No, we get it. We can actually read what you wrote. Somebody on the left mis-characterized the entire left with a broad brush and you happily joined in because it fits in with your caricature view of the left. Which is quite ironic in context of the comment about how ‘the left can’t articulate an accurate position of the right’.
ETA: ninja’d.
No, it’s an example of what the OP was talking about.
Sure, it’s possible. It isn’t what is happening in this thread, but it’s possible.
If you would like to explain how the thread isn’t an example of in-fighting on the left, feel free, but you have a job on your hands. Because the posts are right here in the thread.
Like I said, it is kind of entertaining to watch people engaging in sniping and sealioning and infighting in a thread where they deny that it is a problem. So carry on.
Regards,
Shodan
The OP does not insist that “the left has set up a victimization hierarchy, and anyone lower in the hierarchy is presumed to be less oppressed than someone claiming a higher rank, and has to defer to the more-oppressed based on that alone”.
I’m not sure where you got that from, but it’s not this thread. If you think it is, I invite you to specifically quote the part of it you believe this accurately characterizes.
Why would I do that? My dispute with you was about your “victimization hierarchy” quote, not some vague notion of “in-fighting on the left”. Sure, there’s in-fighting on the left, and on the right, and in pretty much every other group in human existence.
Right… hmm, who benefits from encouraging liberals to hold their breath and sit it out until perfection is achieved…
I didn’t in fact read it, no. I collected a few google hits that I hoped might help illustrate that yes, there’s such a thing as people leaving the left because of infighting going on. Since that’s however not my actual topic here, I didn’t put too much effort into it, and shouldn’t really have engaged it in the first place.
I don’t think it’s reasonable to deny that there is a focus on identity. I did point to Germany’s ‘Identitäre Bewegung’, I did point to Lilla’s article, and use of the term ‘identity politics’ basically exploded since the nineties.
Yet, you are asking for cites on the entirely wrong issues—those I’ve explicitly disavowed in the OP, namely, the fractionalization on the left. Hence, my unwillingness to expend much effort hunting for them.
I’ve tried to explain to you that seeking common ground on an issue means actually addressing that issue, rather than just checking for alignment on some set of value statements that are important to you:
Think about this. Pretend we’re discussing the radius of the proton. Would you consider it ‘seeking common ground’ to inquire what soccer team I support? No, because it’s irrelevant on the issue. You might, instead, inquire about which methods of measurement I support, and so on.
In the same way, it’s not ‘seeking common ground’ to try and get me to commit to some particular view on cultural appropriation in a thread that’s just not about cultural appropriation.
It. Does. Not. Matter. What. Your. Cause. Is.
This thread is about how to effectively further causes, how identities are formed around causes, and how different causes lead to different identity constructs. I have posited that we derive our identity from associating, respectively dissassociating, with social groups. I’ve also posited that different causes yield differently robust identities, and that hence, how well a cause does in providing identity constructs may influence the success of that cause—thus, understanding this relationship may help further the cause.
Am I convinced any of this is right? No—those are the things I was hoping to discuss. Not cultural appropriation, veganism, nuclear power, or whether Man United is going to win the Sports Cup.
That’s nice, but what’s the relevance of that? How does the fact that these are important issues to you require me to provide my stance on them?
Again, why is this ‘common ground’ relevant? Would you start by trying to establish my opinion on these matters if we were discussing soccer instead?
No. Among the first things you did was to question whether what I claimed where important issues to me actually are important to me—scratch that, you flat out claimed they’re not. Then you prompted me to ally with you, and asked me whether I stood with you. That’s literally what you led with, so so much for your claim that this isn’t about allegiance.
This is why I didn’t ask you to take that at face value, but rather used verbiage like ‘Let’s for the moment suppose’—i. e. explicitly framed it as a hypothetical. I was trying to illustrate.
No. Since you’re such a stickler for words, read the bit you quoted back to me again: I’m not asking you to reach out, I’m asking you to not dismiss them as human beings. I also said that if nobody reaches out, then the prospects for reform dim considerably; but that’s not asking you to reach out.
No. But I shouldn’t have engaged you in the diversion that is the whole issue of infighting hurting the left/gender/race issues and where I stand on them, but I did, because I was frankly a little miffed about you just flat out denying that what’s important to me actually is important to me. Still, it’s my fuckup, and I own it; doesn’t mean I can’t try to explain it.
