You are not logged in. Please register or login.

mitchejw
 Rep: 103 

Re: US Politics Thread

mitchejw wrote:
misterID wrote:

Some of y'all might find this interesting. From "The Week" a more conservative publication, but it's something I've thought about. For more clarity, Hispanics typically identify as white:

The 'white minority' illusion
If there's one thing that's sustained liberals through the trials of the 2016 election and its aftermath, it's faith that demography will come to their rescue to ensure that they eventually prevail against the right-wing, racist populism of the Trump-era Republican Party.

That assumption, which originated with the "emerging Democratic majority" thesis of the early 2000s, has animated a thousand tweets and undergirded an untold number of think pieces over the past year and a half. The most recent is Ezra Klein's erudite reckoning with just how much President Trump's toxic racism and xenophobia diverges from the American norm. Klein's conclusion from a perusal of American history is: not much. The United States has never been especially liberal or democratic for non-whites, and Trump represents the last gasp of those in American life who would like to keep it that way.

It's likely to be their last gasp because, as Klein writes, "if current demographic projections hold, we will be a majority-minority nation in less than 30 years." Once that happens, the country's formerly white majority will have no choice but to reconcile itself to a changed demographic reality. And that will hopefully allow historians of the future to look back at our moment to conclude that what seemed like a potentially dire threat to liberal democracy in America during the Trump administration was merely "the turbulence that has always accompanied racial progress in this country."

It sounds reassuring. But is it true?

Don't bet on it.

Yes, the U.S. is on track to become at some point around 2045 a "minority white" nation — in the sense that if we lump every person who isn't white into a single demographic category of "non-white," whites will be outnumbered. The problem is that no such politically homogeneous category of citizen exists in the real world. It's the creation of demographers and liberal data journalists eager to mollify their anxieties.

Such people convince themselves of its reality by making a habit of talking about how "people of color" are uniformly oppressed by hegemonic "whiteness" in the United States. But the truth is that people of Hispanic, African, West Indian, East Asian, South Asian, and Arab descent don't perceive themselves as (or vote as if they are) members of a unified bloc. They are discrete groups. Most of them do lean Democratic, but not uniformly, and they do so for disparate reasons rooted in the cultures they brought with them to this country and in their distinct histories since arriving. (That's true of white voters, too, of course.)

Now, as critics have pointed out, it's most likely misleading even to suggest that these ethnic categories will remain stable over the coming decades, given rising rates of intermarriage among the members of each group. But even if we assume for the sake of analysis that the categories remain intact, it's important to recognize that "white" is going to remain the plurality group for a very long time to come. In 2045, when the shift to "minority white" country is supposed to happen, whites will be 49.8 percent of the population, with Hispanics, at 24.6 percent, the next largest group at roughly half the size.

That's not the portrait of a country in which demographics are going to deliver liberals an automatic and permanent victory. It's the portrait of a country in which politics will continue as it always has, with different parties and politicians jostling for the support of a range of different groups.

Unless, that is, liberals can convince the non-white members of their current electoral coalition to begin thinking of themselves, first and foremost, as "people of color" united by their antipathy to, and in their oppression by, white America. If racism is defined, in part, by the tendency of whites to view everyone but themselves as "not white," then this would be a form of counter-racism in which non-whites positively affirm as a politically potent identity what was once treated as a form of stigma.

The doubling down on identity politics among liberals since Donald Trump's election follows from something like this ambition to unify non-whites against the Republican Party and in favor of the Democrats. (At the same time, the left's growing emphasis on intersectionality, which sows division instead of unity by highlighting the distinctive, irreducible grievances suffered by the members of ever-narrower demographic sub-categories, adds a heavy dose of self-contradiction to the project.)

It would appear that the "emerging Democratic majority" requires anti-white identity politics as its midwife.

That would be inadvisable in civic terms even if demographic trends over the next half century favored non-whites more convincingly than they do. As it is, liberals risk actively antagonizing (and hence galvanizing against them) what will remain for some significant time to come the single-largest demographic group in the United States.

There may be more foolish electoral strategies out there, but I'm hard-pressed to think of one.

Lol identity politics....i'm so tired or hearing that....did Fox news create that term?

