The End of Identity Liberalism
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
He came onto the national scene in the 2004 Democratic National Convention with a lyrical speech about all of the things shared by both people in the "Blue States" and the "Red States".
"The pundits, the pundits like to slice and dice our country into red states and blue States: red states for Republicans, blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the red states."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19751-2004Jul...
And I honestly believe Obama's "A More Perfect Union" speech will go down as one of the best and most important speeches in American history, for describing the frustrations of both whites and minorities when it comes to discussing race in America.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_More_Perfect_Union_(speech)#...
I have also recently noticed Obama and some of his surrogates getting in not-so-subtle digs at Clinton in recent days.
“I won Iowa not because the demographics dictated that I would win in Iowa. It was because I spent 87 days going to every small town and fair and fish fry and VFW hall.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/barack-obama-democrats-l...
Heard similar comments from former denizens of the Obama White House in the Keepin' it 1600 podcast.
https://soundcloud.com/keepinit1600
So maybe even Team Obama is frustrated at Clinton's "identity politics" over reach.
"I care about us more. That's all I'm saying. But I respect identitarians of other races. And I actually can see eye to eye with them in a way that your average conservative can't."
http://www.npr.org/2016/11/17/502476139/were-not-going-away-...
And of course, many are arguing Trump's campaign was an appeal to white identity, although I realize a lot of Trump voters take issue with that characterization.
There appear to be many people who consider themselves 'alt right' who have no interest in 'white identity.'
If anyone can fairly be said to stand in that role, it'd be Milo Yiannopoulos, so I suppose it's not entirely unreasonable that someone at NPR confused his picture for that of Spencer and stuck it on the linked transcript. On the other hand, it's not reasonable to call Yiannopoulos a white supremacist, either, so overall I'm not sure what to make of the piece, except to say that I'd think twice about taking it at face value. There is a great deal of nuance here which NPR has no reason to represent fairly, and every reason not to.
While white supremacists coined the term, they clearly don't own it anymore. Whomever Milo is the leader of, they don't overlap well with white supremacists. alt-right.
Did white supremacists coin the term, though? I haven't been able to substantiate that, either.
I meant to say: 'brought the term to a level of prevalence such that their definition for the word is the most common usage', but even with that watered-down concept of "coining", I don't even know for certain that this is correct - that it was white nationalists who first did this.
I'm positive Milo is a patriotic Yiannopoulos Supremacist.
I don't think either of the two would be eligible to join Aryan Brotherhood or any group of genuine article white supremacists.
I think the distinction between 'nationalist' and 'supremacist' should be sharply defined. Mixing the terms is like using socialism and communism interchangeably.
I myself am NRX but not any kind of nationalist because I believe that model for determining an in-group is too hit and miss. Don't forget that nation state nationalism is mostly a 20th century phenomenon. Note the paradox of nationalists working together across borders, classical nationalism is going meta.
Oh, to be sure! All gay men are narcissistic to some degree, and Milo I think more than most. He uses the trait, though, rather than letting it use him, and he's been doing God's work since before it was cool.
> Note the paradox of nationalists working together across borders, classical nationalism is going meta.
Is that so paradoxical? History is replete with examples of nations allying for mutual benefit without dilution of anyone's sovereignty.
As far as in-group determination goes, I'm not sure I see why it can't be made to work on roughly the lines of the classical American model - that is, a privilege earned in exchange for bringing specific and substantial value. A lot of countries do this even today, usually under the rubric of some kind of points system. Such schemes have been slandered in the US under the name of "immigration quotas", but, again, this has occurred as a matter of political expediency - one cannot, after all, import captive voters by the million in the presence of such a system. It worked for us for many years - those of my ancestors who weren't transportees earned their citizenship that way. It works for many countries today. It could very easily be made to work for us again.
> I think the distinction between 'nationalist' and 'supremacist' should be sharply defined.
It is sharply defined. But in a political environment where nuance is anathema, no one pays the distinction much heed. Progressives equate the concepts for reasons of political utility, and their narrative has such hegemonic power that even rejecting this bogus prior for what it is takes some effort of reason and will. To try to convince anyone else on the matter is much harder still. (And ethnic nationalism, or supremacism, or whatever you want to call it, complicates the issue still further by being for the most part a lot of damnfoolishness. What matters is culture, not race. Regarding the latter as metonymous of the former indicates a failure to have fully thought the matter through.)
