[ropans808]

I listen to discussions on the "Intellectual Dark Web" regularly and am generally a big fan of the free flow of ideas - but this view of identity politics, as much as I try, I cannot get my head around.

It seems primarily to be a chicken and egg problem: The IDW insists that identity politics requires people to identify themselves as a group rather than free-thinking individuals. I think the point this misses is that these groups did not start by self-identifying as groups, they were identified as these groups. The black community, LGBTQ, women, religious minorities - they were first treated as a single group of lock-step individuals by those looking to oppress them. Is it crazy that to respond, they respond as a group?

This idea that they are beating down the discussion by applying ideals to an entire group of disparate individuals I really think is backwards. It is a response to being grouped by outside forces in the first place, where these groups do have a single shared problem now - that they are not viewed as individuals and treated as a single bloc.

[atom-morgan]

> Is it crazy that to respond, they respond as a group?

I don't believe that's the issue here. I believe the concern is their response is more valid because of the group they're in, not that they're responding as a group or as a member of the group.

Just look at any minority who doesn't buy into identity politics. They're labeled as traitors, haters of their own race, or trying to play cool with the other side ("cool girl" within feminism).

This is the problem with identity politics. Because you look a certain way, you must think a certain way.

[untog]

> Just look at any minority who doesn't buy into identity politics. They're labeled as traitors, haters of their own race

I really don't think they are. Look at Kanye West. People aren't objecting to him because he "doesn't buy into identity politics", they object to him because he says stupid, ignorant things like "sounds like slavery was a choice".

[atom-morgan]

Yes, but that's one example. Now look at men like Thomas Sowell and Denzel Washington and many other people who've been criticized from within minority communities.

Black conservatives, even if they're barely conservative, are called Uncle Toms. This really isn't that uncommon.

Edit: Oh look, this thread was flagged. What a surprise.

[untog]

And is Denzel Washington an outcast, shunned by Hollywood for his views? Er, no. He's a solidly working, exceptionally well-paid actor.

This is the thing I don't get about this argument. You're implying that Denzel Washington should be free to say whatever he wants, but that no one should be free to criticise what he says. I don't understand how those two things are supposed to go together.

[atom-morgan]

True, but I wouldn't really expect someone like him to be pushed out of his industry for his views precisely because he's black. But if someone who is considered to have privilege said the exact same things he did, they'd have bigger problems.

> You're implying that Denzel Washington should be free to say whatever he wants, but that no one should be free to criticise what he says.

Not at all.

[krapp]

>Now look at men like Thomas Sowell and Denzel Washington and many other people who've been criticized from within minority communities.

Fair enough, but what's wrong with criticism? That's an essential part of intellectual debate, and it doesn't exist in an environment where all participants agree on every issue. It's not as if the entirety of criticism against black conservatives amounts to name calling and "identity politics" as TFA identifies it.

[atom-morgan]

> Fair enough, but what's wrong with criticism?

Nothing, that's exactly what I want. I want criticism rather than blind outrage that leads to event organizers, colleges, etc caving to their demands.

[citrablue]

Here's another issue I have with identity politics: it's a lens that can be useful for examining certain situations. However, it's not the only one. Yet subscribers to the I.P. framework seem to insist that it's the only one that matters.

Alternatives include individualism/bootstrapping, family oriented politics, skill/job oriented (labor used to be a massive political influencer), etc.

[scrupulusalbion]

>they were first treated as a single group of lock-step individuals by those looking to oppress them. Is it crazy that to respond, they respond as a group?

I think it plays into the propaganda of the oppressive regime by not asserting individuality. "See, they identify as the group we claimed they were the whole time," the regime would say.

That being said, there is acting as a member of a group and identifying as a member of that group. The former need not entail the latter. For instance, donating money to the ACLU doesn't change your identity to ACLU-er (et simis). No, you are just helping that cause.

[citrablue]

I'm not sure everyone feels the same way. When you donate to the ACLU, don't they send things like bumper stickers that people use to signal to others that they are the kind of person who donates to the ACLU?

I wonder how much of the modern identity politics framework has been influenced by the rise of modern marketing, which has an explicit focus on identity-based advertising ("I'm a toys-r-us kid!")

[dragonwriter]

> I wonder how much of the modern identity politics framework has been influenced by the rise of modern marketing, which has an explicit focus on identity-based advertising ("I'm a toys-r-us kid!")

The kind of tribalism to which such advertising appeals is both millennia older than modern commercial advertising and has been a regular part of religious and political propaganda for millenia, which is where modern commercial advertising got it, not vice versa.

[citrablue]

True, but don't you think the sophistication and frequency have increased considerably since then?

Add in the fact that it comes from complete strangers, and I think even if it's roots are way back in history, the modern environment is very different.

[rhapsodic]

> It is a response to being grouped by outside forces in the first place, where these groups do have a single shared problem now - that they are not viewed as individuals and treated as a single bloc.

On what evidence did you reach that conclusion, ropans808? And assuming it's true, how is that reaction -- "I resent that you have treated me, not as an individual but as part of a single bloc, and therefore, I am going to espouse certain positions simply because I belong to that bloc" -- a logical reaction?

[otakucode]

> Is it crazy that to respond, they respond as a group?

Not initially, but when it comes to the point where they actively fight against egalitarianism and equality in order to ensure some integrity of separate identity, it is counter-productive and, in my opinion, wrongheaded. It doesn't matter what group you're talking about, equality is the only option apart from warring factions of supremascist organizations.