A perspective on the Left and identity politics

[naut]

Old Age doesn't kill pensioners, Conservatives do.

This thread makes me feel intelectually small,

That term either relates to criminal activity involving guns , or legal activity by people who treat firearms like a penis extension.

IMHO, this is oh so true.

[rory_20_uk]

What has gun wnership got to do with either being right of left wing? I'm fairly right, but I am against gun ownership.

Offtopic...

Generally, old people are the cause of their own deaths. For example my own grandmother:

Refused Meals on Wheels
Refused occupational therapy input in falling aids, banisters, ramps, removing pointed tables
Refused home help
Refused residential home placement

So, she lives alone and has a cleaner in once a week. She fell when we were there onto a concrete flor as she was sitting on a takk unstable stool and reaching for a folder. It took 3 to move her to her usual chair. Basically there is a real chance that if we'd not been there she'd have died as she could not move and no guests were expected for days. She describes the event as "a bit silly"...

It is her right to choose a situation that will mean there is a significan liklihood one time she will be found dead at home. I may not agree with that, but it's the way things are.

[Tribesman]

What has gun wnership got to do with either being right of left wing?
Because it is an issue that some people get very emotional about .

I'm fairly right, but I am against gun ownership.

Why are you against gun ownership ?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Here's an article from the Associated Press, basically accusing anyone for secure immigration of being a racist:

Immigration debate stirs racial tensions
By ERIN TEXEIRA
AP National Writer
NEW YORK (AP) -- As the fight over immigration reform drags on, an ominous undercurrent to the debate - racism - is becoming more pronounced.

And

Sociologist Gonzalo Santos of California State University at Bakersfield said immigration is just the latest example of social policy issues taking on racial overtones in America.

"People talk about immigration as if race doesn't matter, saying 'No, I don't have anything against immigrants or Mexicans, it's just the illegal part of it I don't like.' But those are code words," he said. "We experience race in this country through issues like welfare policy, anti-poverty programs and now immigration."

I'd post something for tribesy, but he's really his own refutation.

Crazed Rabbit

[Lemur]

I don't quite see what there is to be so smug about, CR. So you can cite some obscure academics who say stupid things on the left -- as Rumsfeld would say, henny-penny, the sky is falling. Never mind that the people you're quoting have no real power, and are probably as marginalized as most extremists ought to be.

Never mind who's really holding political power in this country, or what decisions they are making, or what consequences we're facing. No, let's focus our energies on the most marginal, dogmatic people we can find.

I swear, this whole thread has about as much relevance to what's going on in our nation as the President's push for a gay marriage amendment to the Constitution. So let me revise my earlier statements: This thread is not only one-sided, smug and intellectually lazy, it's also a blatant piece of self-congratulation and distraction for our more conservative ograhs. Can't you lads soap each others' beards in your private club, where the rest of us don't have to watch?

[Crazed Rabbit]

It isn't just obscure academics, it is the mainstream media that is writing about this as though it were true. Were it just a few nuts, that'd be a different thing. Each side has their own kooks.

But this is an associated press article that agrees with what those nuts are saying, presenting it as though it were fact.

Crazed Rabbit

[Sasaki Kojiro]

It isn't just obscure academics, it is the mainstream media that is writing about this as though it were true. Were it just a few nuts, that'd be a different thing. Each side has their own kooks.

But this is an associated press article that agrees with what those nuts are saying, presenting it as though it were fact.

Crazed Rabbit

Actually it says:

"an ominous undercurrent to the debate - racism - is becoming more pronounced."

And then describes that part of the debate. The writer quotes people to show their point of view, which is the job of the media.


I don't even see why you posted the article. How does it show that the majority of leftists get angry because people who disagree with them are a threat to their egos?

[Pindar]

This thread makes me feel intelectually small,

No worries, it's all sound and fury signifying nothing.

[Pindar]

Any one person tends toward irriation when people try to paint a broad brush over them. As I said, that many may, assumably, respond only in emotion and may be identified as lefties does not mean that leftism itself causes emotional responses. If you've no reason to your belief, then you've no thing to warrant that belief.

I don't think the stance is Leftism itself is causative, but that the identity politics of Leftism lends itself to emotionalism.

[Pindar]

When the initial post contains a finer version of "Most Mormons are crooks"? Or even better, most Mormons is wackos? (define wacko)

Exactly! Once could then investigate whether that were the case.