Well. Their narrative had such hegemonic power, anyway. That's taken quite a blow in the last couple of weeks, and whatever else comes of a Trump presidency, that by itself strikes me as worthwhile. It won't be easy, I think, for anyone to unring that bell. My immediate concern is that we start working to reduce the breaches their quest for power has driven into our polity, rather than crowbarring them still wider. Notwithstanding Schumeresque tantrums about Toronto, we all still have to live with one another. That progressives have so forgotten this is all the more reason for us to bear it firmly in mind. Let us comport ourselves so as to earn the favorable judgment of history, and the rest will attend to itself. Let us do otherwise, and a generation from now our kids will be fighting the same damn war in the same damn trenches.
That's quite a bold statement. Can you elaborate more on this or provide some evidence (honest question, I'm not trying to get into an argument)?
Oh, I don't think so.
I don't have any n=20 psych undergrad studies to cite on the subject, but I do have a reasonable degree of firsthand experience with gay men, in bed and out, and it's that experience which gives me to espouse the conclusion you quoted. That conclusion is also not unique to me, or for that matter even original; the man from whom I first heard it, quite a few years ago now, is not only himself gay and much more widely experienced than I am, he's also a great deal more intelligent and insightful, possessing a widely accomplished intellect and the postnominal letters to prove it. He and I have disagreed, whether seriously or for fun, on almost everything - but nothing I've seen gives me reason to doubt this claim in particular.
I get the impression that "narcissistic" in this usage might be read as some kind of denigration, as though I'm alleging that all gay men have a personality disorder. This is not the case. If anything, I think it's just that the focus of our sexual interest, specifically on people who much more closely resemble us than is true for straight men, tends to intensify what I might describe as the narcissistic aspect of male sexuality in general - and, again, the word "narcissistic" doesn't imply a disorder. You don't need to fall in love with your reflection to find worthwhile looking in a mirror every now and again.
Yes it is. However those examples will nearly always be specific instances and special circumstances with a few exceptions like the Hapsburgs.
What I see now is sustained transnational political collaboration. That suggests the formation of a larger political unit based on shared ideals and an external threat (this is always true). I don't mean that this networking is equivalent to the EU's attempts, it is more organic than that.
The analogy I would use is TCP/IP vs the OSI. The EU is doing OSI. The nationalists are doing TCP/IP.
> As far as in-group determination goes, I'm not sure I see why it can't be made to work on roughly the lines of the classical American model - that is, a privilege earned in exchange for bringing specific and substantial value.
Right. And/or ideological terminal goal continuity. The Sikh and western Chinese are very much aligned with us, they are almost never a problem. This is one of the problems with the 'integration narrative' the center-left/right don't want to consider. There exist examples of non-integration and zero conflict.
The American experiment proves that Europeans can work together. That's the good news. After centuries of ethic and religious warfare no less. A larger political unit was successfully forged, which is still remarkable in historical context. Australia is another example just to show it isn't luck.
I also foresee no real political problems with Hispanics and Asians, I think this election has shown that.
The problem is that, especially in Europe, large portions of some subgroups have decided to reject the West and desire to establish a parallel state. The evidence for this is overwhelming, everything from secret courts to large caches of guns being discovered.
There is also a considerable number of native born citizens who are a real problem. To understand why take a look at this article by Charlie Stross:
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2016/11/playtime...
In my view they are like RINOs, except that they are Westerners In Name Only. These people are contributing to a very dangerous polarization between the Muslims and other inhabitants of our territories. I believe that if civil conflict breaks out they will work against attempts to unify and establish civil order and this shall have horrifying consequences. The blunt end of the State, the army, the police, the intelligence, are all right wing to a man. I've seen sectarianism before, it's not a pretty sight.
> It is sharply defined. But in a political environment where nuance is anathema, no one pays the distinction much heed ... What matters is culture, not race. Regarding the latter as metonymous of the former indicates a failure to have fully thought the matter through.)
I know that, but the newspapers are very attached to their caricature of reality and that exerts influence. In Germany and Sweden the Pravda-ization is out of control. There is 'progress' and there is 'hitler'.