Nothing is more 'identity politics' than poor white trash voting for a rich, white man who fucks them in the ass so much their ass is bleeding...

white privilege is when your anus is bleeding because you love old, white men so much that you beg for more....

Randall Flagg
 Rep: 110 

Re: US Politics Thread

mitchejw wrote:
misterID wrote:

Some of y'all might find this interesting. From "The Week" a more conservative publication, but it's something I've thought about. For more clarity, Hispanics typically identify as white:

The 'white minority' illusion
If there's one thing that's sustained liberals through the trials of the 2016 election and its aftermath, it's faith that demography will come to their rescue to ensure that they eventually prevail against the right-wing, racist populism of the Trump-era Republican Party.

That assumption, which originated with the "emerging Democratic majority" thesis of the early 2000s, has animated a thousand tweets and undergirded an untold number of think pieces over the past year and a half. The most recent is Ezra Klein's erudite reckoning with just how much President Trump's toxic racism and xenophobia diverges from the American norm. Klein's conclusion from a perusal of American history is: not much. The United States has never been especially liberal or democratic for non-whites, and Trump represents the last gasp of those in American life who would like to keep it that way.

It's likely to be their last gasp because, as Klein writes, "if current demographic projections hold, we will be a majority-minority nation in less than 30 years." Once that happens, the country's formerly white majority will have no choice but to reconcile itself to a changed demographic reality. And that will hopefully allow historians of the future to look back at our moment to conclude that what seemed like a potentially dire threat to liberal democracy in America during the Trump administration was merely "the turbulence that has always accompanied racial progress in this country."

It sounds reassuring. But is it true?

Don't bet on it.

Yes, the U.S. is on track to become at some point around 2045 a "minority white" nation — in the sense that if we lump every person who isn't white into a single demographic category of "non-white," whites will be outnumbered. The problem is that no such politically homogeneous category of citizen exists in the real world. It's the creation of demographers and liberal data journalists eager to mollify their anxieties.

Such people convince themselves of its reality by making a habit of talking about how "people of color" are uniformly oppressed by hegemonic "whiteness" in the United States. But the truth is that people of Hispanic, African, West Indian, East Asian, South Asian, and Arab descent don't perceive themselves as (or vote as if they are) members of a unified bloc. They are discrete groups. Most of them do lean Democratic, but not uniformly, and they do so for disparate reasons rooted in the cultures they brought with them to this country and in their distinct histories since arriving. (That's true of white voters, too, of course.)

Now, as critics have pointed out, it's most likely misleading even to suggest that these ethnic categories will remain stable over the coming decades, given rising rates of intermarriage among the members of each group. But even if we assume for the sake of analysis that the categories remain intact, it's important to recognize that "white" is going to remain the plurality group for a very long time to come. In 2045, when the shift to "minority white" country is supposed to happen, whites will be 49.8 percent of the population, with Hispanics, at 24.6 percent, the next largest group at roughly half the size.

That's not the portrait of a country in which demographics are going to deliver liberals an automatic and permanent victory. It's the portrait of a country in which politics will continue as it always has, with different parties and politicians jostling for the support of a range of different groups.

Unless, that is, liberals can convince the non-white members of their current electoral coalition to begin thinking of themselves, first and foremost, as "people of color" united by their antipathy to, and in their oppression by, white America. If racism is defined, in part, by the tendency of whites to view everyone but themselves as "not white," then this would be a form of counter-racism in which non-whites positively affirm as a politically potent identity what was once treated as a form of stigma.

The doubling down on identity politics among liberals since Donald Trump's election follows from something like this ambition to unify non-whites against the Republican Party and in favor of the Democrats. (At the same time, the left's growing emphasis on intersectionality, which sows division instead of unity by highlighting the distinctive, irreducible grievances suffered by the members of ever-narrower demographic sub-categories, adds a heavy dose of self-contradiction to the project.)

It would appear that the "emerging Democratic majority" requires anti-white identity politics as its midwife.

That would be inadvisable in civic terms even if demographic trends over the next half century favored non-whites more convincingly than they do. As it is, liberals risk actively antagonizing (and hence galvanizing against them) what will remain for some significant time to come the single-largest demographic group in the United States.

