# Identity, politics, and the in-fighting of the left **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 9, 2019, 10:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/identity-politics-and-the-in-fighting-of-the-left/843199 "2019-11-09T10:42:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 25
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2020, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/identity-politics-and-the-in-fighting-of-the-left/843199/481 "2020-07-29T20:15:01Z")
It’s a general rule. Maybe a bit of hyperbole. Probably not every single one. But most are either the enemy or bystanders (and IMO bystanding with that kind of wealth and power makes one partially culpable for the bad parts of the status quo). ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2020, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/identity-politics-and-the-in-fighting-of-the-left/843199/482 "2020-07-29T20:27:43Z")
All rich people did something unethical to get their wealth, and are also doing something unethical to keep it. How unethical depends mostly on how lucky they were. Some luck into wealth, some had to fight for it. Bill Gates is definitely one of the better ones, using his money to help, rather than to simply aggrandize himself, but it’s not like he didn’t step and stomp on some heads on his way up there. I’m not wealthy, but I give what I can. I live a pretty spartan lifestyle so that I have resources to give to others. In the last few years, those resources have grown substantially, but my standard of living has not. For the cost of what Bill Gates spends in a day, he could probably pay the yearly rent of dozens of people. That he doesn’t doesn’t make him a bad guy, but it does mean that there is a whole lotta room for him to get “better.” And, he’s probably one of the best of the wealthy. There are a number out there that do not think of money in the way that we do, as something that can be used to procure goods and services to satisfy your wants and needs, but rather as a score. And the fact that we are trying to survive in a world where the most powerful and influential are using our primary means of exchange in a game of one-upmanship hurts all of us deeply. I hear against tax increases, “Why would you start a business if you had to pay 90% tax on your profits.” and the answer is, “You’d be paying 90% tax on your income over 10 million a year. Isn’t that enough?” But, since it is not about having the resources to purchase things to satisfy wants or needs, but has become a want and a need in and of itself, it can never be satisfied. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2020, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/identity-politics-and-the-in-fighting-of-the-left/843199/483 "2020-07-29T21:07:18Z")
You know, I’ve not spent a lot of time researching how much America’s richest contribute to philanthropy. Here is what a quick search reveals: > **[From Buffett to Bloomberg: The 25 Philanthropists In America Making The...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jenniferwang/2020/01/20/from-buffett-to-bloomberg-the-25-philanthropists-in-america-making-the-biggest-donations/#4c18751f4e8f)** > > As billionaires flock to Davos to discuss issues like wealth inequality, Forbes looks at the top American philanthropists of the past five years. Many here are certainly old and white, as well as powerful. Some are less generous than others (I’m looking at you Zuckerbergs). Notably missing is Bezos, who may be the most well rounded powerful rich bastard alive today. I suppose it’s true that these folks could give a lot more and still not need to wonder where their next meal is coming from. But I think it’s important to note that there are certainly a good number of ultra rich, powerful, white people who take philanthropy quite seriously and it would behoove us all not to paint with too broad a brush or use a lot of hyperbolic language if we want to be taken seriously by those who do actually listen, care about ideas and try to evaluate arguments. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2020, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/identity-politics-and-the-in-fighting-of-the-left/843199/484 "2020-07-29T22:04:09Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > You know, I’ve not spent a lot of time researching how much America’s richest contribute to philanthropy. Here is what a quick search reveals: > [From Buffett to Bloomberg: The 25 Philanthropists In America Making The Biggest Donations](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jenniferwang/2020/01/20/from-buffett-to-bloomberg-the-25-philanthropists-in-america-making-the-biggest-donations/#4c18751f4e8f) > Many here are certainly old and white, as well as powerful. Some are less generous than others (I’m looking at you Zuckerbergs). Notably missing is Bezos, who may be the most well rounded powerful rich bastard alive today. > > I suppose it’s true that these folks could give a lot more and still not need to wonder where their next meal is coming from. But I think it’s important to note that there are certainly a good number of ultra rich, powerful, white people who take philanthropy quite seriously and it would behoove us all not to paint with too broad a brush or use a lot of hyperbolic language if we want to be taken seriously by those who do actually listen, care about ideas and try to evaluate arguments. With great wealth comes great responsibility, IMO. Just giving generously isn’t enough. For the truly wealthy, if they’re not giving away the great majority of their wealth, to help the disadvantaged and to change society for the better, then they’re not doing nearly enough to live up to their moral responsibility as humans, IMO. Live very comfortably on a million a year, plus a million in the bank for the grandkids’ education. The rest should be for the betterment of humankind. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2020, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/identity-politics-and-the-in-fighting-of-the-left/843199/485 "2020-07-29T22:46:02Z")
