The Easily Offended

[riskllama]

no, duk - it's not you, it's just sym doing what he always does. carry on...

[Symmetry]

To be sure, this is the first time I've ever heard the use of generally agreed-upon definitions referred to as a "weird pre-conditions".

When I went to school, we learned that agreeing on common definitions is the basis of any useful discourse. Without it, every discussion soon degenerates into semantic arguments, at which time any sight of the original thesis is lost. Maybe I just went to weird schools.

What would you do if your definition was argued against? Default to a commonality? I respect TGD's right to take issue with my opinion. I'd just like him to back it up with evidence.

[Dukasaur]

To be sure, this is the first time I've ever heard the use of generally agreed-upon definitions referred to as a "weird pre-conditions".

When I went to school, we learned that agreeing on common definitions is the basis of any useful discourse. Without it, every discussion soon degenerates into semantic arguments, at which time any sight of the original thesis is lost. Maybe I just went to weird schools.

What would you do if your definition was argued against? Default to a commonality?

Yes, you default to a commonality. If you want to postulate a new definition, you have to get agreement on that point. If not, either you go back to a basic dictionary definition (for general situations) or to some standard at use in your field (in specialized situations.) If you can't get past these hurdles, the discussion may be dead.

I respect TGD's right to take issue with my opinion. I'd just like him to back it up with evidence.

He did. He Googled the definition and posted it. Granted, there may be better definitions than what he found, but thus far you haven't offered any alternatives. In the absence of any agreed-upon definitions, going further in the discussion is pointless.

[Symmetry]

To be sure, this is the first time I've ever heard the use of generally agreed-upon definitions referred to as a "weird pre-conditions".

When I went to school, we learned that agreeing on common definitions is the basis of any useful discourse. Without it, every discussion soon degenerates into semantic arguments, at which time any sight of the original thesis is lost. Maybe I just went to weird schools.

What would you do if your definition was argued against? Default to a commonality?

Yes, you default to a commonality. If you want to postulate a new definition, you have to get agreement on that point. If not, either you go back to a basic dictionary definition (for general situations) or to some standard at use in your field (in specialized situations.) If you can't get past these hurdles, the discussion may be dead.

I respect TGD's right to take issue with my opinion. I'd just like him to back it up with evidence.

He did. He Googled the definition and posted it. Granted, there may be better definitions than what he found, but thus far you haven't offered any alternatives. In the absence of any agreed-upon definitions, going further in the discussion is pointless.

That seems ridiculous to me- a debate that relies solely on googling a definition as a response. It's borderline parody for how to dismiss an argument without engaging with it.

When the debate is as TGD established, over his definition of identity politics and how he disagrees with my own interpretation, that is part and parcel of the debate.

I don't agree that I should have to agree to whatever his google search turns up as a counter-argument before he can provide evidence. It's a nonsense excuse for not providing back up to a daft argument.

[riskllama]

i give your rebuttal a 3/10, sym...

[Dukasaur]

When the debate is as TGD established, over his definition of identity politics and how he disagrees with my own interpretation, that is part and parcel of the debate.

You haven't offered a definition. You've given a list of things that you think fit your definition, but without explicitly stating your definition, there is no meaningful way to measure whether those things fit it or not.

I'll grant you that googling might not be the most authoritative way to establish a definition, but as something is better than nothing, it stands up versus your offering of no definition at all.

[Symmetry]

When the debate is as TGD established, over his definition of identity politics and how he disagrees with my own interpretation, that is part and parcel of the debate.

You haven't offered a definition. You've given a list of things that you think fit your definition, but without explicitly stating your definition, there is no meaningful way to measure whether those things fit it or not.

I'll grant you that googling might not be the most authoritative way to establish a definition, but as something is better than nothing, it stands up versus your offering of no definition at all.

I didn't think I had to, tbh. I've kind of felt that opposition to my post has largely been the google and refusal to offer evidence, plus a half-hearted defence.

How about you meet me half-way on this and propose a definition that meets your standards?

Fair?

[riskllama]

mmm, a bit better...4.1/10

[Dukasaur]

When the debate is as TGD established, over his definition of identity politics and how he disagrees with my own interpretation, that is part and parcel of the debate.