There may be more foolish electoral strategies out there, but I'm hard-pressed to think of one.

Lol identity politics....i'm so tired or hearing that....did Fox news create that term?

Nothing is more 'identity politics' than poor white trash voting for a rich, white man who fucks them in the ass so much their ass is bleeding...

white privilege is when your anus is bleeding because you love old, white men so much that you beg for more....


I don’t think you fully grasp what identity politics are. Why any notion of white identity is a direct response to identity politics telling that same  “poor white trash” person his life is intrinsically better/easier because he’s white. Or why trying to create a bucket to capture every arbitrary characteristic is logically no different than the race based programs of yesteryear you (and I) abhor. 

The ultimate minority is the individual. You and I are both white, but we have very different opinions and life experiences. It’d be unfair to make any generalization about either of us based solely on our skin color. That truth applies to everyone else as well.

misterID
 Rep: 451 

Re: US Politics Thread

misterID wrote:
mitchejw wrote:
misterID wrote:

Some of y'all might find this interesting. From "The Week" a more conservative publication, but it's something I've thought about. For more clarity, Hispanics typically identify as white:

The 'white minority' illusion
If there's one thing that's sustained liberals through the trials of the 2016 election and its aftermath, it's faith that demography will come to their rescue to ensure that they eventually prevail against the right-wing, racist populism of the Trump-era Republican Party.

That assumption, which originated with the "emerging Democratic majority" thesis of the early 2000s, has animated a thousand tweets and undergirded an untold number of think pieces over the past year and a half. The most recent is Ezra Klein's erudite reckoning with just how much President Trump's toxic racism and xenophobia diverges from the American norm. Klein's conclusion from a perusal of American history is: not much. The United States has never been especially liberal or democratic for non-whites, and Trump represents the last gasp of those in American life who would like to keep it that way.

It's likely to be their last gasp because, as Klein writes, "if current demographic projections hold, we will be a majority-minority nation in less than 30 years." Once that happens, the country's formerly white majority will have no choice but to reconcile itself to a changed demographic reality. And that will hopefully allow historians of the future to look back at our moment to conclude that what seemed like a potentially dire threat to liberal democracy in America during the Trump administration was merely "the turbulence that has always accompanied racial progress in this country."

It sounds reassuring. But is it true?

Don't bet on it.

Yes, the U.S. is on track to become at some point around 2045 a "minority white" nation — in the sense that if we lump every person who isn't white into a single demographic category of "non-white," whites will be outnumbered. The problem is that no such politically homogeneous category of citizen exists in the real world. It's the creation of demographers and liberal data journalists eager to mollify their anxieties.

Such people convince themselves of its reality by making a habit of talking about how "people of color" are uniformly oppressed by hegemonic "whiteness" in the United States. But the truth is that people of Hispanic, African, West Indian, East Asian, South Asian, and Arab descent don't perceive themselves as (or vote as if they are) members of a unified bloc. They are discrete groups. Most of them do lean Democratic, but not uniformly, and they do so for disparate reasons rooted in the cultures they brought with them to this country and in their distinct histories since arriving. (That's true of white voters, too, of course.)

Now, as critics have pointed out, it's most likely misleading even to suggest that these ethnic categories will remain stable over the coming decades, given rising rates of intermarriage among the members of each group. But even if we assume for the sake of analysis that the categories remain intact, it's important to recognize that "white" is going to remain the plurality group for a very long time to come. In 2045, when the shift to "minority white" country is supposed to happen, whites will be 49.8 percent of the population, with Hispanics, at 24.6 percent, the next largest group at roughly half the size.

That's not the portrait of a country in which demographics are going to deliver liberals an automatic and permanent victory. It's the portrait of a country in which politics will continue as it always has, with different parties and politicians jostling for the support of a range of different groups.

Unless, that is, liberals can convince the non-white members of their current electoral coalition to begin thinking of themselves, first and foremost, as "people of color" united by their antipathy to, and in their oppression by, white America. If racism is defined, in part, by the tendency of whites to view everyone but themselves as "not white," then this would be a form of counter-racism in which non-whites positively affirm as a politically potent identity what was once treated as a form of stigma.