Unless I'm mistaken, most means more than half.

"Leftism, and liberalism, and progressivism, and etc-ism. are 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" All the commentary was not posted, only a paragraph. Do you note "these people" The identifier of the pronoun isn't noted as "isms" are not people. The actual thrust of the commentary was Left wing blogs.

That's simple, it's mostly false, but contains minor grains of truth, while not giving a total picture. But the rhetorical package in where this "fact" was delivered in is such a way were rational discussions aren't encuraged, more of the opposite. The emotional extraction needed to only have a purely intellectual and logical discussion of the initial post has then reached levels that not even Pindar can achive, as the later Gah debate shows us.

I think the misdirection is telling.

Why? Because people can be fanatically obsessed with almost everything, that's more a psycological issue.
The political implications is already here and has been here for as far as politics have existed, so the answer is none. They're almost always ignored politically.

I don't think this is correct. The rhetorical tone of the Left in the U.S. has changed. I think the impetus may be from the Reagan Revolution followed by the end of the Cold War.

First, as Gah is normally used as refuting, I would obviously not using it when putting forward a serious idea.

So, you've succumb I see. You want to argue refutation cannot be serious?

Second, if I know that my audience know the meaning of Gah, and something can be summarized as Gah, then it's possible that I would summarize something as Gah.

Really? That's amazing you have very different standards than I. If I had a student who sued it as a response to a position he wouldn't fare so well.

And having a word that is a simplification and summarization isn't necessary dumbing things down, don't you agree?

Gah isn't a word.

Pindar, long answer:After aquiring the information that you've presented here I found that no argument is strong enough to change my original oppinion and is thus required to answer negative to your question.

Pindar, short answer: No.

I don't think much discussion has really occurred. Rather there have been replies that recognized a tacit admission but then pointed to other groups, hostility and off topic posts.

So the conclusion is that the use of yes and no is for the retarded...

Yes and no are words. The mimicry fails.

[Pindar]

Academic settings are their own refutation, to appropriate one of your pithier sayings. Business settings, on the other hand, vary wildy. I can think of several people with whom I do business who would appreciate the joy of Gah...

I can't take this post seriously. Are you as stalwart in defense of ebonics and pig-Latin as you are for what one described as the sound of reflex vomiting?

Check the General Explanations at the beginning of the Oxford English Dictionary:

The Vocabulary of a widely diffused and highly cultivated living language is not a fixed quantity circumscribed by definite limits ... there is absolutely no defining line in any direction: the circle of the English language has a well-defined centre but no discernible circumference.

Does this mean you are arguing gah is a word?

[Lemur]

I can't take this post seriously.

That, dear sir, is entirely your problem, and none of mine. I made cogent points; if you refuse to respond to them, that's your business.

Does this mean you are arguing gah is a word?

Absolutely. If you don't like the inclusiveness and messiness of the English language, take your grief to the Oxford English Dictionary. Sounds to me as though you'd much rather live under the French system of 40 Immortals.

I believe the correct categorization for gah would be interjection. I look forward to seeing it in the 2010 O.E.D.

[Ironside]

"Leftism, and liberalism, and progressivism, and etc-ism. are 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" All the commentary was not posted, only a paragraph. Do you note "these people" The identifier of the pronoun isn't noted as "isms" are not people. The actual thrust of the commentary was Left wing blogs.

Thank you for sharing this information now, had you done it your initial post then you had probably gotten responces in the direction you actually wished for.
Exactly were did you think that the readers would notice that this wasn't dragging in quite a few different ideologies and ideas into a big label called the Left and accused them to invest way too much feelings into an issue?

I think the misdirection is telling.

Of what? That is easy to provoke a emotional responce that contains little information on the subject at hand? Yes, I'm aware that pointing out you doing it, was a example of me doing it.

I don't think this is correct. The rhetorical tone of the Left in the U.S. has changed. I think the impetus may be from the Reagan Revolution followed by the end of the Cold War.

Possibly, I don't have that much insight on US politics before my (political) time. But then what policies did the left change after that? As for the shift to depend on actual politics and not something else, it has to correlate with a policy shift. If gives the shift, we can then analyse it and see if there's any true correlation or if it's depending on other factors.