:shrugs: I quoted the example right there in the post to which you responded. If you didn’t see it, re-posting it won’t help.
Regards,
Shodan
Actually it doesn’t; because, as usual, the argument you pointed at was referring to a classic nutpick (Pointing at an extreme leftist radio personality is as effective as pointing that Rush Limbaugh totally represents what the right is in America). Cites like that ensnare guys like Half Man Half Wit into thinking that the issue is as clear as he thinks when in reality it comes from the efforts from the right wing media to convince many that that is what the left or liberals or the Democratic party are all about.
Right, OK, I think we need to revisit that, because I’m not actually prepared to let this stand like that. I said:
The background to this is that lots of debates, lots of discussions end up with both parties angry at one another, and neither any closer to the other’s point of view, or even an understanding thereof. (Cite: this entire goddamn forum.) I think this becomes explicable, if we think of things in terms of the construction of identity: we like to pretend that our views are arrived at by dispassionate reasoning, that we hold a particular opinion because it’s the most reasonable one, given what we know. That sort of theory spectacularly fails to explain the lack of result from reasoned debate.
Hence, I believe it might be better to allow for the notion that people don’t just *have *viewpoints, in a sense, they *are *their viewpoints, and thus, even a factual attack on some viewpoint is never just that, but also an attack on the person holding that viewpoint. I think if we keep that in mind, we stand a greater chance at actually finding (relevant!) common ground, at concentrating on the ways we and our opponent are alike, rather than those in which we are different.
Again, that might be utterly wrong-headed, and you’re free to argue against it. But instead, you responded with:
That is, there are those who have a right to speak, and those who need to listen. And I’m one of the latter. My opinion—no matter if it’s right or wrong—thus doesn’t enter into the discourse. It’s not subject to consideration, criticism or correction—it should not, in fact, be spoken. I have no right to speak it.
So not only did you, in your first reply to me, deny that I actually hold the values I do, you also denied my right to speak out on my values. And you’re really surprised that I’m getting the impression that you will only allow me to speak if I can demonstrate my right, in your eyes, to do so, by demonstrating the right sorts of values?
I’m not being facetious, or accusatory, here. I’m trying to explain how you come across. I think this sort of impression is hard to avoid, just reading what you wrote here. If it’s mistaken, then I’m wrong, probably not the first time. But, and that sorta ties this back to the topic of the OP, that impression, that perception is a real thing, and it influences the debate, or even whether there is one in the first place.
So you can LOL about this all you like—I’m always glad to provide some (apparently much needed) levity. But that’s how things looked to me, and I don’t think I’m being entirely unreasonable in that.
And no. I’m not trying to play the victim here. I’m not whining that the bad person told me to shut up, I’m trying to explain that I understood you as telling me so, not wholly without cause, and got angry as a result. Whether you appreciate that or not isn’t my concern.
What you quoted doesn’t support your argument, because you misunderstood and mischaracterized it. You know, that thing that you says happens pretty frequently. It’s okay – I’m sure I get conservative arguments wrong sometimes. It’s okay if you got a liberal argument wrong. Not that big a deal, and not that big a deal to say “oops, I guess I mischaracterized or misunderstood this argument”.
Two examples that might fit the OP’s criteria of infighting among the left:
White Gay Men are Hindering Our Progress as a Queer Community
How Black Lives Matter Halted a Gay Pride Parade in Toronto
And going a little against my own better judgement here, now that I’ve had a little more time for googling, what’s so terribly wrong about this article, for instance: Why identity politics benefits the right more than the left? There seem to be a couple of points raised that are akin to some of mine:
…besides the obvious that everyone else has pointed out:
You’ve quoted me out of context. I was replying to this:
I mirrored Half Man Half Wit’s use of the words “right way” in my response. I’ve done that throughout the thread. My replies are always in the context of the post I am responding too, and it mirrors the original usage. What is the “wrong way” to discuss cultural appropriation? Well for starters making the assumption that Tangata Whenua and Nga Puhi are merely “ethnic names.” They are genealogy. They are whakapapa.
And secondly:
There is no victimization hierarchy. I’m not “the left.” Thats a label, an identity that you have put on me. “The left”, by and large, don’t understand what cultural appropriation is. The monolithic entity collectively known as “the left” are largely and understandably ignorant of the issues at play. The monolithic entity collectively known as “the right” not only are largely and understandably ignorant of the issues at play, they are generally also dismissive and pretty fucking rude about it as well.
