A perspective on the Left and identity politics

[Papewaio]

When I was living in Taiwan they had the Presidential elections. It was like a massive sports event with people running on emotions.

For myself an Aussie elections are where you vote on economic and social policy. It just isn't that exciting when it comes down to two parties that only significant difference is colour preference... red or blue.

ALP = Australian Labour Party.

Which is funny since the government is the Liberal Party... hence they are also ALP.

There is a larger difference but when viewed against the backdrop of the entire worlds spectrum of political choices it seems that the two main parties are playing safe and have very similar polices.

However the industrial reform may in fact create a significant enough change to make voting out the incumbent worth the effort.

[Kralizec]

This tends to make the left more emotional and, well, angry when debating issues.

Thank you, it's clear from where you're coming with this.

Since this thread is all about spurious generalisations, I'll join in the fun.

Abortion, gay marriage and seperation of church and state are not just political issues for religious conservatives. It is an assault not just on their identity, because it attacks what they perceive as objectively right. Because their convictions are divinely inspired, either through clear revelation or imbued in their nature by their creator, any deviation from their convictions is wrong. This means that religious conservatives believe that they do not only have the authority of God on their side, but that they themselves are superior, they themselves are better then their opponents. Either because of rational reasoning, or inherent moral virtue they have chosen the right faith. Below them are all the apostates, the unbelievers, the heretics and the pagans, who either irrationally deny the truth of God, or because they are inherently immoral and are not capable of recognising that wich is truly right. This imbues the religious right with a certain arrogance, a "holier-then-thou" attitude, and a contempt for all opposition.

[Pindar]

This tends to make the left more emotional and, well, angry when debating issues.

Thank you, it's clear from where you're coming with this.

Since this thread is all about spurious generalisations, I'll join in the fun.

Abortion, gay marriage and seperation of church and state are not just political issues for religious conservatives...This means that religious conservatives believe that they do not only have the authority of God on their side, but that they themselves are superior, they themselves are better then their opponents...This imbues the religious right with a certain arrogance, a "holier-then-thou" attitude, and a contempt for all opposition.

Hello,

Your statement reflects something I already posted:

"Positions where the conclusion is taken as inseparable from an given identity can lead to the very issue I think is noted in the first post. In the religious arena this is easy to see: a religious fervent who disavows a child who tells them he is gay might be an example. The perceived religious viewpoint moves the fervent to reject what is taken as inimical to their belief even if that includes their own blood. I think the commentaries' authors would argue a similar rhetoric informs the general identity politics of the Left where the opposition must demonize the opposition because the opposition is a direct affront to the self."

Given the comparison: do you agree that the identity politics of the Left leads to the conclusion of the original commentary?

[Kralizec]

It's a generalisation. For some leftists and their politics, yes. The part about the black republicans is dead right. As many posters have already pointed out, this occurs with right wingers also. Religious (moral) absolutists are the most obvious example, because an attack on one of their moral standpoints is automaticly perceived as an attack on their moral framework.

[Proletariat]

Anyone participating in this thread ever read The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation As a Basis for Social Policy by Thomas Sowell? I recommend it highly.



edit: link 4 teh lazee

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/046...Fencoding=UTF8

[Pindar]

Anyone participating in this thread ever read The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation As a Basis for Social Policy by Thomas Sowell? I recommend it highly.



edit: link 4 teh lazee

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/046...Fencoding=UTF8

Sowell is an interesting fellow.

[screwtype]

Anyone participating in this thread ever read The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation As a Basis for Social Policy by Thomas Sowell? I recommend it highly.

No, but ya gotta love the title!

[Pindar]

It's a generalisation. For some leftists and their politics, yes. The part about the black republicans is dead right. As many posters have already pointed out, this occurs with right wingers also. Religious (moral) absolutists are the most obvious example, because an attack on one of their moral standpoints is automaticly perceived as an attack on their moral framework.

It is a generalization. If you see a parallel between identity politics on the Left and religious absolutists then would you agree that the rhetoric of identity politics assumes a moral hue?

[Kralizec]

It is a generalization. If you see a parallel between identity politics on the Left and religious absolutists then would you agree that the rhetoric of identity politics assumes a moral hue?

Sorry, I don't understand the meaning of "hue" in this context.

