Comment by 40acres | Hacker News Reader

Comment by 40acres | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> It would be one thing to make demands on the basis of unfair treatment with regards to universal principles. It's another thing to make demands * merely on the basis of identity.*

I think the problem with the term identity politics is that people have a very limited view of identity. Being white in America is apart of your identify, being gay is part of your identity, living in a big city is a part of your identity, being college educated is a a part of your identity. Each of these things and dozens more help to drive your political viewpoint and what you lobby for.

I think for the most part the political groups that have been branded as "identity politics" are all about fair treatment for all, these groups arise usually when fair treatment is not given to them specifically and so they lobby on their own behalf.

Look at Black Lives Matter, this is an organization / movement that sprung up after multiple killings of black men by police and is focused on police reform. You can call this identity politics if you want but then I would also say that Right to Life groups who protest abortion because of their Christian beliefs are also identity politics. So are PACs funded by wealthy individuals who would like to see their taxes cut. This is what I mean when I say all politics is identity politics.

I really wish I agreed with your characterization, but I don't. What I see as prototypical identity politics is something like the Why Can't We Hate Men article the Washington Post published (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-cant-we-hate-men...).

The problem is that these people aren't arguing for fair treatment. They are arguing for unfair treatment, but just unfair treatment that now favors them, and this treatment is determined by group identity (i.e. men=bad so you can hate any man).

If that's the approach, then to me it reveals that any rhetoric about fair treatment is just that, rhetoric, and what is really wanted is power.

> I really wish I agreed with your characterization, but I don't. What I see as prototypical identity politics is something like the Why Can't We Hate Men article the Washington Post published (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-cant-we-hate-men...).

The problem with this is that when you think of identity politics you think of the extreme end. Which is the main point of my original post. People equate identity politics with extremism -- my argument is that identity politics is actually at the core of all politics. You can utilize extreme rhetoric arguing any point. But if all you see is the extreme then well.. I can't help you.

But if all you see is the extreme then well.. I can't help you.

If you are indeed a part of a more moderate and nuanced politics, then I think you could help by calling out the extremists and speaking up for principles. Where people "on your side" are showing tacit approval to extremists, you should call them out.

If you can point out where the nuanced and more moderate politics are put forward from your side, then also point that out. From where I am sitting, it seems like the extreme part of "idpol" is the loudest and seemingly the most representative part.

>But if all you see is the extreme then well.. I can't help you.

I think everyone who isn't very interested in this matter is only seeing the extreme. At least that's all that seems to reach me. Maybe the identity politics people could do a better job of showing their reasonable side.

The Washington Post has sunk to a new low by publishing that despicable vile. I can't say that I'm surprised though.

Hopefully that's the case generally, but the problem is with the branch of identity politics that goes from "we've been mistreated and want that to stop" to "you share some physical trait with people from the past who did bad things, so you're bad too". The former is something that can unify (e.g. the civil rights movement of the 60's) while the latter is inherently divisive, which makes it really hard to accomplish anything.

BLM is a mixed bag as far as examples go - it's loose organization has resulted in a pretty broad message, and sometimes that message has gone well into the range of the bad type of identity politics (see e.g. https://torontosun.com/2017/02/11/black-lives-matter-co-foun... ).

This is what I mean when I say all politics is identity politics.

Our basic social instincts are designed around identity politics formed along ethnic lines. What we really need are politics around principles, however. It's the same general evolutionary lag as with our instincts around food. We are wired-up to eat as much fat and sugar as we can, whenever we can, which suited us just fine for most of our history. So too, are we wired-up to be nice to our own tribe and quite hostile to the other. In 2018, just giving into either set of basic instincts is likely to kill us, however.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com