> Well. Their narrative had such hegemonic power, anyway. That's taken quite a blow in the last couple of weeks, and whatever else comes of a Trump presidency, that by itself strikes me as worthwhile ... Let us comport ourselves so as to earn the favorable judgment of history, and the rest will attend to itself. Let us do otherwise, and a generation from now our kids will be fighting the same damn war in the same damn trenches.
I think America will have indigestion but ultimately be fine. I cannot say the same about Europe. It is a horror show unfolding in front of us, a few more attacks and reprisals are sure to start.
The only solutions that would prevent this are deemed politically impossible and so we shall deal with the political inevitable.
What I can see happening is poor/disadvantaged of all races coalesce around their shared economic frustration so that the major parties begin to address the economics which affect them so negatively in a comprehensive manner.
Kinda like when that college professor (I forget the name) published a paper a while back showing a link between absent parents and stunted upward mobility for their children. He was swiftly accused of racism because there were significantly more absent parents in black families than white, even though the paper said little about the disparity itself.
Decades later, deindustrialization and opiate addictions are causing the same harm to white families and their children, just as predicted. But because of the accusations of racism, the warning went largely unheeded.
Emphasis on might! I'm not saying there's an easy solution; I'm not even 100% sure that I agree with the assumptions.
What I do feel is that it's not a good idea to avoid discussing things because they're uncomfortable. At least not as much as we often seem to be doing. To some extent we have to be able to discuss sensitive things if we want to evolve/develop/progress as humanity.
I suggest that there is a systemic bias on Hacker News: any article about identity politics that is less than unabashedly laudatory on the theme is almost immediately flagged -- though they often receive numerous upvotes and generate substantial and rational discussion.
I don't think it would be reasonable to assume the mods behave in a similar fashion. Were that the case, I can't imagine I, for example, would still be able to post here at all, let alone to do so and be seen by people who don't have showdead turned on in their profiles - I spent all yesterday arguing against gay marriage! I've run into ideologically driven suppression of discourse enough places on the Internet to recognize its absence when I see it.
Instead, I see a genuine commitment on the part of the moderation team to free and reasoned discussion, even when it tends in directions which I can't help but imagine make them uncomfortable. That's something which, especially in times like these, can't be too highly regarded, and it is in large part why I continue to consider participation on Hacker News a worthwhile use of my time.
Disagreeing is fine, but then write a thoughtful reply rather than just hit "flag." "Flag" is supposed to be for spam and grossly off-topic articles, not for articles where you happen to dislike the author's conclusion.
I agree that this article might have been worth letting spend longer on the front page. But seeing it forced off so quickly is informative in its own right, however disappointing. When progressives feel themselves open to genuine dialogue, we'll be here. In the meantime, they may render themselves as irrelevant as they please.
When conservatives feel themselves open to genuine dialogue, we'll be here. In the meantime, they may render themselves as irrelevant as they please.
I know there are some people out there that would say it wouldn't bother them. But is it really polite? Don't get me wrong. I see similar tone all around, and then see people act surprised when tensions rise and discourse suffers.
I want to have discussions with people who have a different perspective. HN has a lot of thoughtful people. And that includes you. I want to hear from you how you think about things, rather than hear it second or third hand. But I hate being subjected to dismissive statements like this. I suspect I'm not the only one.
I think this is a primary reason a lot of these types of posts get flagged by users. Not because the topic is uninteresting to a lot of people. It's because in their experience, the discussion that results is empirically not worth it.
Here's hoping for open, civil, constructive discussion.
Having been on the receiving end of that kind of contempt for rather a long time, it is sometimes difficult to resist the temptation to give vent to the resulting resentment, especially at a time when those from whom such contempt has so often come are already reeling from a generally similar sort of backlash. One feels a certain urge to get one's own back while the getting is good.
But temptation is sent to be overcome, and there is no excuse for actually indulging in such unworthy behavior. I'm sorry for having done so. I'll try to do better next time.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/opinion/the-danger-of-a-do...
America and the people are always about "UNFORCED intersectionality".
Yet, the Democrats will continue their 9-year slide at representation until they get this.
One of America's many excellent traits is that it is a huge melting pot of diverse cultures and races, that all get along and individually work toward achieving the American Dream. This is the driving force that brings us as Americans together, a strong work ethic and a belief that everyone has the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. However, forced intersectionality is when policies force businesses and the government to diversify their workforce, and unforced is referring to this diversification happening naturally, without the intervention of regulations and explicit calls for diversification.