And this is why the OP is wrong. I don’t stop being Maori just because I agree with a lot of the issues on the left. I’m not going to compromise who I am for the sake of a pretence of unity. Disagreeing with each other is a basic trait of humanity. If that meant the destruction of the left it would have already happened long ago.
Its not about “the truth or falsehood” of the proposition. You are perfectly entitled to disagree with a proposition. But if you disagree with a proposition based on strawman positions and outright fabrications, if you disagree because you refuse to listen to people who are directly affected by that proposition, if you refuse to make an effort to understand what indigenous intellectual property rights are and why they are important to indigenous peoples, then you are disagreeing out of ignorance.
…your link doesn’t work for me.
But what do you think it was that exploded the use of the term “identity politics?” Was it people on the left bandying it around as a “term of honour” or was it people on the right using it as a sledgehammer to “attack the liberals?” The focus on the word was because it was being used to attack the left. If you remove that entirely from the discussion then what do you have left after that?
Yet you continued to provide those cites. That isn’t my fault. Just provide the cites to back up what you claim you want this thread to be about already and forget about the rest.
“Seeking common ground on an issue” is different to “addressing an issue.” They literally aren’t the same thing.
You accused me, in a pretty baseless attack that you still haven’t apologised for, of this:
Think about this. Pretend that I had asked you what your opinions were on gender identity and cultural appropriation. Then after I had asked you those questions you **accused me **of not trying to find what common ground we have, where we differ, whether we can reasonably differ or whether those differences signal a true opposition of core values. Imagine my confusion. Imagine how more confused I got as you tried to pretend that you never said what you said. You were indignant that I didn’t try to find common ground. Then when I pointed out to you that I had tried to find common ground you literally changed the definition of what “seeking common ground” actually means.
Well we don’t have to pretend. Because that is exactly what you have done.
I don’t want you to commit to “a particular view on cultural appropriation.” What gives you that idea? How do you get that from me asking what is your opinion on something? Something is either your opinion or it isn’t. Just be honest. That’s all I wanted.
In. The. Context. Of. Your. Response. It. Did.
and i disagree that one necessarily has to compromise your value system and identity in order to effectively further your cause.
A black man in America doesn’t form their identity around “Black Lives Matter.” A black man in America forms their identity though their life experiences, through the experiences of people like him.
I think you’ve got these the wrong way around.
Well now the cite game begins in earnest. What evidence do you have to support what you posit?
I haven’t stopped you discussing anything in this thread. You can skim past my replies. You don’t have to respond to me! I’m not stopping you doing whatever you want to in this thread.
I don’t require your stance on issues that are important to me. Your question to me was " I declare my position on** gender and race,** but not on vegetarianism, organic farming, and the like?" You asked why gender and race but not vegetarianism and organic farming. The relevance of that is that it was the answer to your question of why I focused on one thing and not the other.
If we were discussing soccer then yes I would ask questions about what soccer team you liked and why.
And common ground is relevant because you accused me of not even trying to seek common ground. It was relevant enough for you to use it as an attack.
Well are they? A yes or no will suffice.
LOL. No I didn’t. I said “Are you my ally? Do you stand with me and if you don’t, why not? Is it my responsibility to compromise?” It was a rhetorical question directed at something that you had said.
Well I’m glad you bought this back up again because the point of that question was to address this issue of “allegiance.” Being an ally means you “they will act together, and protect one another.” Allegiance is about “loyalty and support for a ruler, country, group, or belief.” You act as if the two words have the same meaning: they do not.
My very best friend has very different political beliefs to me. He saw me for the first time in about a year over the weekend and he greeted me by saying “Hello you Black Bastard C$%t, how the fuck are you?” We have numerous political disagreements, especially over matters of race, and class, over pretty much anything. We don’t align in pretty much every way you could imagine. He doesn’t swear “allegiance” to me and I don’t demand that of him.
But over the weekend he did a thing for me. In context most people would see what he did as a small thing. But for me? I own a small business. And its been a very rough month. It was unsolicited. And this little gesture made all the difference in the world to me. I had no idea how I was going to get through to “invoice day.”
