More Race Hysteria from SJW's

[Catholic_Lady]

Can someone give me an example? Still lost... :/

The KKK or Black Panthers would have identity politics, so they have that in common.
Maybe they could use that to come together.

You mean like people from the KKK being Republican and people from the BP being Democrat? Does identity politics mean that you lean a certain way politically because of the group you are in?

[downbeatplumb]

The KKK or Black Panthers would have identity politics, so they have that in common.
Maybe they could use that to come together.

You mean like people from the KKK being Republican and people from the BP being Democrat? Does identity politics mean that you lean a certain way politically because of the group you are in?

To a certain extent.

Lets see now.

Imagine I am a white, Christian fundamentalist from the far south of the USA who is not that fond of other races, who would you think I would be most likely to vote for?

Is it more likely I would be democrat or republican?

So based on his identity you would have a good idea who he would vote for.

I think is probably the result of the lack of choice in a two party system.

[RoadRunner79]

I think that it can get to a point, where seeing racism around every corner is both unhealthy, and a form of racism itself.

This is silly.  For all the times the bigots of the world say "Islamophobia" is not racism ... here we have someone writing that disliking someone for holding a point of view is "racism".

I don't think that I said anything about disliking someones point of view as being racist.

What I mean, is that when someone sees racism in other groups for everything, and that when inane things become racist and movement for the SJW to rise up against, then I think that it both unhealthy, and a form of racism. 

This is not to be confused with being against actual racism, but imposing it, where there is not justification on a routine basis.

[Aroura]

The KKK or Black Panthers would have identity politics, so they have that in common.
Maybe they could use that to come together.

You mean like people from the KKK being Republican and people from the BP being Democrat? Does identity politics mean that you lean a certain way politically because of the group you are in?

No, it means you identify your political leaning mostly based on who you identify as, and that identity is part of a group of people with the same or similar identity. Groups who practice identity politics focus on how they are different from who they see as the majority.
It is usually, though not always, used by those who see themselves as oppressed.  

Sometimes identity politics can be harmful, but as with most things, it's difficult (and incorrect) to make a blanket statement that they are 100% useful or 100% harmful. 

Also, often times people misuse this term in order to dismiss a certain group.  You will see this tactic quite often.  Accusing them of using identity politics when they are not.  A great example is the LGTB movement, which seeks not to highligh their difference from straight people, but to underscore how they are the same  (while accepting their differences).  There are other movements (the one that calls themselves Queer, something like that), that instead focus on celebrating and highlighting the differences.

Example of a groups that practices identity politics are Trump voters (MAGAS), and Black Lives Matter, and The more radical end of those calling themselves Femenists, but NOT the moderate, mainstream feminists.

And example of a group that refused to use identity politics was the one led by Martin Luther King Jr.  He wanted full integration, and celebrated the sameness of all peoples above their differences.

(p.s. Also, the definition is fuzzy, so you will see people argue of who and who does not even use identity politics, which in my opinion, has made the term complete garbage.  Must like SJW, it is now no longer leveled only at those who engage in the actual practice of it, but anyone who identifies with a group that they wish to discredit or insult.  Which we all do, really, for instance you identify as Catholic, but I sincerely doubt you engage in any Catholic Identity Politics, even though some of your politics no doubt stem from your Catholicism.)

Hope that helped clarify things.

[Bob Kelso]

The KKK or Black Panthers would have identity politics, so they have that in common.
Maybe they could use that to come together.

You mean like people from the KKK being Republican and people from the BP being Democrat? Does identity politics mean that you lean a certain way politically because of the group you are in?

Thump said it simply and eloquently, but let me try a different way:

It's basically tribalism. It's taking your identity (your skin color, or your orientation, or religion or all of these things) and forming your views around this identity. Groups form around this concept, and you'll hear the phrase "As a *insert skin color/religion here* I feel that..." quite a bit.

Frankly, I agree with much of what Sam Harris has to say about it here: https://youtu.be/KPRhJeFNico

[henryp]

The way social media works, there's a multitude of people waiting to pounce on any story. But if you wait long enough for all the details, you won't get the likes/retweets/views/shares/kudos/whatever. The system is designed to react as quickly as possible assuming the worst you can imagine.

I don't know much about Neo, but calling him a racist, accurate or not, doesn't change the fact that the way things are set up does a huge disservice to fighting racism.

If you pull this kind of bullshit enough, people are just going to roll their eyes and tell you to fuck off. Particularly people who would probably be sympathetic to legit stories of racism, but whose personal identity doesn't revolve around posting about social justice on the internet.