You haven't offered a definition. You've given a list of things that you think fit your definition, but without explicitly stating your definition, there is no meaningful way to measure whether those things fit it or not.

I'll grant you that googling might not be the most authoritative way to establish a definition, but as something is better than nothing, it stands up versus your offering of no definition at all.

I didn't think I had to, tbh. I've kind of felt that opposition to my post has largely been the google and refusal to offer evidence, plus a half-hearted defence.

How about you meet me half-way on this and propose a definition that meets your standards?

Fair?

Nope. I have not the slightest interest in the question of what is or isn't identity politics.

I entered this debate purely to challenge your contra-factual statement that agreeing on definitions is a "weird pre-condition", when in fact it's pretty much the standard pre-condition of civilized discourse. That's the beginning and the end of my interest in the matter.

If you're debating TGD, and you don't like the definition he produced, it's up to you to suggest an alternative.

[Symmetry]

When the debate is as TGD established, over his definition of identity politics and how he disagrees with my own interpretation, that is part and parcel of the debate.

You haven't offered a definition. You've given a list of things that you think fit your definition, but without explicitly stating your definition, there is no meaningful way to measure whether those things fit it or not.

I'll grant you that googling might not be the most authoritative way to establish a definition, but as something is better than nothing, it stands up versus your offering of no definition at all.

I didn't think I had to, tbh. I've kind of felt that opposition to my post has largely been the google and refusal to offer evidence, plus a half-hearted defence.

How about you meet me half-way on this and propose a definition that meets your standards?

Fair?

Nope. I have not the slightest interest in the question of what is or isn't identity politics.

I entered this debate purely to challenge your contra-factual statement that agreeing on definitions is a "weird pre-condition", when in fact it's pretty much the standard pre-condition of civilized discourse. That's the beginning and the end of my interest in the matter.

If you're debating TGD, and you don't like the definition he produced, it's up to you to suggest an alternative.

You just wanted to challenge me and then back off if I responded?

Also, once again, TGD is challenging my post here...

[Dukasaur]

When the debate is as TGD established, over his definition of identity politics and how he disagrees with my own interpretation, that is part and parcel of the debate.

You haven't offered a definition. You've given a list of things that you think fit your definition, but without explicitly stating your definition, there is no meaningful way to measure whether those things fit it or not.

I'll grant you that googling might not be the most authoritative way to establish a definition, but as something is better than nothing, it stands up versus your offering of no definition at all.

I didn't think I had to, tbh. I've kind of felt that opposition to my post has largely been the google and refusal to offer evidence, plus a half-hearted defence.

How about you meet me half-way on this and propose a definition that meets your standards?

Fair?

Nope. I have not the slightest interest in the question of what is or isn't identity politics.

I entered this debate purely to challenge your contra-factual statement that agreeing on definitions is a "weird pre-condition", when in fact it's pretty much the standard pre-condition of civilized discourse. That's the beginning and the end of my interest in the matter.

If you're debating TGD, and you don't like the definition he produced, it's up to you to suggest an alternative.

You just wanted to challenge me and then back off if I responded?

I've accomplished what I came to do: to defend the rules of civilized discourse, which include agreeing on the parameters and definitions to be used in a debate. You can twist and turn and spin it any way you like, but it doesn't make a lick of difference. You've been caught in one of your attempts to twist reality, and you can either admit you were wrong and try to debate the issue honestly from here on in, or you can keep spinning.

The starting point for me was your ridiculous assertion that that agreeing on definitions is a "weird pre-condition". You could have been honest and walked back that statement long ago, but you'll dig your heels in and twist. So be it.

[Symmetry]

I've accomplished what I came to do: to defend the rules of civilized discourse, which include agreeing on the parameters and definitions to be used in a debate. You can twist and turn and spin it any way you like, but it doesn't make a lick of difference. You've been caught in one of your attempts to twist reality, and you can either admit you were wrong and try to debate the issue honestly from here on in, or you can keep spinning.