This seems a topic fraught with peril. I think it’s best to leave this to another thread for another time. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2020, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/identity-politics-and-the-in-fighting-of-the-left/843199/486 "2020-07-30T05:11:17Z")
> [@ISiddiqui](#): > > Isn’t the racism being openly challenged and exposed NOW? During the Trump era? But there are a lot of people who think the open racism, which is challenged and exposed, sounds pretty good. And the challenging and exposing is wrong. So I don’t actually believe it to be a false dichotomy at all - the Trump era is where racism is in the open and being openly challenged and exposed. Well, maybe we should back up a little. The starting point of this thread is my impression that discourse and debate has in many aspects given way to ostracism and denouncement, such that those holding divergent views, or are judged not to conform to in-group standards in whatever way, don’t stand so much to have these views challenged, but rather, face removal from their peer group. To some degree, this seems borne out by the above study: while during the height of McCarthyism, only about 13% of Americans felt that they had to restrict expression of their views, today, 40% do, which seems to be increasing at an alarming rate—in 2005, it was only 25%. Hence, the dichotomy between ‘welcoming racism in society’ and ‘repressing the expression of racism’—that is, have people either be racist and talk about it, or be racist and not talk about it—fails to take into account the possibility that maybe, we could have a society in which people don’t face the same threat of ostracism even if their views diverge from the mainstream. Otherwise, we’re left with the depressing conclusion that the only way to suppress racism within society is to restrict the expression of those who hold racist views. I personally think—and the other study I posted above seems to back this up—that exposure to a wide market of opinions is the only viable road to a stable society with robust moral progress. If we can keep the appearance of progress only at the cost of burying the opinions of those who fail to fall in line, then we may have only re-painted the walls when what’s necessary is a renovation of the foundations, so to speak. Things look better, but only because we’re just seeing the surface. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > I think that is the problem that we sometimes have in understanding eachother. We tend to think that people are being unethical if the are working to bring about a world that we don’t want to live in. Yes, because whether something is ethical isn’t determined by whether we like it. If somebody works to bring about a society of white suprematism, lobbying to re-instate slavery, and the like, they’re acting unethically, because they’re acting towards bringing about goals that are morally wrong. Otherwise, we simply don’t have any grounds for debate: you’ve got the society you like, and I’ve got the society I like, and both are just equally well justified, because the only justification is whether you like it. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > Morals are what we need people to do to keep society functioning. No, I disagree with that, too. The best-functioning society could be one built on rampant slave work. That would still be morally wrong. You simply can’t explicate moral good in such reductive terms; that’s just the [naturalistic fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy). > [@k9bfriender](#): > > I’m not sure what we are talking about “open debate.” With who? Where at? We are debating right now, aren’t we, openly and freely. > > Where did people use to have public debates that they are being shut out of now? Again, if the study quoted above is right, then open debate has declined drastically in recent years—even in the past 15 years, from 25% feeling they are unable to openly share their views, to now 40%. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > So, before this can go much further, I suppose we need to define some terms. What is open debate? Where does this happen? Who is not participating that used to, what is being stifled? Have you read any of the links I provided to illustrate the issue? Say the one about the knitting community, or the accompanying BBC radio documentary. I think these show rather well what’s at issue: what’s morally right is used as a purity test, and those that fail it are shunned; with ever more stringent criteria of purity, restriction of acceptable opinion becomes tighter and tighter, until either the movement collapses due to internal pressure, or the shunned organize and become themselves again a dominant factor (a ‘counter-revolution’, if you will). ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2020, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/identity-politics-and-the-in-fighting-of-the-left/843199/487 "2020-07-30T05:13:47Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > All rich people did something unethical to get their wealth, and are also doing something unethical to keep it. How so? I’d guess they want to live in a world in which they’re rich, and do their best to bring that world about. Above, you were very clear that that’s your definition of ethical action! To be quite clear: I completely agree with the sentiment. I believe that above a certain level, hoarding wealth is immoral in itself. But that’s another discussion. ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2020, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/identity-politics-and-the-in-fighting-of-the-left/843199/488 "2020-07-30T14:07:07Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > Well, maybe we should back up a little. The starting point of this thread is my impression that discourse and debate has in many aspects given way to ostracism and denouncement, such that those holding divergent views, or are judged not to conform to in-group standards in whatever way, don’t stand so much to have these views challenged, but rather, face removal from their peer group. To some degree, this seems borne out by the above study: while during the height of McCarthyism, only about 13% of Americans felt that they had to restrict expression of their views, today, 40% do, which seems to be increasing at an alarming rate—in 2005, it was only 25%. A few things. As noted all over this thread that people restrict their views all the time, especially if one owns a business or when one has family members who believe dramatically opposite things. These restriction of views is appropriate, I think most people would think. I wonder if people are thinking of these things or are responding due to the zeitgeist. It also seems to me that the big change in the numbers is that now those on the right have dealt with what those on the left have dealt with. In 2005, I’d say it was mostly left leaning people who said they had to restrict expression of their views and now right leaning people have joined them there. And yes, I do believe that it is good that people who have racist or misogynist views feel that they would be ostracized or denounced for those views. > [@](#): > > Hence, the dichotomy between ‘welcoming racism in society’ and ‘repressing the expression of racism’—that is, have people either be racist and talk about it, or be racist and not talk about it—fails to take into account the possibility that maybe, we could have a society in which people don’t face the same threat of ostracism even if their views diverge from the mainstream. Otherwise, we’re left with the depressing conclusion that the only way to suppress racism within society is to restrict the expression of those who hold racist views. > > I personally think—and the other study I posted above seems to back this up—that exposure to a wide market of opinions is the only viable road to a stable society with robust moral progress. If we can keep the appearance of progress only at the cost of burying the opinions of those who fail to fall in line, then we may have only re-painted the walls when what’s necessary is a renovation of the foundations, so to speak. Things look better, but only because we’re just seeing the surface. I used to believe this free market place of ideas stuff. I don’t think it works at all. I’ve seen too many bad ideas, which have been thoroughly and logically challenged and debunked still spread like wildfire. I find that people may believe bigoted views underneath, but socially discouraging these views prevents them from spreading wider than they would if they were in the open. And for those of us who are people of color, allowing it to be out in the open with only debate to counter it, threatens our very lives (and then when white supremacists kill others, those people blame the previous administration for causing this racial divisiveness). To use the house analogy, it’s saying don’t re-paint the walls even when there is no chance that the foundation will be fixed. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2020, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/identity-politics-and-the-in-fighting-of-the-left/843199/489 "2020-07-30T14:53:30Z")
> [@ISiddiqui](#): > > I used to believe this free market place of ideas stuff. I don’t think it works at all. I’ve seen too many bad ideas, which have been thoroughly and logically challenged and debunked still spread like wildfire. I find that people may believe bigoted views underneath, but socially discouraging these views prevents them from spreading wider than they would if they were in the open. And for those of us who are people of color, allowing it to be out in the open with only debate to counter it, threatens our very lives (and then when white supremacists kill others, those people blame the previous administration for causing this racial divisiveness). I think we’ve all heard everything we need to hear from racists and bigots of various stripes. The market place of ideas I’m talking about does not include their garbage ideologies. What I’m talking about are ideas from folks like Bill Maher and Sam Harris being shut out of the conversation. Not because they are paragons of correct liberal thought but because they have been marginalized by the left as conservatives when they are nothing of the kind, IMO. They are not always right but they have ideas worth hearing and thinking about. Sam more than Bill, as the latter is jackass as often as not. Even Jordan Peterson, whom I loath, is a voice worth giving a hearing because I find it sharpens my thoughts and resolve against the kind of conservative ideology that seem benign but can be pernicious at its core. So when he whines about being cancelled by the “neo-marxist post-modernists”, I am familiar enough with his arguments to tell him to fuck off with confidence. All this is a ‘for example’. I’m not trying to be an advocate for these three in particular. They are just the ones who come to mind as being most well known when we are talking about social and political ideologies from the left and right. If I may ask, are there any example that you can share of the, “…many bad ideas, which have been thoroughly and logically challenged and debunked still spread like wildfire”? It might help me understand where you’re coming from. ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2020, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/identity-politics-and-the-in-fighting-of-the-left/843199/490 "2020-07-30T15:38:22Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > What I’m talking about are ideas from folks like Bill Maher and Sam Harris being shut out of the conversation. Funny you bring up Bill, because I’ve used him as an example of being marginalized by the right. He lost his ABC show due to a controversy where he said the 9/11 hijackers were brave. Anyways, Maher definitely has some regressive thinking, especially when it comes to Islam. However, I haven’t seen much against him other than pointing out he has bad ideas. Has their been a concerted effort to get HBO to fire him? Because I haven’t seen that. Isn’t that, and Harris, and Peterson part of the marketplace of ideas? All I’ve seen is that these arguments are terrible against those people. > [@](#): > > If I may ask, are there any example that you can share of the, “…many bad ideas, which have been thoroughly and logically challenged and debunked still spread like wildfire”? It might help me understand where you’re coming from. I was mostly talking about racism and bigotry, which you’ve indicated that we don’t need to hear from them anymore - but some still think racists and bigots need to have their views out in the open so we can challenge them and that may make them change their minds. ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2020, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/identity-politics-and-the-in-fighting-of-the-left/843199/491 "2020-07-30T15:56:29Z")
> [@ISiddiqui](#): > > As noted all over this thread that people restrict their views all the time, especially if one owns a business or when one has family members who believe dramatically opposite things. These restriction of views is appropriate, I think most people would think. I wonder if people are thinking of these things or are responding due to the zeitgeist. It also seems to me that the big change in the numbers is that now those on the right have dealt with what those on the left have dealt with. In 2005, I’d say it was mostly left leaning people who said they had to restrict expression of their views and now right leaning people have joined them there. Let me expand on this. I am totally sure that my mother in law would say that she has to ‘restrict expression of her views’, because for the first time ever she’s been called on her racism. So now she talks about how she has to police her views because her daughters are going to jump all over her. For example, a big hubbub was Juneteenth in 2019 when she said she was celebrating it on Facebook and posted a picture of fried chicken and watermelon… and then got all mad when her daughters told her that was racist and she should take it down. She enjoys talking about being censored on Facebook for things like that to this day. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2020, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/identity-politics-and-the-in-fighting-of-the-left/843199/492 "2020-07-30T16:09:44Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > All rich people did something unethical to get their wealth, and are also doing something unethical to keep it. TBH this has always sounded more like an Article Of Faith (something about camels and needles comes to mind) than like a political position, but “at least it’s an ethos”. And yeah, the whole “it’s better to have it out in the open” thing – as mentioned, there’s “having it out in the open” and succesfully refuted, and there’s “having it out in the open” and just allowing it to be, because “I got my right to an opinion, man!”. We’ve discovered to our displeasure that correction and refutation is too often received with either intensified counter-pushback or with passive-aggressive assumption of victimhood. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2020, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/identity-politics-and-the-in-fighting-of-the-left/843199/493 "2020-07-30T16:15:28Z")
Yeah, my mom got a bit sheepish when I corrected her on the use of “Oriental”. In her defense, she doesn’t use social media at all so I’m not sure how she would have received the memo. ---