My white uncle is famous for saying "You should never discriminate against people because they're different. But why do those people keep coming over here?" o_0
.. of calling your uncle your white uncle. why is that so important to have it his main attribute?
.. of emphasizing those people - was that really his emphasis or is it rather you who turns around his words into something he didn't say?
.. of not trying to understand his point, rather to immediately accuse him of bigotry. I read it as a dissatisfaction with economical migration when already many domestic people (who have basically a lot of sunken cost in this society) are left behind. I read his first sentance as an assurance that he doesn't care about race or ethnicity, rather, it's natural in-group vs. out-group thinking. If anyone who does that is a bigot, then boy, everyone is a bigot sometime - and the distinction is meaningless.
So if you weren't sarcastic I suggest rereading the article.
Nah. Different races are different, sure. In-group and out-group. But there's also a power element that you're not considering. Black vs white is in-group and out-group, but one of those groups is disenfranchised. That's where the racism comes in. It is anything but meaningless.
Sorry to become preaching here, but for the love of science, stop caring about race, gender snd ethnicity so much, instead care about class. There are at least as many white folks with no means to get ahead than black folks - and we haven't yet considered the other major ethnic groups. What you should care about is the 'glass ceiling' installed for a whole class of people who cannot offer their sons and daughters the chance to move up anymore. Liberals need to get back to tackling issues, not identities, that make the American nation such a divided one. And the obvious one to me is education. Forget about affirmative action, make high quality education accessible for any capable resident. Having less in-group vs. out-group thinking will follow automatically when people start thinking that everyone gets a fair chance again.
my hero!
Yet... other people don't vote based on what you and I think or feel. They vote based on what they think and feel. If people are treated in a way that makes them feel like they are out-group, regardless of structural power, those people will tend to act like an out-group instead of a powerful in-group.
tl;dr: You can tell people that they're an enfranchised in-group, but if they don't feel that way it might backfire.
This is not (and should not be) very meaningful for the individual.
Yet, the issue remains - if you tell someone that they are an enfranchised member of an in-group and their lived experience seems to contradict that, two things are likely to happen. First, they will tend to favor their lived experience over your carefully considered claims. Second, they will tend to discount and disregard anything further you might say, as you have damaged your credibility by invalidating their lived experiences.
So, please, consider the possibility that what one expects to be meaningful to a person's life and what that person considers meaningful to a person's life may differ in potentially significant ways.
I think of the Jewish people who went down the South to support the civil rights movement, who were people who generalized their own experience of oppression to have emphathy and solidary for somebody else's experience of oppression.
Most of them did (the biggest share of popular votes) just not quite enough to win the Electoral College.
Either the voting machines were hacked, or she did an abysmal job in outreach... her hiring of David Brock (of Correct the Record) to essentially character-assassinate Sanders supporters might have had something to do with her loss - she won the battle then lost the war.
Then there's Clinton's penchant for insulting large sections of the country every time she opens her mouth (much like Obama). On top of that, the naked prostitution of much of the mainstream media for her campaign. The media has long stopped pretending to be impartial, but this time around they didn't pretend to be anything other than in the tank for Clinton.
Then there's the fact that Clinton simply isn't a likable person. She's old, ill, has a shrill voice and tons of baggage with substantially more coming out every week during the final months of the campaign season with Wikileaks.
These are all things that Obama lacked in 2008 and 2012. There are a lot of lessons for Democrats to learn from this election, but I'm not sure they will learn them. (Ditto the Republicans for that matter.)
The sooner we lose the identity bullshit the better. Of equal rights need to be championed, but so do classic thing like safety, consumer protections, public education, minimum wage etc.
Oh wait, Bernie won my primary...
The identity nonsense is a major problem, including the fact that by claiming anyone who disagrees with them is a racist, or that the only reason people didn't vote for Clinton is that they are sexist, but I don't see that going away. The sad thing is that it does the most harm to the idea that there is still is racism in this country. The problem isn't anywhere nearly as bad as it's blown up to be, but by constantly crying wolf, they are taking away any meaning from the charge.
When the only thing you complain about is racism, people start tuning it out. Worse, when people are dealing with the drumbeat of constantly being accused of racism, especially when the majority of them are not, they are bound to not take the accusers or the problem seriously.