That’s the distinction between “allegiance” and “allyship.” We don’t have to see eye to eye for you to be an ally. You don’t have to pass a litmus test. It isn’t about loyalty. Its about protection.
Another example. The poster octopus has political views that are very different to me. I could probably argue with them all day here. But the other day when they were getting hounded in a baseless attack I stood up for them.
This is entirely my point. We don’t have to agree for you to be an ally. These arbitrary labels of “left” and “right” are labels that you have imposed on this discussion. Remove those labels and all we have is disagreement. I disagree with as many people on the left about cultural appropriation as I do people on the right. Most Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists would consider themselves as “lefties” even though they hold values that many would consider align with the extreme alt-right.
I don’t demand your allegiance. It was a simple fucking question that asked your opinion on something. I’m one of the few posters on these boards who actively defended Starving Artist and **Clothalump **for fucks sakes.
You obviously don’t know me very well. I don’t like hypotheticals. I tend to not argue hypotheticals: especially when you presented that example as something that actually happened.
At the moment the strongest example you’ve provided in this thread is based on an interaction between an author and what was probably a troll. Just reflect on that for a minute. Look at how many words you’ve written here, and how many real world examples you’ve been able to produce. And when I challenged the real world context of one of the few examples you produced you want to frame it as a hypothetical to avoid the real world context. Do you not see the disparity? You don’t see the problem with your argument? You aren’t starting to consider that maybe there might be something wrong with your thesis?
I know what you wrote. I also know the question that I asked you. Your response was remarkably cruel. It missed the nuance of my question entirely. You just don’t understand that this isn’t a hypothetical discussion about imaginary scenarios. For many people this isn’t a discussion we can have in the abstract. In the real world peoples lives are on the line. The Trump administration have already stripped several of the rights of transgender people. They are stacking the courts and there is a very good possibility that the Supremes could decide that they won’t get those rights back. If the “monolithic left” don’t stand up for them, then why is it wrong that they stand up for themselves? If they disagree with the “monolithic left’s” strategy, are they wrong to express that disagreement?
So when I ask you “So you don’t want me to dismiss people who hold white supremacist views out of hand?” and you respond with a waffly answer about “reaching out” and “treating proto-Hitlers as human” it becomes pretty obvious you didn’t read nor understand my question. Why do I dismiss white supremacy out-of-hand? Because white supremacists want to kill me.
You could have cleared it up by stopping being evasive. I even more convinced now than I was then that you don’t think these issues are more important than compromise. You’ve done nothing to dissuade me of that notion.
…LOL
I’m not angry at you. Are you angry at me? Then that’s a problem you have to deal with. These are debate forums. We debate here. I’m not expecting a “result.”
These are two separate issues. My viewpoints are formed by my life experiences. But I don’t see an attack on my viewpoint to be an attack on me. That would be silly! Its why we have Great Debates and its why we have the BBQ Pit. I understand the distinction. These are debate forums. We debate here.
No, I don’t think we need to do that. I’m attacking your arguments. I’m not attacking you. I fundamentally disagree with your premise. Hence the debate.
You’ve taken the wrong thing away from that. If you do see my attacks on your argument as indistinguishable from an attack on your viewpoint, and in turn you are incapable of not seeing that as a personal attack, then the problem isn’t the debate. You have every right to say whatever the fuck you want to say. But if I argue against your viewpoint, and if you see that argument as a personal attack, what is it you want me to do about that? I’m not going to change the way I debate. If it hurts you to have your thesis questioned then perhaps the best course of action is to step away from the debate.
What values on the topics of gender identity and cultural appropriation do you have?
This…never happened.
LOL.
I can’t “not allow you to speak.” How would I do that exactly? Together we’ve written enough words in this thread to write a fucking novel. Do you really think I’m trying to stop you from speaking? The easiest way for me to get you to stop you speaking would be to walk away from the thread. (and with real life intervening, that is probably something I will have to do.)
Well yeah. You are wrong. And it isn’t the first time. And the reasons you are wrong about me are exactly the same reasons why you are wrong in the OP. You aren’t arguing against the things that I’m saying but you are arguing with the perception of what I am saying.
LOL.
Well yeah, you are being unreasonable. These are debate forums, we debate here. I can’t help if you perceive my arguments as an attack.