**Author:** ![Delayed\_Reflex](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/delayed_reflex/32/3172_2.png) [@Delayed\_Reflex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Delayed_Reflex)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2020, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/identity-politics-and-the-in-fighting-of-the-left/843199/494 "2020-07-30T17:42:44Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Maybe I’m being a bit too strident as well. “Cancel culture” is a thing. But I think it’s mostly reflective of progress – I think there’s always been some version of it, and it’s just that now the playing field is more level. Maybe some folks take it too far. But also, some folks whine about being criticized. > > And more worrisome to me, some “moderates” are allying with some of the worst of the worst – whether it’s with misogynists, homophobes, and patriarchs to bash trans people, or with white supremacists in the name of free speech, or similar. That’s where I think this is scariest – it’s another lever for the wealthy and hateful to use to divide. Anonymous assholes dropping threats and such is bad, but that’s never going away as long as we have the internet. > > Once again, who is the real enemy? The wealthy, the powerful, the influential, the bigoted… a group that’s mostly white, and mostly male, and mostly Western, and mostly “traditional”… those are the bad guys. Not liberals, not leftists, not “allies”. They’re always the bad guys, on this and every other issue. So do you believe it is not possible to agree with your “enemy” on anything? I feel like you don’t seem to grasp the possibility that a lot of people are only “allying” with the worst of the worst on this specific issue of whether an environment conducive to open discourse is being threatened - we are not agreeing with them on anything else. What other issues, exactly, are moderates aligning with “the enemy” on? Here’s an analogy for you: I think chemical weapons are abhorrent and should be banned from any sort of use. Nazis, who extensively used chemical weapons against jews, are now having chemical weapons used against them and are now calling for their ban. Am I suddenly allied with the Nazis because now both of us are against the use of chemical weapons? It doesn’t matter if the Nazis are being hypocritical about their stance against chemical weapons since they used them in the past, or if you are dubious whether the Nazis are actually against the use of chemical weapons or they just don’t like them used against themselves. The point is some people think chemical weapons (or cancel culture) are a bad thing, even if used against Nazis. Others think chemical weapons may be OK to use in the most extreme cases (eg. perhaps against actual Nazis), but feel like they are being over-used (I think I fall more in this category wrt. cancel culture) - eg. chemical weapons are being used against regular German citizens, the Swiss, and Americans who are against entering the war against the Nazis, or even soldiers fighting the Nazis who made an innocuous comment complementing Nazi architecture. Your stance is coming across as “it’s sweet that chemical weapons are being used against Nazis now, who cares that anti-war Americans are also getting gassed, Jewish people have been getting gassed for ages”. The other thing is that it’s NOT just rich white men getting “cancelled” - the reality is that you mainly get “cancelled” by your own side. Look at what has happened with Contrapoints, Nick Cannon, etc. - it’s not the attacks from the “enemy” that is problematic, it’s your previous supporters either throwing you under the bus or being afraid to stand up for you that is so devastating to them. People also seem to be more cynical these days, always assuming some offensive statement is borne out of malice instead of ignorance, that apologies are not genuine, or that any form of association with “the enemy” makes you one of them. Your last statement of “the wealthy, the powerful, the influential, the bigoted” as being “always the bad guys” is such black and white thinking that really seems like a problematic attitude to have… unless you are fine with basically everyone being the enemy. The poor, immigrants, POC, they all have their fair share of bigots and “traditional” views. You don’t have to agree with someone on everything to be their ally - and I think if more people in society had this viewpoint the world would be a better place. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2020, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/identity-politics-and-the-in-fighting-of-the-left/843199/495 "2020-07-30T22:52:20Z")
> [@Delayed\_Reflex](#): > > So do you believe it is not possible to agree with your “enemy” on anything? I feel like you don’t seem to grasp the possibility that a lot of people are only “allying” with the worst of the worst on this specific issue of whether an environment conducive to open discourse is being threatened - we are not agreeing with them on anything else. What other issues, exactly, are moderates aligning with “the enemy” on? > > Here’s an analogy for you: I think chemical weapons are abhorrent and should be banned from any sort of use. Nazis, who extensively used chemical weapons against jews, are now having chemical weapons used against them and are now calling for their ban. Am I suddenly allied with the Nazis because now both of us are against the use of chemical weapons? It doesn’t matter if the Nazis are being hypocritical about their stance against chemical weapons since they used them in the past, or if you are dubious whether the Nazis are actually against the use of chemical weapons or they just don’t like them used against themselves. The point is some people think chemical weapons (or cancel culture) are a bad thing, even if used against Nazis. Others think chemical weapons may be OK to use in the most extreme cases (eg. perhaps against actual Nazis), but feel like they are being over-used (I think I fall more in this category wrt. cancel culture) - eg. chemical weapons are being used against regular German citizens, the Swiss, and Americans who are against entering the war against the Nazis, or even soldiers fighting the Nazis who made an innocuous comment complementing Nazi architecture. Your stance is coming across as “it’s sweet that chemical weapons are being used against Nazis now, who cares that anti-war Americans are also getting gassed, Jewish people have been getting gassed for ages”. But “canceling” just means not reading, not shopping, not listening, not watching (and encouraging others to do the same)… it’s not remotely comparable to WMDs. As for moderates - most are just fine. Only a relative few (and I doubt their commitment to centrism given the following) are allying with the truly despicable. I’m talking about assholes like Sam Harris, who (for example) insists on both giving a platform to and refraining from criticizing white supremacist pseudoscientific assholes like Charles Murray. I don’t think it’s because Harris is evil - I suspect his ego is such that he sees criticism from liberals as so terrifying that he rationalizes that any such criticism is illegitimate, and this anyone else criticized similarly must be legitimate and correct. But it doesn’t matter why - functionally, Harris is aiding and abetting white supremacists. At other times he criticizes them… but that’s not nearly enough. And there are many more like Harris, lending legitimacy to other assholes, most commonly the big daddy asshole of the present, Trump. There’s no excuse for this right not, not when the country is in so much peril right now. Some of these supposed moderates have, at least partially, come around. But that’s not enough. It should take years and years of penance to make up for such colossal and dangerous stupidity. And we need to remember this whenever the Republicans wake up, if they do - a single apology isn’t enough. None of the Trump enablers should get so much as a TV talking head paycheck from decent media in the coming years, even if they’re willing to denounce what they’ve done in the past. These aren’t normal times. > [@](#): > > Your last statement of “the wealthy, the powerful, the influential, the bigoted” as being “always the bad guys” is such black and white thinking that really seems like a problematic attitude to have… unless you are fine with basically everyone being the enemy. The poor, immigrants, POC, they all have their fair share of bigots and “traditional” views. You don’t have to agree with someone on everything to be their ally - and I think if more people in society had this viewpoint the world would be a better place. I’m taking about the forces that have shaped society for generations. That’s not the poor, or minorities, or immigrants. That’s the fatcats - billionaires and corporate CEOs. Using bigotry to manipulate and maintain their power and control. I want them to be afraid - so afraid that they embrace progressive policies because they come to believe the alternative is the guillotine. That means decent society needs to see them for what they are - the enemies of decency. At least until our society is significantly remade for the better. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2020, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/identity-politics-and-the-in-fighting-of-the-left/843199/496 "2020-07-30T23:30:49Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > And there are many more like Harris, lending legitimacy to other assholes, most commonly the big daddy asshole of the present, Trump. Is this just more strident hyperbole? Because if not, I’m considering recalibrating the squelch on much of the rest. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2020, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/identity-politics-and-the-in-fighting-of-the-left/843199/497 "2020-07-30T23:39:28Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > Is this just more strident hyperbole? > > Because if not, I’m considering recalibrating the squelch on much of the rest. I can name several off the top of my head - Alan Dershowitz, Jonathan Turley, Rod Dreher, Jordan Peterson, Will Hurd, Susan Collins, even Mitt Romney, though he has at least taken very significant and meaningful steps and sacrifices towards rationality and decency, unlike most of the others. There are plenty more. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2020, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/identity-politics-and-the-in-fighting-of-the-left/843199/498 "2020-07-30T23:44:13Z")
Agreed on the above. I’m just surprised to find you throwing Harris in with them. He has certainly spent significant time debating Jordan Peterson but my impression from those debates is that they had little in common except the willingness to have a conversation. Mostly they politely talked past one another. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2020, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/identity-politics-and-the-in-fighting-of-the-left/843199/499 "2020-07-31T00:00:02Z")
Maybe I hold Harris to a higher standard because he should know better. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2020, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/identity-politics-and-the-in-fighting-of-the-left/843199/500 "2020-07-31T00:03:52Z")
Know better about what? It’s been my experience that he goes to great pains to condemn bigotry, racism, Trump, etc. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/identity-politics-and-the-in-fighting-of-the-left/843199.md?page=24) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/identity-politics-and-the-in-fighting-of-the-left/843199.md?page=26)