Hacker News Reader

Comment by nugi | Hacker News Reader

A nuanced view? Are you sexist?! /s

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.

View on HN

> where men seem much less interested in identity politics

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.

I still don't understand what identity politics is. (as opposed to politics)

This is really hard to respond to because the general definition is straight forward, but concrete examples get controversial really quick. As I understand it identity politics is dominated by in-group and out-group thinking. The group can be racial, cultural, gender based, didn't really matter. Extreme examples are: You aren't allowed to speak about the situation of women in the work place without identifying as a woman; if you are pro abortion and don't smoke you are likely against guns and the crucial part: might be shunned from your social group of you aren't; funny example from a recent article here: if you are a true Vegan you also can't eat processed food like Quorn.

So identity politics is when you try to make other people invalid. That's a more radical definition than the one(s) in wikipedia, thanks though.

Multiple downvotes for acknowledging replies, wow. There's some real clowns out there.

Identity politics is calling a black person who voted for McCain or a mexican-american who voted for Trump a traitor.

May I suggest the wikipedia page? The term has historical significance. It's usually applied to underprivileged groups and associated with democrats. For some reason no one calls it identity politics when Trump divides us into patriots and sons of bitches. Or real Americans vs coastal elites, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_politics

I wouldn't ask about single words/concepts without wiki'ing first. It's when even wikipedia leaves me blank that I pray for the interpretation of a HNer (or stackexchanger etc). Wikipedia says identity politics is people holding political positions in the interests of their religion, social class or caste, culture, dialect, disability, education, ethnicity, language, nationality, sex, gender identity, generation, occupation, profession, race, political party affiliation, sexual orientation, settlement, urban and rural habitation, and veteran status. Well damn, that's everything.

Yes, it covers everything. But in the US the term "identity politics" became popular during the Civil Rights Era. So it has been used to describe issues impacting African Americans. They vote overwhelmingly Democrat, so Republicans use the term in a derogatory manner.

I've heard the point made that the Democrat's identity politics caused the Trumpian identity politics as a backslash. If topics are frequently about solving issues for groups that are explicitly different from you, you get framed as the problem and frequently even prohibited from having a voice backslash is inevitable especially by people who don't agree with the problem statement in the first place. That approach is not a productive way to have any discussion.

> I've heard the point made that the Democrat's identity politics caused the Trumpian identity politics as a backslash.

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.

> the Democrat's identity politics caused the Trumpian identity politics as a backslash

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.

> 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

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.

>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).

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?

> 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.

>But how much of politics is economic theory?

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"?

> Perhaps, but how fine is the line

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.

I agree -- I think that right wing economics falls apart under debate and scrutiny (ie, it reveals itself to be based on the interests of the wealthy and powerful and to the disadvantage of the poor and middle class) and discussion is a good thing. But I haven't seen many economists becoming subject to deplatforming in the way that racist or misogynistic speakers like Ann Coulter, Milo Yiannopoulos, Richard Spencer, etc have (rightfully) been, so I don't see this as really an issue.

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.

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.

>...and men with similar stories of being on the receiving end are ignored or told to shut up and sit down.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com