You really really really don’t understand me at all. I would **never **think that an honest expression of your feelings is you “playing the victim.” I appreciate your candor. It puts the rest of your responses into context. I am relentless in debate. That’s just who I am. I enjoy a good stoush. 
But nothing I’ve said here has ever intended to be personal. I will not apologise for the manner in which I debate, and if I can continue in this thread I’ll warn you right now that my debating style is not going to change.
But mate, here’s the thing. You really forced me to step up a gear 
Do you know how hard it is to respond to everything you’ve written here? You’ve debated really well and on occasion tied me up in knots I had to pull out all stops on you: you’ve been subjected to “Banquet Bear unleashed”. No wonder you took that as an attack You have been a formidable opponent and you have my respect. I salute you.
More succinctly, Identity Politics benefits racists and people who benefit from racist systems.
It never ceases to boggle my mind to see people talking non stop about race, constantly drawing distinctions among people and simultaneously bemoaning racism, it’s like that joke about the man who went to the psychologist for a Rorschach test and was offended by the doctor showing him all those lewd pictures.
You think the problems of racism can be addressed without recognizing and discussing racial categories and stereotypes? That’s like that joke about the man who went to the doctor because he was feeling so awful and was offended by the doctor asking him all those “personal questions” about his symptoms.
Racism does not just go away if we pretend not to notice it and refuse to talk about it.
No. As I said, I came to this from reading a book of essays by scholars firmly arguing from a left-wing perspective (though that shouldn’t be relevant) whose subtitle is ‘Identity Politics between Defense, Isolation, and Alliances’, which got me to wonder about the role identity, as something socially constructed, plays in recent political disputes.
I formulated a hypothesis, a model I thought capable of explaining some of the otherwise puzzling features of clashes between individuals, which don’t really follow the model of ‘dispassionate, rational discourse’ very well. In that, I came to some similar conclusions as are presented in this Guardian article I cited above:
I think what’s said in the last part of the quote more generally applies to left- and right-wing interest groups—left-wing identity, which is (more) wrought from similarity in opinion in as much as it is relevant to left-wing politics, needs more work to be upheld than right-wing identity, forged from similarity of race, gender, and so on.
I didn’t say it was. Going down this misleading side-track, however, is.
So what about that Guardian article? Granted, I don’t know if the author is just some ‘old person yelling get off my lawn’, or whether they’ve said something approving about somebody you think nobody should say something approving about, or whether there’s lots of people debating their claims (which, in and of itself, shows the necessity of this debate…). But again, that this shouldn’t be relevant to the actual content is my point here.
I haven’t apologized for this, because you’re mischaracterizing it. I didn’t ask for common ground, and then rejected your inquiries; you questioned my values, then asked me to reaffirm them, and I asked you to seek common ground relevant to the issue. We’re discussing the proton’s size. You’re asking my soccer team preferences, and claiming that’s trying to find common ground. No: it isn’t.
You didn’t, though. You straight up led with the insinuation that what I had claimed were important issues to me, actually aren’t. Now, why would you do that? The idea I’ve been proposing in this thread has an easy answer: if I were to hold these things important, we’d be aligned on that point. This is a threat to you, because you perceive me, rightly or wrongly, as critical. Hence, your immediate reaction is to try to push me out of your in-group, into the role of other. Because then what I have to say becomes much easier to handle: I’m just one of ‘them’, not one of ‘us’ failing to get with, and hence endangering, the program.
Again, that may be the wrong way of looking at it; but nothing in the rest of your responses so far has done anything to dispel that impression.
I can see your confusion, and I have been, for the last dozen posts or so, trying to dispel it: if what you’re doing is trying to find common ground, you’re trying to find it on the wrong issue.
I was honest in the OP; you straight up stated you didn’t believe me. Why should I expect you to believe me now? Why didn’t you in the first place?
No.
That’s nice, but nobody asks you to. What I’m advocating isn’t in any form a compromise on your value system; on the presumption that you’d want your value system seen adopted more widely, it’s an attempt to understand what pitfalls we face in making that come true, and how perhaps to avoid them. One of these is for instance something like this:
Do you think that this is forcing you to compromise on your values?
