Is there a male/female breakdown in the pattern of expressing moral outrage, signaling, receiving reward from likes and share, and amplifying it? Does either sex express more outrage? Does either sex receive more rewarding likes and shares?
I highly suspect it is closely tied with each sexes favored topic. Most women are less interested in Right-to-Repair, where men seem much less interested in identity politics until either get the pointy end. I, like you, would favor data over conversation and pontificating.
Already, studies of this type can be hard to fund. Introducing a component that could promote bias (real or percieved), is enough to often warrant its disconsideration, and it is unfortunate.
I wouldn't be surprised if there's a bias to this. After the 2016 election, there was discussion about the focus of Democrats on identity politics, but Trump's campaign was almost entirely identity politics, which was rarely explicitly called out.
It seems as though when the group that holds the most political power (men, white people, Christians) has concerns, it's not viewed as identity politics, whereas for political minorities, it is.
Well, it's true that white identity politics in the US was a response to abolitionism and the upswing since the mid-20th century a response to the civil Rights movement, and the Republican Partt embrace of white identity politics a direct response to LBJs embrace of civil rights, so there's a long term historical sense where (accounting for the flip in party positions over history) that's true.
More immediately, Trumpian identity politics is more a direct reaction to neoliberal globalism with a rhetorical veneer directed at Democratic identity politics.
On the other hand, Democratic identity politics are currently the major distraction from the fact that the dominant Democratic faction is dedicated primarily to neoliberal globalism, so there is that.
Trump's campaign made sure to groom this backslash and harvest the maximum amount of polarization from it. As did Hillary's campaign on the other side.
The next step in "bettering society" seems to be creating some kind of resistance towards that thing.
I have no support for trump, but the level of identity politics was nowhere near comparable. This is when the phrase "check your privilege" became a meme - because it was being used to shut down the conversation. Progressives literally had a scorecard for if they'd consider talking to you. (Gay +1, Trans + 3, Black +2, Female + 1.5, Hetero Parents -5).
It's disheartening to see people turn down the opportunity to discuss ideas and then feel morally righteous about it. I can't think of anything more anti-intellectual. If this attitude doesn't change I only see things becoming more polarized and nasty. We need people discussing ideas with those who don't always agree. That's the engine for progress.
This kind of PC-obsessed SJW seems to me to be a total fabrication of the right disconnected from what actual leftists and progressives are fighting for.
#metoo wants men to stop harassing and assaulting women with impunity
#blacklivesmatter wants cops to stop murdering black men with impunity
You know what, I think these are issues where people should be polarized "morally righteous" about, whatever that means. They are real injustices that affect a large number of people on a daily basis. Activists rightly view these struggles as ideological battles to be won, not conversations to be had. What is the "other side" to affirming the basic humanity of women or black people?
But how much of politics is economic theory? We're split along the dismal science of welfare and taxation. It's unfair to the socially liberal and fiscal conservatives to shut down economic conversations on the basis of "you must hate blacks and women". That's really what I feel unjustly about. In the past people may have been more willing to discover your nuances, now it's a simple matter of red team or blue team.
A tremendous amount. In fact, there's a pretty famous book about it: https://www.amazon.com/Capital-Critique-Political-Economy-Vo...
>It's unfair to the socially liberal and fiscal conservatives to shut down economic conversations on the basis of "you must hate blacks and women".
Perhaps, but how fine is the line between "you advocate for economic policies that disenfranchise black people and women" and "you hate black people and women"?
Fine enough to warrant a discussion. Steering the nation with a two party system is like driving a car with only a gas and brake pedal.
Pay more attention to what's not said.
#metoo wants men to stop harassing and assaulting women with impunity
...and men with similar stories of being on the receiving end are ignored or told to shut up and sit down.
#blacklivesmatter wants cops to stop murdering black men with impunity
...and people trying to bring up actual statistics, or examples of non-black men getting murdered by police, get shouted down. It can't be about us-vs-them culture or training that says to always escalate instead of de-escalating or any other systemic issues, it has to be solely and directly about racism.
That is not true at all. It's just that these events are much rarer (women rarely occupy positions of power and abuse that power sexually).
>...and people trying to bring up actual statistics, or examples of non-black men getting murdered by police, get shouted down.
Again, you're fighting strawmen. Most leftists are anti-police in general and certainly care about violence against white people committed by the police, especially white people who are marginalized in other ways.
>it has to be solely and directly about racism.
It isn't solely about racism, but racism is a huge, primary component.