The doubling down on identity politics among liberals since Donald Trump's election follows from something like this ambition to unify non-whites against the Republican Party and in favor of the Democrats. (At the same time, the left's growing emphasis on intersectionality, which sows division instead of unity by highlighting the distinctive, irreducible grievances suffered by the members of ever-narrower demographic sub-categories, adds a heavy dose of self-contradiction to the project.)

It would appear that the "emerging Democratic majority" requires anti-white identity politics as its midwife.

That would be inadvisable in civic terms even if demographic trends over the next half century favored non-whites more convincingly than they do. As it is, liberals risk actively antagonizing (and hence galvanizing against them) what will remain for some significant time to come the single-largest demographic group in the United States.

There may be more foolish electoral strategies out there, but I'm hard-pressed to think of one.

Lol identity politics....i'm so tired or hearing that....did Fox news create that term?

Nothing is more 'identity politics' than poor white trash voting for a rich, white man who fucks them in the ass so much their ass is bleeding...

white privilege is when your anus is bleeding because you love old, white men so much that you beg for more....

You've got serious issues. Like, in need of medication.

mitchejw
 Rep: 103 

Re: US Politics Thread

mitchejw wrote:
Randall Flagg wrote:
mitchejw wrote:
misterID wrote:

Some of y'all might find this interesting. From "The Week" a more conservative publication, but it's something I've thought about. For more clarity, Hispanics typically identify as white:

The 'white minority' illusion
If there's one thing that's sustained liberals through the trials of the 2016 election and its aftermath, it's faith that demography will come to their rescue to ensure that they eventually prevail against the right-wing, racist populism of the Trump-era Republican Party.

That assumption, which originated with the "emerging Democratic majority" thesis of the early 2000s, has animated a thousand tweets and undergirded an untold number of think pieces over the past year and a half. The most recent is Ezra Klein's erudite reckoning with just how much President Trump's toxic racism and xenophobia diverges from the American norm. Klein's conclusion from a perusal of American history is: not much. The United States has never been especially liberal or democratic for non-whites, and Trump represents the last gasp of those in American life who would like to keep it that way.

It's likely to be their last gasp because, as Klein writes, "if current demographic projections hold, we will be a majority-minority nation in less than 30 years." Once that happens, the country's formerly white majority will have no choice but to reconcile itself to a changed demographic reality. And that will hopefully allow historians of the future to look back at our moment to conclude that what seemed like a potentially dire threat to liberal democracy in America during the Trump administration was merely "the turbulence that has always accompanied racial progress in this country."

It sounds reassuring. But is it true?

Don't bet on it.

Yes, the U.S. is on track to become at some point around 2045 a "minority white" nation — in the sense that if we lump every person who isn't white into a single demographic category of "non-white," whites will be outnumbered. The problem is that no such politically homogeneous category of citizen exists in the real world. It's the creation of demographers and liberal data journalists eager to mollify their anxieties.

Such people convince themselves of its reality by making a habit of talking about how "people of color" are uniformly oppressed by hegemonic "whiteness" in the United States. But the truth is that people of Hispanic, African, West Indian, East Asian, South Asian, and Arab descent don't perceive themselves as (or vote as if they are) members of a unified bloc. They are discrete groups. Most of them do lean Democratic, but not uniformly, and they do so for disparate reasons rooted in the cultures they brought with them to this country and in their distinct histories since arriving. (That's true of white voters, too, of course.)

Now, as critics have pointed out, it's most likely misleading even to suggest that these ethnic categories will remain stable over the coming decades, given rising rates of intermarriage among the members of each group. But even if we assume for the sake of analysis that the categories remain intact, it's important to recognize that "white" is going to remain the plurality group for a very long time to come. In 2045, when the shift to "minority white" country is supposed to happen, whites will be 49.8 percent of the population, with Hispanics, at 24.6 percent, the next largest group at roughly half the size.

That's not the portrait of a country in which demographics are going to deliver liberals an automatic and permanent victory. It's the portrait of a country in which politics will continue as it always has, with different parties and politicians jostling for the support of a range of different groups.