This is a valid point. The left isn’t completely free in choosing their identity, either, because we all exist in a climate where certain of these choices are forced upon us. I don’t think it completely invalidates my idea, though: surely, the goal ultimately should be to overcome the climate in which this choice is made for you; but then, we still need to figure out how best to construct identities for ourselves in that setting. And I still think basing them on a ‘self’ vs. ‘other’ construct is something we at least need to critically evaluate.
Think of these things as axioms. I postulate them, to see where that leads; if they lead to something unacceptable, then the posits must be revised. That’s why I posted this discussion: to see if these posits hold up.
Besides, this sort of on the spot-ism really isn’t doing your argument any good. This isn’t scholarly debate; it’s an exchange of opinions. I was soliciting opinions and offering mine, giving what I think is a reasoned argument for it.
Yes, but the point is that vegetarianism and organic farming are just as irrelevant to the thrust of this discussion as gender issues are, yet you seem to think my views on the latter to matter here for some reason: they don’t.
But we’re not. Perhaps a better analogy is discussing soccer strategies, where you keep asking what teams I support: it’s just entirely the wrong issue.
Common ground on the relevant issues, for Christ’s sake. Soccer team favorites are not common ground relevant to a discussion of soccer strategies—except perhaps in example.
I already said they are, didn’t I? You claimed that I was lying about that. What good does another ‘yes’ do now?
A rhetorical question is typically something relevant to the topic. If I ask, ‘What have the Romans ever done for us?’, I’m not just echoing that into empty air, I’m intending to say they haven’t done anything, and that’s what this is about. So how else am I to take you rhetorically questioning whether I’m your ally than as claiming I’m not?
I act as if I believed you have allegiance to your allies. If that’s not the right way to use this words, apologies, it’s not my first language.
Again, it wasn’t, and it’s important that you see the difference: you started out claiming I’d lied about what’s important to me, and questioning whether I was allied with you. In the context of that, your ‘simple fucking question’ is anything but.
I was trying to illustrate the difference between what you’re discussing—issues of cultural appropriation and the like—and what the actual topic of this thread is—how best to communicate between people of different values, how to further one’s own, and the like. I used a hypothetical example, purely to try and get clear on this distinction, which to my dismay I still don’t seem to have been able to.
So I could’ve just as easily said, say there’s A, who proposes a certain strategy on how to score a goal in soccer, and B, who asks whether A is a Man United-fan, and then proceeds to extol their virtues towards A. Do you think B is engaging in the right discussion? Do you think one could discuss soccer strategy more efficiently if one didn’t bring club allegiance into it? Because that’s all I was trying to say.
Again, not at all what I was trying to do with my example. I was merely trying to explain a distinction that seems utterly lost on you.
I’m sorry if I came across that way.
To me, you’re words on a screen. I can’t address you as anything else, because that’s all I’ve got; all these miles of wire between us act as an effective Rawlsian veil of ignorance. So I’m treating you like I would anybody else. If that’s not how you want to be treated, then you’re free to bow out of this discussion.
So yes, this is a discussion in the abstract; it’s being held in an abstract space. I don’t know who you are, and you don’t know who I am.
So I stand by what I said: it’s a good thing to reach out to one’s opponents, and in any circumstances, one shouldn’t dismiss them as human beings (which you actually seem to agree with). That doesn’t mean I require you, personally, in particular, to reach out.
Because—once more with feeling—that’s not the point of this thread.
I’m not angry. I think disappointed at the lack of effective communication would be a better fit. Perhaps angry at myself I didn’t frame certain things better—in a way, you’re right, I didn’t take my own ideas to heart, and phrased my OP as if one could just have a reasoned debate in a non-value charged atmosphere, trading arguments rather than judgments.
OK, so maybe you’re the one person free of that. So why do you think it seems to be the case, for others, that, for instance
Why are they all being ‘silly’? Because I think they’re not; I think they’re being human, and all I’m saying (though apparently failing to do) is that we ought to take that into consideration.
How is, for instance, claiming that I’m lying about what’s important to me attacking my argument? What’s the purpose of this?
It doesn’t hurt me if you do something like the above; it hurts the chances for a productive debate. Which, really, is my entire point here.
Well, again, what you said was that there are issues where I shouldn’t debate, but listen. ¯_(ツ)_/¯
What else would I argue with? I only have my perception of what you’re saying to go on. It’s not like I have some sort of direct access to a Platonic realm of Truth to see what you actually mean; hence, my attempt to try and explain to you why I perceived you as saying a certain thing, namely, that there are issues where I shouldn’t debate.
