[UncleMeat]

That's not the conclusion here. The conclusion is that there are many axes of oppression and one does not invalidate the other. The kind of thinking you describe was more common in the 60s and 70s but has fallen out of favor after the rise of black feminism and intersectional analysis.

Race does not bind more tightly than other aspects. Ableism exists. But the existence of white people who suffer in a myriad of ways does not negate the existence of white privilege in places like the US.

[charliesharding]

> The conclusion is that there are many axes of oppression and one does not invalidate the other

Yet this is the inevitable consequence of intersectional analysis.. It describes a way to calculate value discrepancy of opinions based off group membership of the opinion holder. This is just an attempt to overcorrect the "axes of oppression" from sins of the past. The solution moving forward should not be to sin in the opposite direction - this will just create backlash (re: Charlottesville). It should be centered around empowering individuals and telling people that they can achieve anything because they can. Telling people that they are victims is a great way to ruin them. Everyone is a victim to one thing or another. The answer isn't to dwell and blame your victimhood or oppressors, the answer is to go out there and achieve.

[fzeroracer]

It seems strange to place the blame of Charlottesville on people trying to fix racism rather than the racists responsible for things such as murder or, you know, racism.

This reeks to me of a similar argument against gay marriage, where there wouldn't be nearly as much violence towards them if they didn't try and demand their rights immediately.

[charliesharding]

Good intentions do not absolve people of objectively bad ideas. I drew that comparison because they are playing opposite sides of the same game of identity politics, which I'm saying is inherently flawed

[fzeroracer]

It's interesting that you say that, since looking through your post history here you've engaged in identity politics all the same.

Everyone engages in some form of identity politics. The post we were responding to engaged in identity politics as well because they believed white men were discriminated against the most.

If you want to make an arguments make an actual argument against their position, not one against the concept of identity politics because that's an inherently flawed argument.

[MockObject]

> If you want to make an arguments make an actual argument against their position, not one against the concept of identity politics because that's an inherently flawed argument.

It's not inherently flawed to a liberal of the 1960s - 2010s, who idealized universal principles, individual identities, colorblindness, and single standards of behavior to be applied to all, regardless of sex, race, etc.

Please, have the intellectual honesty not to erase that entire era. It's not necessary to do that in order to promote the contrary ideology of intersectionality.

[charliesharding]

Right, as in I'm arguing that it's a bad way to view the world... Total non sequitur. No, not everyone engages in identity politics. Only people who are looking for an easy out and not individually assessing ideas and their ramifications

[fzeroracer]

What about the fact that again, you've engaged in identity politics here on HN? My entire point is that it's hypocritical to decry identity politics while also engaging in identity politics.

[wpietri]

Complaining about identity politics is a big way white men practice identity politics, Charles. When there's a problem, refusing to let people talk about the problem becomes part of the problem.

[charliesharding]

What makes you think it's ok to make wide, sweeping generalizations about how people of a certain race and gender think and how do you think that doesn't constitute racism?

[komali2]

As stated before, pointing out and having a clear and honest dialog about racism isn't in itself racism.

That, and white people can't experience racism. They may at some point in their lives be discriminated against based on their race, unlikely though it is and extremely unlikely it'll be in some massively detrimental way. But, that's not racism.

Also, "wide sweeping generalizations about how people of a certain race and gender" is a mischaracterization of what's happening. In the Charlottesville example, white supremacists set out to do what they do by the very definition of their organization - oppress non whites. There is no sweeping generalization there. If they weren't out to oppress non whites, they wouldn't be white supremacists lol.