Ohhhh yeah. It’s one of those words that the in-group gets to use and you don’t. It’s gone way up in severity since the 90s. I usually don’t use it unless I’m with other Ts or I’m incredibly pissed off. I’ll refrain from using it since the connotation isn’t always clear with the international audience.
A (not trans) friend of mine uses it whenever he talks about automotive transmissions (it’s apparently common gearhead slang), and I have a little frisson of terror every time he does.
Were you the one who defecated all over the restroom in the Jack In The Box restaurant on Highland Avenue and Fountain? A several months ago, I went in and apparently it is a Transexual / Cross Dresser hang out which is fine but please be respectful of the business. There was feces all over the place as if a bomb exploded. I ran out in horror. Everytime I pass by I get queasy thinking of the mess you left behind. Thanks in advance.
LOL, someone defiled the Jack in the Box of my people!
Seriously, it’s raunchy af over there. What were you doing?
No, that’s not what I meant. I apologize for being unclear.
I said that he used “identity politics” as a right wing slur. He didn’t use the real term, i.e the definition you just linked. Here’s a proposed fixed draft:
“He even used the right wing slur definition of ‘identity politics’ rather than using the real definition, which isn’t even controversial.”
As for whether it really needs to be discussed? I’m not sure there’s much point outside of academia. The underlying concept is common sense: People in a particular social group or class will have common interests and concerns, and thus want to form political groups and vote together to increase their voting power.
Yes, to an academic, exactly how those social groups and classes are defined and which ones become blocks is important. But for the layman’s understanding? It’s just obvious. Of course black people, having had common experiences as black people and common concerns as black people, are going to vote in a block. It would be bizarre if they didn’t.
The only reason why white people don’t as much is that the group “white Americans” is so big. Being a majority, it instead tends to fracture. It become “white working class” and “urban whites” and such. The bigger the group, the more likely it is to fracture.
Or, at least, that’s my layman’s understanding. I heard people complaining about “identity politics” and looked it up, and my response was “Duh. Of course. What’s wrong with that?” Then I later found out it was a euphemism for something else.
And SenorBeef used the euphemistic version.
I still would call that a right wing pejorative, then. It’s just that apparently that Bernie is right wing on this issue. He’s still pushing the straight white male as being special.
I can’t help but wonder if he’s just doing what he did last time. He clearly borrowed the “rigged election” idea from Trump to cover for not being a majority. Is he now borrowing the “identity politics” concept to try and cover up his lack of appeal to minorities.
All he’d have to do is just pay attention to the concerns of people who are not the same race, gender, or sexuality as he is. As the article says, most Bernie followers are going to agree with their issues, too. There’s no reason to be pitting the white straight male identity group against these others.
There’s a reason why I, a social democrat and progressive don’t like Bernie all that much. I’m all for making sure that we don’t leave out the white working class, like Clinton did. But I’m not for pretending that class and race and everything don’t actually matter.
Because that just winds up with the majority being the only ones who get what they want, and the minorities getting left out. Humanity is diverse. Different people have different issues. There is no “one size fits all.” That’s just the majority drowning out the minorities.
I understand where Senor Beef is coming from, Ronnie(Charlotte) hit the nail on the head with “utilitarianism”. But, I also think he’s wrong. All those other issues or people may be “more important” because of their greater numbers or impact, but the spirit of an equal society is that might does not make right. On a very superficial level, basic fairness demands minorities be protected. But, even if you are more concerned about workers’ rights, environment, etc., isn’t every gay, trans-person, Muslim, and every other unfairly-maligned minority a potential ally to be courted for those issues? When a (so far theoretical) society treats every citizen as a valuable human being, it’s a lot easier to achieve the unity requisite for those “more important” issues.
Oh, Pit, right, fuck, shit, god damn!