[dangus]

Can you give us some concrete examples of this movement being based on “being offended, on feelings and identity politics?” What about this movement, specifically, seems wrong to you?

Throwing negative labels like “identity politics“ around kind of denies that the whole problem is that we as a nation are treating one set of people unfairly because of their identity. So yes, it’s “identity politics.”

I hope I come across as reasoning. I’m not going to throw names your way. As respectfully as I can be toward you and your ideas, I am not seeing a lot of substance to your argument. The argument seems “controversial opinion here, I don’t like this, and I won’t explain why.”

[Findeton]

It is identity politics when a set of people asks for privileges based on the colour of their skin. It wasn't so long ago that the civil rights movement wanted to abolish classification based on race, now they demand it so that their race gets more privileges, in a sort of pay back. Now you have people behind these identity-based movements demanding things like quotas, X% of people at Big Corp. should be black, Y% should be women, a co-founder of Reddit resigns from board so that a black person replaces him. Qualifications needed: colour of their skin?

There will be no end to these problems until we recognise the problem is not in the colour of the skin. It's not one set of people, it's not even multiple sets of people (women/black people/latinos), it's not about heterogeneous sets of people (mixed-race). The problem is only within individuals, and their individual actions. If a black person kills another black person, that's bad. If a white person kills a black person, that's also bad. If a man kills a woman, that's bad. If a woman kills a man, that's bad. It looks like this is a difficult thing to accept nowadays.

Also I'm sorry if I haven't addressed all your points, I'm afraid I am busy and didn't have more time to develop this comment further.