Identity Politcs today

[ADM D Kilkin]

This is an excerpt from a discussion we intercepted in another community, aboard the UNSC Point of No Return I decided to begin this debate in our forums. These topics aren't for everyone, if you're baffled, offended or disgusted in anyway just take a leave from the site and thread. There are plenty more relevant topics to just gaming we can all talk about.

Identity politics allows people to believe that because they have an identity, they can speak with authority on it. And because of this identity, their views cannot be invalidated, no matter how much they are based on fallacies. This is especially a powerful construct to cling to by those of a minority race, as it allows the majority to only participate when they first admit they are less worthy. This standard is why a lot of white people do not participate in the conversation; the requirement is to devalue their own experience first (for right or wrong). Movements that tout the same brand of thinking (BLM?) devalue anyone else from speaking about the issue until they've clung on to the mantra of self hate (white privilege or white bias for example), and make the exact same generalizations about race they accuse others of making. I like how one writer said it, "Identity politics makes people feel better about themselves at the expense of productive discourse. A person’s lived experience should never be invalidated. But no identity makes the beliefs that someone derives from their lived experience automatically more correct. This is not just a logical fallacy that should be avoided on principle. In practice, it is actually a hindrance to persuading others."

Miyamoto Musashi wrote once, "Truth is not what you want it to be; it is what it is, and you must bend to its power or live a lie." A whole bunch of people are living lies (constructed over long periods of time and learned mainly through listening by those they surround themselves with) and they want those lies validated on a constant basis.

I'm interested to hear out your thoughts on this @Jason L Lewis

[Jason L Lewis]

Id be glad to give my two sense. I will admit especially as some one who was in high school when I formulated my political identity, this was a big thing for me. Afterwards my draws to identity other than the obvious one being that of region. I do agree with the concept of movements touting an idea hurt the discussion. I definitely do practice a bit of identity politics still being very defensive of the aspects of southern pride not tied to hate. its also helped form my current stance politically as I am more conservative and in favor of individualism, economic liberty, and tradition. At one point I was very much so on the opposite end subscribing to what i consider classical fascism (Mussolini-esque Nationalism mixed with Socialism) or full on Nat-Soc like Nazism. the ideas of these two groups also relies on identity not of race or class but of nation, which is supposed to be the ultimate unifier for a people. To help advance a nations goals for the nation and its citizens. Italian fascism was very popular on those grounds and railed identity home endlessly. The Nazis did the same with German fascism and the idea of Aryian Germans.

I have moved in a large swing to the other end as authoritarian left is something I can no longer morally support. Morality is a big factor in traditionalism and conservatism. which is spurred from the Southern Baptist upbringing my siblings and I share. so to me the identity of my home, the deep rural south, and my side of politics of conservatism. for me it feels natural and I do often forget I'm even partaking in the identity politics. to me it feels like part of just how my beliefs are expressed, so its easy to forget. I understand the facts behind the iconography of my identity and I do accept the fact that some will not and can not be shown the opposing side of the arguement. like any issue with two sides.

It is a big hypocritical mess when identity is involved in our political systems. No identity is free of this bias and hypocrisy, even just party alignment can have this bias. Every side wants to be the right side of history or a discussion. man needs this feeling of right. This is something that may never change. People cling to symbols, identities, nations, whatever we can to make us feel like we are a part and in the right.

it will be inseparable for the foreseeable future I imagine as we as a nation become more polarized and divided. until we can all see the good in one another and over look differences this will continue to worsen. Is it a dangerous outcome, potentially as even now people like "boog boys" still call for the American Civil War part 2 Electric Boogaloo and places like Texas have state officials working to attempt modern secession. I imagine this decade going either way, either identity divides us to separation or we unite on common ground and preserve our nation as it is, but at the end of the day we are all fallible. So is ideology. Especially politics and identity.

i cannot say I oppose the acts of identity though as i do practice it myself with southern heritage and how I do tend to stereotype northerners and west coasters as elitist and stuck up. identity is a tool for all and is easily abused by all. I mean my whole answer is me just discussing my own identity if you read it like that which is what I intended as it goes to show how deeply rooted it can be.

all groups who make or adopt an identity believe themselves to be the only ones capable of speaking for it which is wrong others experience is mixed in too. if someone outside the identity see it first hand they will have a idea of the next guy they meets actions and beliefs and vice versa. no one is wholly right or wrong. As every coin has two sides. heads and tails, pros and cons, rights and wrongs. Politics has always had this dynamic as well as politicians and voters.