So, you've succumb I see. You want to argue refutation cannot be serious?

No, I'm saying that using a refutation while preposing my own idea would either be not my style (attacking other's ideas during the presentation of my own idea) or be self-defeating (calling my own idea as gah would be quite stupid, if I don't find my idea as good, then why present it?)

Really? That's amazing you have very different standards than I. If I had a student who sued it as a response to a position he wouldn't fare so well.

As I said, it's a summary of my response to a position, not my entire responce. Why? Well you said it yourself.

Gah isn't a word.

Yes and no are words. The mimicry fails.

What exactly do you call something that is commonly used as a word, but isn't in the dictionary? As you have established that there's words and a random selection of letters, but as the language evolves it has to be a stage in between.

And for a theoretical discussion, what would happen with your position, if gah is established as a word? Would it change? If not, on what grounds?

That's a pretty cheap shot at the right, comparing them to fascists.

In a way, it's pretty fitting in this thread.
For 5 pages, we have been informed that it isn't much difference between how people here on this forum who define themself as left in any way and how militant greens (the first group that is on the left and who falls into the catogory described at the first page I could think of) identify themself with the politics they're doing.

[Pindar]

Aw, you called me 'Roink'. The last (and only other) person to do to that was AdrianII in a heated discussion on a topic which I fail to recall. Needless to say, it was done in contempt, and I did not take well to it. Thankfully, he now addresses me by 'Reenk Roink'.

I do not being called 'Roink' (though 'Reenk' will do in a pinch), I give the courtesy of calling other's by their full pseudonym, and thus expect a mutual courtesy. I do not call you 'dar'.

So, Reenk is OK, but Roink is an offense? Why would anyone know that? As you wish.

[Tribesman]

Leftism, and liberalism, and progressivism, and etc-ism. are 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" All the commentary was not posted, only a paragraph. Do you note "these people" The identifier of the pronoun isn't noted as "isms" are not people. The actual thrust of the commentary was Left wing blogs.

Ah ......I get it now left wing bloggers are emotional egotists of the Roderick Soul persuation , whereas right wing bloggers are emotional egotists of the Harrow/Ghent persuation .
See the difference is so clear , it all depends on your own Harrow/Ghent R.Soul perspective. AGH
Well done Pindar , your beacon lights up these brackish waters like a damp squib .

[Kanamori]

I don't think the stance is Leftism itself is causative, but that the identity politics of Leftism lends itself to emotionalism.

Having any opinion lends itself to emotionalism. If Leftism is not the cause, then the fault is not with Leftism. Also, there has been no evidence that shows some correlation between leftism and emotionalism, and your conclusion is based on you having selective attention with some of those who use only emotion. Another point comes, if someone fiercely believes in their ideals, that is not to say that those ideals are not rationally supported. The line of reasoning in the article seems so broken as to not have any point at all. Leftism does not cause emotionalism and emotion does not necessarily interfere with logic. Even the thing trying to give his point significance, that lefties are emotive necessarily, is missing a real link to some necessary harm.

[Kanamori]

Also, gah is vague. I very much dislike vague things. Gah does carry meaning, but what exactly the meaning is seems pretty open to interpretation. As far as I can tell, the only thing that the uses of gah have in common is a feeling of annoyance. It may be useful in caveman-speak.

Me want thing there. The sentence carries meaning, but it is far from sophisticated or precise.

[Lemur]

The sentence carries meaning, but it is far from sophisticated or precise.

I must have missed the memo about all language needing to be sophisticated and precise. I love the English language in an intemperate way. Part of why I love it so much is that it is inclusive, sprawling, flexible and massive. There are cute words, ugly words, technical words, colloquial words, slang words, proper words, divine words, rude words ... it just goes on and on. I love them all.

[Pindar]

Having any opinion lends itself to emotionalism.

I don't think so. Emotionalism suggests being a slave to one's emotions not the simple presence of emotion.

If Leftism is not the cause, then the fault is not with Leftism.

The stance would be that insofar as Leftism leads to identity politics then the emotionalism comes to the fore as any stance thereby becomes a personal matter as opposed to say a theoretical or policy issue.

Also, there has been no evidence that shows some correlation between leftism and emotionalism, and your conclusion is based on you having selective attention with some of those who use only emotion.

It seems most of the topic related replies gave some credence to the view in one fashion or another.