A perspective on the Left and identity politics

[Kagemusha]

Ok i replaced certain keywords of this statement and can someone on the "right" deny this statement?

This then lead to the below statement by a blogger which I thought some might find interesting:


"Conservatism is not merely simple politics for most of these people. Their politics to them are a core part of their identity, and, more importantly, a central support propping up their egos. They are enlightened because they believe these things; someone who does not believe these things, and yet who, superficially at least, appears to be about as smart as they might be, represents a threat to their egos. The foundation upon which a crucial structure of their sense of self-worth is undermined if they discover that there may be people who can pass as normal and intelligent and yet do not believe as they do.

If one is smart, then one believes in conservatism.

If one believes in conservatism, then one is smart.

Those are the two assumptions that prop up their sense of self worth, and they are refuted by examples of smart people who don't believe in conservatism.

And because there is a great deal of personal psychological investment in conservatism, they react intemperately to rejections of it. It's not merely a tax cut that's being debated; it's they're very sense of importance that's being attacked. It's not merely gay marriage which is being argued against; it's their value as human beings that is being uncouthly denigrated.

This tends to make the right more emotional and, well, angry when debating issues. It's all well and good to discuss a purely theoretical issue. But when you have a strong emotional investment in it -- when you have skin in the game, as it were -- it becomes not an academic debate but a heated argument."

When one looks at a coin.There are two sides that look different.But are still same material and act in same purpose.

[Tribesman]

This tends to make the left more emotional and, well, angry when debating issues.
There can be nothing more emotional and angry than a crazy right winger debating abortion , homosexuality , tax , gun-control , immigration , religeon .............
So the tendancy of the emotional left is balanced by the tendancy of the emotional right .

[Soulforged]

This tends to make the left more emotional and, well, angry when debating issues.
There can be nothing more emotional and angry than a crazy right winger debating abortion , homosexuality , tax , gun-control , immigration , religeon .............
So the tendancy of the emotional left is balanced by the tendancy of the emotional right .

Exactly, specially about gun control.

The first post in it's first pragraph clearly states "etc-ism" I think that he wanted to say any ideology in general, and not only the left. This followed by the fact that everything he states applies to any side of the spectrum. By the way, I agree with everything he said, and it has happened to me several times, I interiorized some conviction as part of my own identity and refused to believe otherwise, luckyly that has changed for the best. However I've my doubts about this thread: Are you implying that you (Pindar) do not interiorize convictions as part of your own identity? Wich would not be true since you're a religious being. Or that the majority of the so called right wind, specially conservatives, do not tend to interiorize such convictions? By the way, if you believe in all that you posted, perhaps you're proving that both sides are equal on this subject.

[Pindar]

Are you implying that you (Pindar) do not interiorize convictions as part of your own identity?

Hello

I'm not sure I understand your question. Maybe this will suffice: I do not hold to an argument as rational if it cannot be demonstrated as such, nor do I personalize theoretical issues.

[Soulforged]

I'm not sure I understand your question. Maybe this will suffice: I do not hold to an argument as rational if it cannot be demonstrated as such, nor do I personalize theoretical issues.

But what about religion then? When I say interiorize it means to take something external as yours, something that gives you form as a person, that defines you.

[Pindar]

But what about religion then? When I say interiorize it means to take something external as yours, something that gives you form as a person, that defines you.

If I adopt a stance on some X, whether it be political, religious or otherwise and part of that adoption includes a rational component then rational standards apply. If it is not a rational issue then no such correspondence is needed or relevant, but then the force of the view may be rightly called into question. Regardless, as I previously stated: I don't personalize theoretical issues. For example, if I take Jesus as the Christ which includes the idea He is Divine and some other utterly rejects that view, I don't consider it a personal attack.

If I may wax in the mold of Henry James: perturbation about contrary views simply because of their contrariness is the work of an untutored mind and/or an indicator of a certain emotionalism run amuck.

Does that answer your question good sir?

[Soulforged]

If I adopt a stance on some X, whether it be political, religious or otherwise and part of that adoption includes a rational component then rational standards apply. If it is not a rational issue then no such correspondence is needed or relevant, but then the force of the view may be rightly called into question. Regardless, as I previously stated: I don't personalize theoretical issues. For example, if I take Jesus as the Christ which includes the idea He is Divine and some other utterly rejects that view, I don't consider it a personal attack.
Does that answer your question good sir?

My point was this. Do you argue against abortion from a religious point of view? For example. I know that several people do, in fact many jurist do, and the arguements seem to be all emotional. EDIT: At some point it seems imposible to separete yourself for a certain creed, whatever it's. In this particular case the dogma mixes up with issues that require a reality check.