I remember in 2000, when Palin was picked as the VP. And the Dems said some pretty sexist shit, McCain's team called them on it, and they got a bump. But then Obama said "lipstick on a pig" which clearly meant nothing, but they tried to add that to the pile of legitimate complaints anyway. And I remember thinking, "That's the end of that." And it was. The right was flipping out, but the middle all easily identified it as bullshit, and all the momentum was gone.

The moral, to me, is if you are in the right. If your cause in the correct one. You don't need to be hyperbolic/exaggerate/lie/etc...

It certainly is what cost Republicans the primaries, and Hillary the presidency. People just can't resist spouting bullshit.

[Catholic_Lady]

You mean like people from the KKK being Republican and people from the BP being Democrat? Does identity politics mean that you lean a certain way politically because of the group you are in?

To a certain extent.

Lets see now.

Imagine I am a white, Christian fundamentalist from the far south of the USA who is not that fond of other races, who would you think I would be most likely to vote for?

Is it more likely I would be democrat or republican?

So based on his identity you would have a good idea who he would vote for.

I think is probably the result of the lack of choice in a two party system.

So basically identity politics is political stereotype of a person based on their group.

Now what does this have to do with the false racist events linked on the OP?

---

You mean like people from the KKK being Republican and people from the BP being Democrat? Does identity politics mean that you lean a certain way politically because of the group you are in?

No, it means you identify your political leaning mostly based on who you identify as, and that identity is part of a group of people with the same or similar identity. Groups who practice identity politics focus on how they are different from who they see as the majority.
It is usually, though not always, used by those who see themselves as oppressed.  

Sometimes identity politics can be harmful, but as with most things, it's difficult (and incorrect) to make a blanket statement that they are 100% useful or 100% harmful. 

Also, often times people misuse this term in order to dismiss a certain group.  You will see this tactic quite often.  Accusing them of using identity politics when they are not.  A great example is the LGTB movement, which seeks not to highligh their difference from straight people, but to underscore how they are the same  (while accepting their differences).  There are other movements (the one that calls themselves Queer, something like that), that instead focus on celebrating and highlighting the differences.

Example of a groups that practices identity politics are Trump voters (MAGAS), and Black Lives Matter, and The more radical end of those calling themselves Femenists, but NOT the moderate, mainstream feminists.

And example of a group that refused to use identity politics was the one led by Martin Luther King Jr.  He wanted full integration, and celebrated the sameness of all peoples above their differences.

(p.s. Also, the definition is fuzzy, so you will see people argue of who and who does not even use identity politics, which in my opinion, has made the term complete garbage.  Must like SJW, it is now no longer leveled only at those who engage in the actual practice of it, but anyone who identifies with a group that they wish to discredit or insult.  Which we all do, really, for instance you identify as Catholic, but I sincerely doubt you engage in any Catholic Identity Politics, even though some of your politics no doubt stem from your Catholicism.)

Hope that helped clarify things.

Ah, ok. This was very thorough. Thank you.

[downbeatplumb]

To a certain extent.

Lets see now.

Imagine I am a white, Christian fundamentalist from the far south of the USA who is not that fond of other races, who would you think I would be most likely to vote for?

Is it more likely I would be democrat or republican?

So based on his identity you would have a good idea who he would vote for.

I think is probably the result of the lack of choice in a two party system.

So basically identity politics is political stereotype of a person based on their group.

Now what does this have to do with the false racist events linked on the OP?

---

No, it means you identify your political leaning mostly based on who you identify as, and that identity is part of a group of people with the same or similar identity. Groups who practice identity politics focus on how they are different from who they see as the majority.
It is usually, though not always, used by those who see themselves as oppressed.  

Sometimes identity politics can be harmful, but as with most things, it's difficult (and incorrect) to make a blanket statement that they are 100% useful or 100% harmful. 

Also, often times people misuse this term in order to dismiss a certain group.  You will see this tactic quite often.  Accusing them of using identity politics when they are not.  A great example is the LGTB movement, which seeks not to highligh their difference from straight people, but to underscore how they are the same  (while accepting their differences).  There are other movements (the one that calls themselves Queer, something like that), that instead focus on celebrating and highlighting the differences.

Example of a groups that practices identity politics are Trump voters (MAGAS), and Black Lives Matter, and The more radical end of those calling themselves Femenists, but NOT the moderate, mainstream feminists.

