[scarecrowbob]

It's kind of fun because any comment can be stated in a an objectionable way, I think.

"Don't talk about identiy politics and things that seem like "dentity-politics culture-war bait".

It's a fun game. You could do the same thing to this comment if you chose.

I don't like Kant, but there might be something to the principle of unverisality...

[ta8645]

The difference being that the culture isn't awash in people demanding adherence to Kant. It seems that every time someone voices an objection to the tiresome identity-politics that is so prevalent today, others will ensure the conversation devolves into a discussion of slippery definitions and pedantic dismissals of the complainant's understanding.

The truth is, _many_ people are fed up with the dominant leftist dogma that permeates almost every area of culture, government, and the economy today. We can argue until the sun goes down about the nature and specifics of what that entails, but people are reacting to _something_; it does exist, irrespective of any failure to describe it well.

[ternnoburn]

It's not leftist dogma. Leftists aren't capitalists, friend. Hard to argue the government and economy are post capitalist.

And most leftists I know absolutely hate performative progressivism. Dems are widely mocked in leftist circles for doing stunts but not doing anything to help. Like Pelosi wearing Kente cloth while doing nothing to aid African people.

So please, you might actually have people who agree with you in the leftist camp, stop bundling us with the Dems.

[scarecrowbob]

That conflation of dems/leftists is central to one side of the "identity-politics culture-war bait". They aren't going to stop doing it.

However, when folks do it, you know that they are just un-self-critically engaging in something that they putatively dislike in other folks.

Not to get to annoying on the topic, but I do find it fun to unpack.

Ironically, the hated "I know this, so everyone should change their behaviour" position is central to the idea that "we [HN] are fed up with the constant identity-politics culture-war bait."

That claim is about who "we" are, and it's stated with a great deal of certainty, even if there is a bit of cowardly rhetorical hedging.

And that claim is supposedly consistent because the claimant has over-determined the "we":

so that claimant isn't making a universal statement, just a statement of "I" and the "We" to which that "I" belongs.

Which seems like a pretty normal move- notice the concern with "_many_ people" and the demand that we don't look too far into what that population might actually mean.

I've been on HN for a decade, have some karma, and no, I am not part of that "we" apparently- a fact for which I am grateful, as I am grateful I don't feel compelled to vote for capitalist Democrats.

Still, I think that it really is worth not looking too deeply into what they are saying because their point will be lost: they get to say who "we" are and what kinds of things "We" are sick of, and they don't feel bad about it because it's not univeral, so the cowardly hedging that they did means they aren't being hypocritical.

I personally don't care if folks are hypocrites though, because it makes for a pretty cool set of tea leaves to read about where folks minds are at.

I come here specifically because I try not to hang out with the kinds of sociopaths that wreak havoc on my world via badly implemented technology, but it's an easy place to check their general mental weather.

So, yeah, they aren't gonna agree, see the internal contraditions, understand the distance between lefitsts and performative DEI folks, etc.

But, happily for me, they will keep displaying their terrible opinions so I don't have to rebuild connections with real-life assholes just to keep my ear to the ground about what horrible new thing is coming to our world.