that matter.)
Then there's Clinton's penchant for insulting large sections of the country every time she opens her mouth (much like Obama). On top of that, the naked prostitution of much of the mainstream media for her campaign. The media has long stopped pretending to be impartial, but this time around they didn't pretend to be anything other than in the tank for Clinton.
Then there's the fact that Clinton simply isn't a likable person. She's old, ill, has a shrill voice and tons of baggage with substantially more coming out every week during the final months of the campaign season with Wikileaks.
These are all things that Obama lacked in 2008 and 2012. There are a lot of lessons for Democrats to learn from this election, but I'm not sure they will learn them. (Ditto the Republicans for that matter.)
She's down by 3 million now and there are 4 million votes left to count, mostly in Democrat locations like California.
I wish their were a labor wing of the Democratic party.
The sooner we lose the identity bullshit the better. Of equal rights need to be championed, but so do classic thing like safety, consumer protections, public education, minimum wage etc.
Oh wait, Bernie won my primary...
The sooner we lose the identity bullshit the better. Of equal rights need to be championed, but so do classic thing like safety, consumer protections, public education, minimum wage etc.
Oh wait, Bernie won my primary...
There is a labor wing of the Democrat party: the unions. The problem is that this time around a lot of the people they represent voted for Trump.
The identity nonsense is a major problem, including the fact that by claiming anyone who disagrees with them is a racist, or that the only reason people didn't vote for Clinton is that they are sexist, but I don't see that going away. The sad thing is that it does the most harm to the idea that there is still is racism in this country. The problem isn't anywhere nearly as bad as it's blown up to be, but by constantly crying wolf, they are taking away any meaning from the charge.
When the only thing you complain about is racism, people start tuning it out. Worse, when people are dealing with the drumbeat of constantly being accused of racism, especially when the majority of them are not, they are bound to not take the accusers or the problem seriously.
The identity nonsense is a major problem, including the fact that by claiming anyone who disagrees with them is a racist, or that the only reason people didn't vote for Clinton is that they are sexist, but I don't see that going away. The sad thing is that it does the most harm to the idea that there is still is racism in this country. The problem isn't anywhere nearly as bad as it's blown up to be, but by constantly crying wolf, they are taking away any meaning from the charge.
When the only thing you complain about is racism, people start tuning it out. Worse, when people are dealing with the drumbeat of constantly being accused of racism, especially when the majority of them are not, they are bound to not take the accusers or the problem seriously.
Obligatory PG reference: "Keep Your Identity Small" http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html
[deleted]
Let's not start the funeral quite yet. It can also be argued that this year was a probabilistic outlier: Archie Bunker Conservatism played their last lottery ticket and improbably won. A last dying gasp before the country's measurable, inevitable demographic changes continue on their way towards obsoleting its political views.
Not sure if you read it, but the article argues against this exact point. The longer a demographic is a part of the American political process, the more politically diverse (and less predictable) they become. The article gives the remarkably high percentage of latinos who voted for Trump.
I read it but I disagree. Identity is not just wrapped up in race--age matters too. History has shown that political change comes with generational change--one funeral as a time. "Latinos" may become more diverse and less predictable year after year, but people (and their political views) don't tend to come back from the dead.
Yes, age matters. People of all races get older and vote with more experience.
Interesting that people are looking forward to racism.
a precursor to the fall of the American empire
He came onto the national scene in the 2004 Democratic National Convention with a lyrical speech about all of the things shared by both people in the "Blue States" and the "Red States".
"The pundits, the pundits like to slice and dice our country into red states and blue States: red states for Republicans, blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the red states."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19751-2004Jul...
And I honestly believe Obama's "A More Perfect Union" speech will go down as one of the best and most important speeches in American history, for describing the frustrations of both whites and minorities when it comes to discussing race in America.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_More_Perfect_Union_(speech)#...
I have also recently noticed Obama and some of his surrogates getting in not-so-subtle digs at Clinton in recent days.
“I won Iowa not because the demographics dictated that I would win in Iowa. It was because I spent 87 days going to every small town and fair and fish fry and VFW hall.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/barack-obama-democrats-l...
Heard similar comments from former denizens of the Obama White House in the Keepin' it 1600 podcast.
https://soundcloud.com/keepinit1600
So maybe even Team Obama is frustrated at Clinton's "identity politics" over reach.