[Dalewyn]

Whether you're talking about how much money, or what genes, or what genitals someone has, or what genitals someone thinks they have, you're still overtly concerned with what someone is and how that can be used to discriminate.

So no, I don't see any difference of substance. The terminology changes, but the substance remains the same.

Not to mention, the left also still talks about class. Remember the "We are the 99%!" craze?

[skissane]

> you're still overtly concerned with what someone is and how that can be used to discriminate.

But aren’t many people on the Right “overtly concerned with what someone is” and even with “how that can be used to discriminate”?

I think your definition of “Left” is too broad, because it ends up encompassing much of the “Right” in its terms.

[Dalewyn]

Your response vindicates my position.

[skissane]

What does that mean?

[Dalewyn]

You evaded my argument and tried to reframe it into a "But the other side!" conversation, which is worse than worthless because you have refused to engage in discourse.

If you won't (or more likely can't) refute my argument, it stands to reason my position is vindicated: There is no difference of substance between the left talking about class and the left talking about race and sexuality.

To put it another way, you are failing to convince me to your ideas.

[skissane]

You proposed a definition of “Left”. I pointed out your definition doesn’t work because taken literally it incorporates things which nobody in their right mind would call “Left”. I am engaging in discourse-I don’t feel like you are.

[Dalewyn]

The "We are the 99%!" crowd were decidedly left, but that is beside the point.

I said I see no difference of substance between class, race, and sexuality insofar as politics is concerned, it's all identity politics all the way down. You have provided nothing to suggest otherwise.