Unless, that is, liberals can convince the non-white members of their current electoral coalition to begin thinking of themselves, first and foremost, as "people of color" united by their antipathy to, and in their oppression by, white America. If racism is defined, in part, by the tendency of whites to view everyone but themselves as "not white," then this would be a form of counter-racism in which non-whites positively affirm as a politically potent identity what was once treated as a form of stigma.

The doubling down on identity politics among liberals since Donald Trump's election follows from something like this ambition to unify non-whites against the Republican Party and in favor of the Democrats. (At the same time, the left's growing emphasis on intersectionality, which sows division instead of unity by highlighting the distinctive, irreducible grievances suffered by the members of ever-narrower demographic sub-categories, adds a heavy dose of self-contradiction to the project.)

It would appear that the "emerging Democratic majority" requires anti-white identity politics as its midwife.

That would be inadvisable in civic terms even if demographic trends over the next half century favored non-whites more convincingly than they do. As it is, liberals risk actively antagonizing (and hence galvanizing against them) what will remain for some significant time to come the single-largest demographic group in the United States.

There may be more foolish electoral strategies out there, but I'm hard-pressed to think of one.

Lol identity politics....i'm so tired or hearing that....did Fox news create that term?

Nothing is more 'identity politics' than poor white trash voting for a rich, white man who fucks them in the ass so much their ass is bleeding...

white privilege is when your anus is bleeding because you love old, white men so much that you beg for more....


I don’t think you fully grasp what identity politics are. Why any notion of white identity is a direct response to identity politics telling that same  “poor white trash” person his life is intrinsically better/easier because he’s white. Or why trying to create a bucket to capture every arbitrary characteristic is logically no different than the race based programs of yesteryear you (and I) abhor. 

The ultimate minority is the individual. You and I are both white, but we have very different opinions and life experiences. It’d be unfair to make any generalization about either of us based solely on our skin color. That truth applies to everyone else as well.

I guess I don't really know what identity politics are...my assumption has always been both sides plays this game. Sometimes that identity can be as simple as 'i believe in freedom.' The conservatives seem to wrap themselves in a flag and call themselves the patriotic ones. That itself is an identity is it not?

I disagree that Dems and liberals are the only ones that do this...

mitchejw
 Rep: 103 

Re: US Politics Thread

mitchejw wrote:
misterID wrote:
mitchejw wrote:
misterID wrote:

Some of y'all might find this interesting. From "The Week" a more conservative publication, but it's something I've thought about. For more clarity, Hispanics typically identify as white:

The 'white minority' illusion
If there's one thing that's sustained liberals through the trials of the 2016 election and its aftermath, it's faith that demography will come to their rescue to ensure that they eventually prevail against the right-wing, racist populism of the Trump-era Republican Party.

That assumption, which originated with the "emerging Democratic majority" thesis of the early 2000s, has animated a thousand tweets and undergirded an untold number of think pieces over the past year and a half. The most recent is Ezra Klein's erudite reckoning with just how much President Trump's toxic racism and xenophobia diverges from the American norm. Klein's conclusion from a perusal of American history is: not much. The United States has never been especially liberal or democratic for non-whites, and Trump represents the last gasp of those in American life who would like to keep it that way.

It's likely to be their last gasp because, as Klein writes, "if current demographic projections hold, we will be a majority-minority nation in less than 30 years." Once that happens, the country's formerly white majority will have no choice but to reconcile itself to a changed demographic reality. And that will hopefully allow historians of the future to look back at our moment to conclude that what seemed like a potentially dire threat to liberal democracy in America during the Trump administration was merely "the turbulence that has always accompanied racial progress in this country."

It sounds reassuring. But is it true?

Sorry ID, I got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning and I really haven't been myself since Trump came into office...it's jaded my ability to talk politics.

This article is nothing new...I've read hundreds like it...it was annoying that you though this was groundbreaking.

Don't bet on it.

Yes, the U.S. is on track to become at some point around 2045 a "minority white" nation — in the sense that if we lump every person who isn't white into a single demographic category of "non-white," whites will be outnumbered. The problem is that no such politically homogeneous category of citizen exists in the real world. It's the creation of demographers and liberal data journalists eager to mollify their anxieties.