And example of a group that refused to use identity politics was the one led by Martin Luther King Jr.  He wanted full integration, and celebrated the sameness of all peoples above their differences.

(p.s. Also, the definition is fuzzy, so you will see people argue of who and who does not even use identity politics, which in my opinion, has made the term complete garbage.  Must like SJW, it is now no longer leveled only at those who engage in the actual practice of it, but anyone who identifies with a group that they wish to discredit or insult.  Which we all do, really, for instance you identify as Catholic, but I sincerely doubt you engage in any Catholic Identity Politics, even though some of your politics no doubt stem from your Catholicism.)

Hope that helped clarify things.

Ah, ok. This was very thorough. Thank you.

Yes what she said, the stereo type is there because that IS the way people vote. I'm sorry that I didn't make that clear.

[Catholic_Lady]

You mean like people from the KKK being Republican and people from the BP being Democrat? Does identity politics mean that you lean a certain way politically because of the group you are in?

Thump said it simply and eloquently, but let me try a different way:

It's basically tribalism. It's taking your identity (your skin color, or your orientation, or religion or all of these things) and forming your views around this identity. Groups form around this concept, and you'll hear the phrase "As a *insert skin color/religion here* I feel that..." quite a bit.

Frankly, I agree with much of what Sam Harris has to say about it here: https://youtu.be/KPRhJeFNico

Yeah I understand it now. Thank you.

---

I'd like to think i try to be objective in my political views and take each issue individually rather than siding one way on every issue simply because it's from a particular side.

I'm kind of in the middle, demographically, anyway. I'm an immigrant, but now a citizen; South american, but Caucasian; and middle class and catholic (both of which can go either way). Also I grew up mostly in the midwest, but it was a liberal city in the Midwest.

[Amarok]

To a certain extent.

Lets see now.

Imagine I am a white, Christian fundamentalist from the far south of the USA who is not that fond of other races, who would you think I would be most likely to vote for?

Is it more likely I would be democrat or republican?

So based on his identity you would have a good idea who he would vote for.

I think is probably the result of the lack of choice in a two party system.

So basically identity politics is political stereotype of a person based on their group.

Now what does this have to do with the false racist events linked on the OP?

---

No, it means you identify your political leaning mostly based on who you identify as, and that identity is part of a group of people with the same or similar identity. Groups who practice identity politics focus on how they are different from who they see as the majority.
It is usually, though not always, used by those who see themselves as oppressed.  

Sometimes identity politics can be harmful, but as with most things, it's difficult (and incorrect) to make a blanket statement that they are 100% useful or 100% harmful. 

Also, often times people misuse this term in order to dismiss a certain group.  You will see this tactic quite often.  Accusing them of using identity politics when they are not.  A great example is the LGTB movement, which seeks not to highligh their difference from straight people, but to underscore how they are the same  (while accepting their differences).  There are other movements (the one that calls themselves Queer, something like that), that instead focus on celebrating and highlighting the differences.

Example of a groups that practices identity politics are Trump voters (MAGAS), and Black Lives Matter, and The more radical end of those calling themselves Femenists, but NOT the moderate, mainstream feminists.

And example of a group that refused to use identity politics was the one led by Martin Luther King Jr.  He wanted full integration, and celebrated the sameness of all peoples above their differences.

(p.s. Also, the definition is fuzzy, so you will see people argue of who and who does not even use identity politics, which in my opinion, has made the term complete garbage.  Must like SJW, it is now no longer leveled only at those who engage in the actual practice of it, but anyone who identifies with a group that they wish to discredit or insult.  Which we all do, really, for instance you identify as Catholic, but I sincerely doubt you engage in any Catholic Identity Politics, even though some of your politics no doubt stem from your Catholicism.)

Hope that helped clarify things.

Ah, ok. This was very thorough. Thank you.

Good post

---

I don't know much about Neo, but calling him a racist, accurate or not, doesn't change the fact that the way things are set up does a huge disservice to fighting racism.

Which isn't the issue we have with Wooter pointing out he's using a common right wing dismal tactic and identifying it as such is useful .

---

I think that it can get to a point, where seeing racism around every corner is both unhealthy, and a form of racism itself.

Yes i'm sure people are" just seeing racism " And no that would not be racism even if true  . Seriously get off the Scott Walker crazy train .

---

It would seem then that common interest is the reason why that all of the naive and intolerant bigots appear to be the retards on the left.

Lol nope standing up to your bigoted ass Adolf is not intolerance. You don't even know what that word means .