A cynical part of me wants to answer that with nothing but ‘LOL’. But in the interest of not totally antagonizing you, I’ll just say that it’s a shame that I wasn’t subjected to “Banquet Bear unleashed” on the actual topic I’d been wanting to debate.
…you can’t antagonize me. But to be perfectly frank: I don’t think you actually know what it is that you want to debate. You’ve written so many words yet want to keep this so tightly defined that it is no wonder I’m the only person willing to take you on. That Guardian article? That’s just opinion. Again. I mean, stuff like this:
Does that come as a surprise to you? That people who get called racist when they don’t see themselves as racist…you didn’t know that?
That should be pretty fucking obvious.
And this:
My goal isn’t to “diminish intolerance.” If I call someone a racist its because I think they are a fucking racist. If they feel “threatened” and if they leave me the fuck alone I’ve achieved my goal. Do you think that “hurts the left?” Then prove it.
You just simply don’t get it. The article makes the same mistake you make. It isn’t the responsibility of the left to “to help citizens see what unites them, instead of focusing on their differences.” The world is trending towards authoritarianism. This isn’t a joke. There are concentration camps in the United States of America, in China, in India, the Palestinian people are essentially prisoners in their homeland, the courts are being taken over by the radical right in America, who knows what the fuck is going on in the United Kingdom, White Supremacy in resurging around the world. These are fucking dangerous times.
So considering the state of the world right now you really want me to take that Guardian article written by Sherri Berman seriously? (And I’ve just looked up some critiques of her work, and lets just say I won’t be taking her seriously from now on) I should stop calling racists racists lest I upset their feelings? I should focus on uniting the racists instead of focusing on the fact that they want to kill me? She is living in the same abstract bubble you are living in. That all we need to do is sit down, reach out, hold hands, sing kumbaya, then all our troubles will go away. But that isn’t the world that we live in.
That article was simply horrible. We need to stop riling Trump’s base? Really? There was nothing of value in that article at all. It was as bad, if not worse, than the others you have cited. Its probably worse because it advocates a strategy I don’t think has a hope-in-hell succeeding at the next election. Its a strategy that relies on normalising and accepting abhorrent behaviour.
Of course I don’t have a fucking clue if what I’ve said fit in with the narrow parameters of what you want to debate.
Well, what do you want to debate, if not opinion? The weather’s been pretty shitty round here…
This is exactly why I’ve been harping on and on and on about how what your goal is doesn’t matter. I’m not saying ‘you shouldn’t call racists racists, but reach out to them and coddle them until they don’t hurt so much anymore’, I’m saying that if one wants to diminish intolerance/promote climate change awareness/discuss better soccer strategies, there’s better and worse ways to do that. You don’t want to do any of these things? That’s fine! It just doesn’t matter at all for this discussion.
Yes. And I was hoping to have a discussion on whether part of the reason for this is the difference in identity constructions on the left and the right, and the effects this has on the respective positions. I’ve constructed a narrative on how I think idea constructions work; why they didn’t use to be such a problem (for the bad reason that they were determined by birth exclusively) and why the social progress that’s been made freeing (some) people (sometimes) from these rigid structures, like any set of options we’re presented with, introduces new challenges; why I think there are different kinds of identity construction; and why I think some kinds of identity construction—those not based on overt exterior characteristics—are inherently more vulnerable towards internal tension.
These are opinions I hoped to discuss; I haven’t given cites for them, but I have given reasons. You haven’t, basically, engaged with any of that at all, save for the point you made regarding that you aren’t free to choose your identity—which I acknowledged.
Even in the complete absence of any data to the effect, the debate of the basic idea would be reasonable. I’ve pointed to (what I see as) infighting on the left, or over issues of climate change-inspired vegetarianism, or soccer, as examples; you disagree that these are actually examples of what I’m saying, but that’s a different issue from whether it’s reasonable. Just because there isn’t any actual in-fighting on the left doesn’t mean the basic reasoning behind my ideas isn’t sound; it merely means that the mechanism I propose isn’t at work in that particular case.
Now, I still think it is—largely because I read a book on how that sort of thing hurts the left, which got me to thinking about it—but I’m not gonna go hunt for more cites to be summarily dismissed by you, because the author hangs with the wrong crowd or whatever.