Such people convince themselves of its reality by making a habit of talking about how "people of color" are uniformly oppressed by hegemonic "whiteness" in the United States. But the truth is that people of Hispanic, African, West Indian, East Asian, South Asian, and Arab descent don't perceive themselves as (or vote as if they are) members of a unified bloc. They are discrete groups. Most of them do lean Democratic, but not uniformly, and they do so for disparate reasons rooted in the cultures they brought with them to this country and in their distinct histories since arriving. (That's true of white voters, too, of course.)

Now, as critics have pointed out, it's most likely misleading even to suggest that these ethnic categories will remain stable over the coming decades, given rising rates of intermarriage among the members of each group. But even if we assume for the sake of analysis that the categories remain intact, it's important to recognize that "white" is going to remain the plurality group for a very long time to come. In 2045, when the shift to "minority white" country is supposed to happen, whites will be 49.8 percent of the population, with Hispanics, at 24.6 percent, the next largest group at roughly half the size.

That's not the portrait of a country in which demographics are going to deliver liberals an automatic and permanent victory. It's the portrait of a country in which politics will continue as it always has, with different parties and politicians jostling for the support of a range of different groups.

Unless, that is, liberals can convince the non-white members of their current electoral coalition to begin thinking of themselves, first and foremost, as "people of color" united by their antipathy to, and in their oppression by, white America. If racism is defined, in part, by the tendency of whites to view everyone but themselves as "not white," then this would be a form of counter-racism in which non-whites positively affirm as a politically potent identity what was once treated as a form of stigma.

The doubling down on identity politics among liberals since Donald Trump's election follows from something like this ambition to unify non-whites against the Republican Party and in favor of the Democrats. (At the same time, the left's growing emphasis on intersectionality, which sows division instead of unity by highlighting the distinctive, irreducible grievances suffered by the members of ever-narrower demographic sub-categories, adds a heavy dose of self-contradiction to the project.)

It would appear that the "emerging Democratic majority" requires anti-white identity politics as its midwife.

That would be inadvisable in civic terms even if demographic trends over the next half century favored non-whites more convincingly than they do. As it is, liberals risk actively antagonizing (and hence galvanizing against them) what will remain for some significant time to come the single-largest demographic group in the United States.

There may be more foolish electoral strategies out there, but I'm hard-pressed to think of one.

Lol identity politics....i'm so tired or hearing that....did Fox news create that term?

Nothing is more 'identity politics' than poor white trash voting for a rich, white man who fucks them in the ass so much their ass is bleeding...

white privilege is when your anus is bleeding because you love old, white men so much that you beg for more....

You've got serious issues. Like, in need of medication.

mitchejw
 Rep: 103 

Re: US Politics Thread

mitchejw wrote:
mitchejw wrote:
Randall Flagg wrote:
mitchejw wrote:

Lol identity politics....i'm so tired or hearing that....did Fox news create that term?

Nothing is more 'identity politics' than poor white trash voting for a rich, white man who fucks them in the ass so much their ass is bleeding...

white privilege is when your anus is bleeding because you love old, white men so much that you beg for more....


I don’t think you fully grasp what identity politics are. Why any notion of white identity is a direct response to identity politics telling that same  “poor white trash” person his life is intrinsically better/easier because he’s white. Or why trying to create a bucket to capture every arbitrary characteristic is logically no different than the race based programs of yesteryear you (and I) abhor. 

The ultimate minority is the individual. You and I are both white, but we have very different opinions and life experiences. It’d be unfair to make any generalization about either of us based solely on our skin color. That truth applies to everyone else as well.

I guess I don't really know what identity politics are...my assumption has always been both sides plays this game. Sometimes that identity can be as simple as 'i believe in freedom.' The conservatives seem to wrap themselves in a flag and call themselves the patriotic ones. That itself is an identity is it not?

I disagree that Dems and liberals are the only ones that do this...

Let me clarify...isn't playing to a group of people who are 'tax payers' by saying we need to band together and fight the liberals because they're sucking off society. I've often heard conservatives describe Democrats as nothing but leaches who live off the government.

Isn't that identity politics too?

misterID
 Rep: 451 

Re: US Politics Thread

misterID wrote:

But that is really a small segment, basically talk radio crap. We have to admit that liberals do have control over media and entertainment and they push their identity politics far harder and on a much broader platform(s). And if you don't agree with them you're a racist. You have to agree with an ideology or you're a racist.

