• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: American Politics

Your arguing that the Dems don’t engage in identity politics is not a cross you should die on.

Or are you simply bothsidesing this?

I am engaging you on a specific example you brought up to indicate "Identity Politics".

If you want to retreat back into unsupported generalities, that's unfortunate.
 
I am engaging you on a specific example you brought up to indicate "Identity Politics".

If you want to retreat back into unsupported generalities, that's unfortunate.

And I find your engagement absurd because you're clearly implying that the Democrats don't engage in identity politics and that is a complete non-starter for me.
 
So I have a question. How does one tell the difference between "identity politics" (bad), and equal rights (good)?

For example, if the data shows that black people are getting shot by police in at higher rates than white people, even in the exact same situations (traffic stop, gun present, etc, etc, etc). Is it "identity politics" for the Democrats to support fixing the issue? Doesn't slapping a label on it all and calling it "identity politics" ignore the fact that there are legitimate social/racial/cultural inequity in certain aspects of American life? Does that not simply become a catch all term for any time someone tries to point out the existence of one of those legitimate inequities?

Couldn't "identity politics" just as easily be called "fairness for all, regardless of sex, age, race, religion, etc"?
 
So I have a question. How does one tell the difference between "identity politics" (bad), and equal rights (good)?

For example, if the data shows that black people are getting shot by police in at higher rates than white people, even in the exact same situations (traffic stop, gun present, etc, etc, etc). Is it "identity politics" for the Democrats to support fixing the issue? Doesn't slapping a label on it all and calling it "identity politics" ignore the fact that there are legitimate social/racial/cultural inequity in certain aspects of American life? Does that not simply become a catch all term for any time someone tries to point out the existence of one of those legitimate inequities?

Couldn't "identity politics" just as easily be called "fairness for all, regardless of sex, age, race, religion, etc"?

The data doesn't show that. The news goes out of it's way to sensationalize black shootings and completely ignore the daily white people shot.
 
And I find your engagement absurd because you're clearly implying that the Democrats don't engage in identity politics and that is a complete non-starter for me.

I am responding directly to the one specific example you named.

Now you don't want to discuss it.
 
The data doesn't show that. The news goes out of it's way to sensationalize black shootings and completely ignore the daily white people shot.

er, that is outrageously wrong.

you're going to have to support that with something.
 
So I have a question. How does one tell the difference between "identity politics" (bad), and equal rights (good)?

For example, if the data shows that black people are getting shot by police in at higher rates than white people, even in the exact same situations (traffic stop, gun present, etc, etc, etc). Is it "identity politics" for the Democrats to support fixing the issue? Doesn't slapping a label on it all and calling it "identity politics" ignore the fact that there are legitimate social/racial/cultural inequity in certain aspects of American life? Does that not simply become a catch all term for any time someone tries to point out the existence of one of those legitimate inequities?

Couldn't "identity politics" just as easily be called "fairness for all, regardless of sex, age, race, religion, etc"?



If I was going to be as fair as possible to the other side....I think an argument could be made that the left campaigns on the kinds of things you're discussion to garner the minority vote, but then might not do as much about it once in office as they claim they're going to.

I don't find it to be as stomach churning as some of the very overt dog whistling we see on the right.....but I can get why some conservatives would find the high and mighty on the left to be a bit obnoxious.

They're a superior party for the people (lesser of two evils) but aren't by any stretch a party of the people.


I can see some value in that argument from someone on the right.
 
The data doesn't show that. The news goes out of it's way to sensationalize black shootings and completely ignore the daily white people shot.

Consider it a hypothetical, or even just re read my post and notice that I used the word "if" right at the ****ing beginning. The specific example isn't at all central to my question.

Unless you're going to claim that everything is fair and equal for everyone, it's a valid question to explore. That is really the only position one can hold which immediately invalidates "identity politics" from having a good reason for existing.

So please, answer the question. How does someone tell the difference between "identity politics" and legitimate inequality?
 
Not true, I just shouldn't have engaged until I had more time. That's on me.

You're not responding directly to anything, you're trying to frame identity politics as social injustices which granted is why identity politics starting mainly in the 70's but grew in the Reagan era. This is no longer the case, the Democrats hide behind social inequalities as their platform but have long since morphed identity politics into a mechanism of bullying towards minorities. " Don't you want equality"? All the while the Democrats control almost every major city and couldn't give a shit if blacks killed blacks etc. They've successfully convinced many people that their goals are true when in fact they are far from it. Case after case of democratically controlled cities show that the minorities are merely used for votes. They're given assistance to barely survive, barely. Thriving? They
re not interested in that.

But sure, it's the GOP that are racists.

The recent penchant for blaming old white men and the openness of this narrative screams racism from the left but it goes unchecked and in many cases encouraged. Somehow the Democrats have convinced themselves that clear racism against whites isn't racism and that it is okay.
 
Consider it a hypothetical, or even just re read my post and notice that I used the word "if" right at the ****ing beginning. The specific example isn't at all central to my question.

Unless you're going to claim that everything is fair and equal for everyone, it's a valid question to explore. That is really the only position one can hold which immediately invalidates "identity politics" from having a good reason for existing.

So please, answer the question. How does someone tell the difference between "identity politics" and legitimate inequality?

Beleafer is right, there is one side, the elites. They include people of all races.

Of course there are gross inequalities, they aren't exclusive to one race though. The real issue is economic inequalities, that won't change under the current plan of attack by any party because they are beholden to special interests. Period.
 
It means, any time something recent happens to confirm your biases (this can also be called recency bias) you throw it out there as proof that "only one side cheats" etc.

I did not claim the GOP is innocent of identity politics, they aren't, you just absolutely refuse to do your own research on the left. It's quite telling.
 
Voting Rights Act...p'shaw, bothsides are the same.

Corporate Tax Cuts...p'shaw, bothsides are the same.

Corporate Regulation...p'shaw, bothsides are the same.

Health Insurance....p'shaw, bothsides are the same.

Immigration...p'shaw, bothsides are the same.

Environment...p'shaw, bothsides are the same.



It's just so dumb and wrong. The differences are huge and obvious.
 
Last edited:
Not true, I just shouldn't have engaged until I had more time. That's on me.

You're not responding directly to anything, you're trying to frame identity politics as social injustices which granted is why identity politics starting mainly in the 70's but grew in the Reagan era. This is no longer the case, the Democrats hide behind social inequalities as their platform but have long since morphed identity politics into a mechanism of bullying towards minorities. " Don't you want equality"? All the while the Democrats control almost every major city and couldn't give a shit if blacks killed blacks etc. They've successfully convinced many people that their goals are true when in fact they are far from it. Case after case of democratically controlled cities show that the minorities are merely used for votes. They're given assistance to barely survive, barely. Thriving? They
re not interested in that.

But sure, it's the GOP that are racists.

The recent penchant for blaming old white men and the openness of this narrative screams racism from the left but it goes unchecked and in many cases encouraged. Somehow the Democrats have convinced themselves that clear racism against whites isn't racism and that it is okay.

I see you continue to use this "cities are run by democrats" line and I'm interested in hearing what specifically these democrats could do to solve the poverty that leads to high violent crime rates that young black men are the most likely victim of.

You're also not answering the question....where is the line between identity politics and legitimate inequality? All I see here is you raging on Democrats again.
 
Beleafer is right, there is one side, the elites. They include people of all races.

Ummm. Technically yeah. In similar proportions to what is seen in the general public? No, just no.

Of course there are gross inequalities, they aren't exclusive to one race though.

Never said it was. There is apparently a lot of different types of "identity politics".

The real issue is economic inequalities, that won't change under the current plan of attack by any party because they are beholden to special interests. Period.

No arguments there. But one ideological side of this argument wants to fix it. The other has been laser focused on appointing judges to enshrine it. This is one of the places the whole "They're all the same" falls flat in my ears. The democrats aren't angels, they're in the pocket of big donors like the Republicans are. But when the rubber meets the road in a place like the supreme court, the Republican appointed judges fall all over themselves to rule in favour of the status quo (or worsening it...citizens united, etc) with Liberal judges in opposition.

Whenever it's time to decide the rules of the game, one ideological side is trying to fix them, and the other is trying to entrench the current corrupt power structure.
 
Voting Rights Act...p'shaw, bothsides are the same.

Corporate Tax Cuts...p'shaw, bothsides are the same.

Corporate Regulation...p'shaw, bothsides are the same.

Health Insurance....p'shaw, bothsides are the same.

Immigration...p'shaw, bothsides are the same.

Environment...p'shaw, bothsides are the same.



It's just so dumb and wrong. The differences are huge and obvious.

Please post the pork in all of those. Thanks.

What you're doing is what all politicians do, they say you didn't vote for this but don't tell people why. McConnell and Shumer do this relentlessly as do Ryan and Pelosi.
 
Back
Top