Which means that evidently, something about the way we’re trying to fight these issues currently isn’t working. Right?
No. I understand you feel attacked, but I didn’t mean any attack. All I’m saying is, if your goal is x (where ‘x’ might be diminishing racism, curbing climate change, lobbying for the adoption of a new soccer tactic), there’s better and worse ways to achieve x. That doesn’t entail anything about whether x is a worthy cause, or whether one should pursue it, and in particular it doesn’t entail anything about you ‘uniting the racists’.
I understand that. This is why I’m trying to be very explicit in defining them for you. I had hoped that something like the example with veganism, or the soccer example, or just pointing out explicitly in the second paragraph of my OP that I didn’t want to discuss the problems caused by specifically the left’s fracturedness, or any of the other attempts I’ve made could clear that up for you, but no luck so far. 
…of course my goal matters. How can it not?
So how does this all fit into your thesis then? My thesis is that I don’t “hurt the cause of the left” when I call a racist a racist, even if that racist doesn’t think they are racist. Do you think I “hurt the cause?” What is “the cause” anyway? It isn’t my job to "diminish intolerance. So why bring that up? How is that relevant?
I think it does matter. Because as you’ve said from the beginning, you think I’m part of the problem. I am your cite you said. Now I’m not?
Part of the reason for this is there is a group of mainly-white-men-who saw themselves loosing their institutional grip on power and decided to fight back. It isn’t particularly complicated to figure out.
Are you fucking kidding me? They didn’t use to be such a problem?
Many black people in America didn’t even really get the right to vote until the 1960’s. They couldn’t embrace their identity. Have you heard of Black Wall Street? Do you know what happened when black people did their own thing? They burnt everything to the ground. Slaughtered hundreds.
It didn’t use to “be such a problem” because as bad as things are now, once upon a time things were so much worse. This narrative you’ve constructed is simply wrong.
This is just word salad. I’ve read it three times and I still can’t get it to make any sense.
Give me a fucking break. I haven’t engaged? You are seriously going with that? When I’ve responded to almost every word you’ve written in this thread?
I don’t have a fucking clue what your “basic idea” is at this point. You are all over the place.
No you actually haven’t. You’ve cited a spat in academia. You’ve pointed out a troll harassing an author. I don’t recall you pointing out any infighting that one could regard as significant.
Wow.
If there isn’t any actual in-fighting on the left then that means the basic reasoning behind your ideas are probably unfounded. It means you have nothing.
I have dismissed every single cite (that I could understand and wasn’t a link to a book) based on the contents of that cite, and not because the author hangs with the “wrong crowd.” That the author hangs with the wrong crowd is incidental to my critique.
It isn’t my fault that you keep posting garbage cites. And the reason you keep posting garbage cites is that you came up with a narrative first: and now you are frantically googling for people that agree with the narrative you’ve created. The quality of your cites should give you a clue to the accuracy of your thesis.
Wow.
I mean, just wow.
I mean, totally, of course. That Guardian article was 100% correct. If only the left would stop riling the Trump base, if only we stopped calling people racist who didn’t think they were racist, if only we did these two things the systematic mass detention of millions of Uighur’s in China in Mass Internment Camps, that wouldn’t have happened. Silly me. I’ve been doing this all wrong.
“Hey Mr White Supremacist!!! Hey, nice hood! I know I called you a racist just before, but that was mean of me. I should have reached out first. Are we friends? Hey, what are you doing with that rope?”
This is fucking Great Debates. I don’t feel attacked. I’m just warming up.
All I’m saying is, if you are seeing “infighting on the left”, then the goal of one of the two sides probably isn’t “diminishing racism” or “curbing climate change”. Because “the left” isn’t a monolithic group. Because there are plenty of racists and misogynists and fascists and transphobes and idiots on the left. And sometimes “infighting on the left” is the only way to highlight the existence of racism and misogyny and transphobia on the left. Sometimes, especially if you are a marginalised group, shining the spotlight is the best you can do.
Do you even know what it is you are arguing about now? You keep saying “there are better ways” but the “better ways” you describe sound very wishy washy to me.
You started poorly. You’ve gotten worse.
I still don’t know what it is you want to debate. All I’m doing now is responding to the post that you write, hoping I don’t set off the “that isn’t what this thread is about” detector.