White privilege, white frailty, white guilt, white resentment, white feminism etc., are all meant to divide. There is no way to find common ground. If you're a white cis man you are the enemy. It's made me drop out from the debate to find common ground. It's intentionally impossible. There are too many people who's identity is steeped in white supremacy and so is their livelihood. White supremacy has been very lucrative to people like Coates.

Randall Flagg
 Rep: 110 

Re: US Politics Thread

mitchejw wrote:
mitchejw wrote:
Randall Flagg wrote:

I don’t think you fully grasp what identity politics are. Why any notion of white identity is a direct response to identity politics telling that same  “poor white trash” person his life is intrinsically better/easier because he’s white. Or why trying to create a bucket to capture every arbitrary characteristic is logically no different than the race based programs of yesteryear you (and I) abhor. 

The ultimate minority is the individual. You and I are both white, but we have very different opinions and life experiences. It’d be unfair to make any generalization about either of us based solely on our skin color. That truth applies to everyone else as well.

I guess I don't really know what identity politics are...my assumption has always been both sides plays this game. Sometimes that identity can be as simple as 'i believe in freedom.' The conservatives seem to wrap themselves in a flag and call themselves the patriotic ones. That itself is an identity is it not?

I disagree that Dems and liberals are the only ones that do this...

Let me clarify...isn't playing to a group of people who are 'tax payers' by saying we need to band together and fight the liberals because they're sucking off society. I've often heard conservatives describe Democrats as nothing but leaches who live off the government.

Isn't that identity politics too?


In the abstract, sure. Just like you could make an argument people take identity from their favorite football team. Was it wrong when JuJu laid Burfict out? Yea, he got suspended for it. But as a Steelers fan, I will forever cherish that moment.

Political parties are the same way. How many Republicans bitched about Obama golfing?  How many Democrats bitch about Trump golfing?

I’m almost done with a book called “Sapiens” which discusses the start of human cognition 70k years ago, through the agricultural and industrial revolutions, to the modern day. There’s no arguing that humans are the most social animals on the planet, and group identification is hard coded into our very being.

But for the past 150 years or so, western nations have made great strides to dispel the notion of inherent disparity or distinguishable difference based on race. We’ve spent the last 100 trying to do the same with the sexes.

Not only is the modern identity movement based on making distinctions and assumptions about people based on race, they also want to make distinctions and assumptions based on sex. They want people to identify with their race and gender. They want people to make assumptions based on those characteristics amongst an ever changing lists of others.

This isn’t healthy. It’s the very definition of divisiveness. It can’t be sustained. And if you genuinely oppose making assumptions or statements about people based solely on their skin color or sex, you should oppose those on the left who believe identity politics are the way forward. This is an official doctrine. It’s not fringe. It’s called intersectionality in the academic world.

You should genuinely read about the basis of this theory from sources you value to have a more informed opinion on the issue.

misterID
 Rep: 451 

Re: US Politics Thread

misterID wrote:

Would anyone support replacing food stamps for the working poor with just paying them money instead? My thought is, universal basic income doesn't work, imo. I think Finland proved it, but for people who are actually working but are still below the poverty line, we could subsidize them with an online sales tax, plus a voluntary tax for companies and peeps who've been supporting the UBI idea.

It would be completely paid for, it would probably help the poor more than food stamps, and might even save some money. Before I get the "it will cause people not to help themselves" please back it up with REAL nonpartisan research that says people purposely will sabotage themselves to go into poverty for some extra crumbs of government cheese.

This would be great to coincide with banning stock buybacks, or at the least, regulate it.

bigbri
 Rep: 320 

Re: US Politics Thread

bigbri wrote:
misterID wrote:

But that is really a small segment, basically talk radio crap. We have to admit that liberals do have control over media and entertainment and they push their identity politics far harder and on a much broader platform(s).

Entertainment yes. Media, no. That’s a fallacy. I’ve worked for both national, regional, and local media companies—mostly newspaper, but my last employer owned WGN TV and WGN Radio. Not one has ever been owned and operated by people we’d call liberal.

They are owned by rich white guys like most businesses/corporations and their bottom line is to make money.

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB