Yes, these tactics can be used for good or evil. I’m in favor of them being used for good, and against them being used for evil.
It’s a slur now?
That’s easy to say. It honestly is. But are you aware of how many horrific religious wars have been fought where each side could claim to be “good”?
I haven’t advocated for any kind of violence.
I’ve shared my thoughts in the relevant thread. I think this is a case of some folks looking to feel offended. Sure the word is almost always used with intent to disrespect. But it’s barely a tap in a much bigger fight between the left and right ideologies, and we (libs) ought not give it the importance it doesn’t deserve. Give better than we get and focus on far more important things than the merest slight by some right wing mouth-breathing troglodytes who think they can insult libs by dropping two letters off the end of a word. Thin skinned and triggered is no way to win these fights.
No you personally haven’t, you are just joyfully leading yourself and others down a path that will likely result in it.
I think they call that plausible deniability.
Says a random internet stranger, without any evidence or even an argument. I’m unconvinced.
The random internet stranger who reads your postings meanwhile plugging your ears saying “but not me”
Still no actual argument. Do you really expect me to believe a random stranger questioning my motives without even making an argument?
He’s not questioning your motives.
He is telling you what they are.
Identity politics is a bad strategy for forming a coalition. It emphasizes the differences between people instead of their similarities. Infighting will follow in that circumstance. I pointed out 4 years ago how this failed the Democratic Party, when the party wasn’t perceived to be catering to a particular identity those people felt left out and resentful.
You seem to be saying two things at once. That identity politics is a bad strategy and that failing to cater to a particular identity resulted in people feeling left out.
Look brother, and k9 as well. I don’t need to convince you, I am just letting you know what I see. If that doesn’t matter to either of you, that is completely fine. I will go on, and you will go on.
However, if you are truly interested in changing the world, and convincing the “other” 50% of people that what you hold dear is really the best, it isn’t working.
I think how I read that post is that because of identity politics, that fail to capture everyone, some people will invariably be left out.
Without an actual argument, no, this doesn’t matter to me in the least. If you want to make an argument, I’m certainly willing to listen.
Then how on Earth did Trump win? He certainly made no effort at all to “capture everyone” with his message. Are supposed “identity politics” only bad when practiced by Democrats?
Because of the two in groups, there is more solidarity among the GOP (which isn’t necessarily a good thing). And I suppose they did a better job at catering to the middle.
I do believe that conservatives (not all of whom are outright bigots) offer better cover to bigots of various stripes. In that sense, I believe the GOP played their own game of identity politics to obvious effect.
Yes I am, because they aren’t mutually exclusive, and one inevitably follows the other. Voters act like children. It doesn’t matter if the party actually caters to any group, it’s the perception within that group that matters. One group may perceive they are not getting enough attention or that another group is getting too much, either way the infighting will occur.
That’s because they aren’t trying to form a coalition, they have focused on what they consider a majority identity.