You keep on capitalizing the Left, as if it's a monolith movement, and it's obviously written from a US conservative position. It's the old trap of trying to generalize what you perceive as your political opponents into one catagory, rallying "us" against "them". Call it inverse-identity politics. I find it amusing how some people can't seem to argue with me without putting me in the same catagory as Hillary Clinto, Hugo Chavez or Che Guevara, but when they persist it gets really annoying.

So yeah, some "leftists" (with a small "l") are emotionally impaired when it comes to rational discussions. Excuse me, I feel no need to defend them just because I fit in the same arbitrarily defined political catagory.

[Pindar]

Sorry, I don't understand the meaning of "hue" in this context.

Hue refers to an aspect or type. Moral hue would mean a type or kind of morality.

You keep on capitalizing the Left, as if it's a monolith movement, and it's obviously written from a US conservative position. It's the old trap of trying to generalize what you perceive as your political opponents into one catagory, rallying "us" against "them". Call it inverse-identity politics. I find it amusing how some people can't seem to argue with me without putting me in the same catagory as Hillary Clinto, Hugo Chavez or Che Guevara, but when they persist it gets really annoying.

Difficulties with capitalization? OK, I can adjust easily enough: left.

So yeah, some "leftists" (with a small "l") are emotionally impaired when it comes to rational discussions. Excuse me, I feel no need to defend them just because I fit in the same arbitrarily defined political catagory.

Quite so.

[Tribesman]

It is an exploratory of the Left and identity politics. No other referent is required any more than if one were one were discussing the Empire State Building and others interject ideas on the Brooklyn Bridge. Interjections about the Brooklyn Bridge may have interest of their own, but are not the focus.
Look , Pindar has explained this , the topic is the left . Any focus on any group that is not the left is irrelevant , any post that says the right is just about as bad as the left is irrelevant , please keep the discussion within Pindars parameters as he will not contemplate any thoughts that do not fall within his own narrowly defined parameters .
Thank you , and GAH

[Hurin_Rules]

Look , Pindar has explained this , the topic is the left . Any focus on any group that is not the left is irrelevant , any post that says the right is just about as bad as the left is irrelevant , please keep the discussion within Pindars parameters as he will not contemplate any thoughts that do not fall within his own narrowly defined parameters .
Thank you , and GAH

That sums it up quite nicely, thanks.

It's just that one usually reads Pindar's posts--which unfortunately have been all too rare lately-- with some enthusiasm, expecting that there will be some real content to them. This is just a rather banal myopia masquerading as some sort of argument, with a sprinkling of unconvincing logic chopping as the sole garnish. To meet banality with banality, we might ask where, my good Pindar, is the beef?

Maybe he was bored.

ho hum

[Redleg]

Maybe he was bored.

ho hum

But I have been rather amused by some of the responses.

[Ironside]

If the statement has truth in it then whither the need to refute? If a perceived adjustment, say like such applies to a part and not the whole were thought necessary then one could easily state such without hostility or rancor.

Do you really find that it's acutally needed? There's two ways such a statements can be made looking like the gross generalisation is true. It's either saying nothing ("Oh look spot on, they're stunned by your brilliance") or saying that's not me ("Now we got them on denial").

As for the tone, aggresive posts usually gets agressive responses.

But I have been rather amused by some of the responses.

Isn't that something you do when you're bored? Amuse yourself?

Because I'm starting to feel that Pindarbot thought: "I wonder what rhetoric and the rhetorical posture of groups I would get if I posted a very aggressive post with considerable generalizations and defined the extent of the thread to such a narrow view that any reasonable discussion is impossible, while still leaving enough room for me to claim that I didn't."

Well it's always good training up the debating skills.

[Papewaio]

If memes are to spread they have to have mechanisms to do so and the ability to stay in a host.

If a suite of memes work best together by giving the host an endorphin rush and in turn makes the host happier and more likely to spread the memes then this would be a valid evolutionary strategy for a suite of memes to evolve.

For instance people are passionate about sports so lots of people learn about how games are played... the "knowledge about sports & co." suite of memes spreads. While people tend to be a tad less passionate about accounting so it is not spread through passionate mechanism but some other means.

Some memes will spread by being of direct benefit to the wellbeing of the host, others will spread by changing how the host feels about themselves and I assume there is a lot of other methods.

When it comes to politics (of which religion is a meme subset) I can see why passion is important... as these ideas aren't relating to needs in a first world country, they all to often are relating to wants, desires, passions. Also passion allows politics to bypass rational crtique of the ideas impedended within the suite. So the memic suite will in turn spread easier... why eat a bitter pill when you can coat it with sugar?