The starting point for me was your ridiculous assertion that that agreeing on definitions is a "weird pre-condition". You could have been honest and walked back that statement long ago, but you'll dig your heels in and twist. So be it.

Well, damn, as if you aren't a self-proclaimed champion of civilised discourse.

With an origin story and all.

Take it down a notch, Duk, and just have an honest conversation.

[Dukasaur]

I've accomplished what I came to do: to defend the rules of civilized discourse, which include agreeing on the parameters and definitions to be used in a debate. You can twist and turn and spin it any way you like, but it doesn't make a lick of difference. You've been caught in one of your attempts to twist reality, and you can either admit you were wrong and try to debate the issue honestly from here on in, or you can keep spinning.

The starting point for me was your ridiculous assertion that that agreeing on definitions is a "weird pre-condition". You could have been honest and walked back that statement long ago, but you'll dig your heels in and twist. So be it.

Well, damn, as if you aren't a self-proclaimed champion of civilised discourse.

With an origin story and all.

Take it down a notch, Duk, and just have an honest conversation.

Take your own advice. Start debating people honestly.

The power to communicate is a sacred trust. Those who have a facility with words, as you do, have a responsibility to use them for furthering mutual understanding, not misunderstanding.

[Symmetry]

I've accomplished what I came to do: to defend the rules of civilized discourse, which include agreeing on the parameters and definitions to be used in a debate. You can twist and turn and spin it any way you like, but it doesn't make a lick of difference. You've been caught in one of your attempts to twist reality, and you can either admit you were wrong and try to debate the issue honestly from here on in, or you can keep spinning.

The starting point for me was your ridiculous assertion that that agreeing on definitions is a "weird pre-condition". You could have been honest and walked back that statement long ago, but you'll dig your heels in and twist. So be it.

Well, damn, as if you aren't a self-proclaimed champion of civilised discourse.

With an origin story and all.

Take it down a notch, Duk, and just have an honest conversation.

Take your own advice. Start debating people honestly.

The power to communicate is a sacred trust. Those who have a facility with words, as you do, have a responsibility to use them for furthering mutual understanding, not misunderstanding.

It really isn't Duk. There's no holy responsibility. You don't have to be religious to be honest, and it's better to have faith in love than hate.

[thegreekdog]

It seems my work here is done.

Honestly, Sym, I thought you were going to go with a different dodge on this one (e.g. focusing on my use of the term “bait” to imply I was accusing you of something). But the “we don’t have to agree on a definition” dodge is a new one. Everyone else covered the relevant points so I have nothing else to add other than that we are now close to the end of page 2 of this thread without any significant discussion of identity politics and who is more likely to engage in it.

[Symmetry]

It seems my work here is done.

Honestly, Sym, I thought you were going to go with a different dodge on this one (e.g. focusing on my use of the term “bait” to imply I was accusing you of something). But the “we don’t have to agree on a definition” dodge is a new one. Everyone else covered the relevant points so I have nothing else to add other than that we are now close to the end of page 2 of this thread without any significant discussion of identity politics and who is more likely to engage in it.

You are arguing against an imaginary version of me, TGD. Agreeing on a definition of the term you have issue with is an end, and shouldn't be a precondition for discussion of the term as a start.

Why do you think that the right isn't heavily involved in identity politics? Or do I detect a subtle shift in your avoidance of answering questions to an acknowledgement that it is a huge problem among conservatives?

[thegreekdog]

It seems my work here is done.

Honestly, Sym, I thought you were going to go with a different dodge on this one (e.g. focusing on my use of the term “bait” to imply I was accusing you of something). But the “we don’t have to agree on a definition” dodge is a new one. Everyone else covered the relevant points so I have nothing else to add other than that we are now close to the end of page 2 of this thread without any significant discussion of identity politics and who is more likely to engage in it.

You are arguing against an imaginary version of me, TGD. Agreeing on a definition of the term you have issue with is an end, and shouldn't be a precondition for discussion of the term as a start.

Why do you think that the right isn't heavily involved in identity politics? Or do I detect a subtle shift in your avoidance of answering questions to an acknowledgement that it is a huge problem among conservatives?

Agreeing on a definition of a term that has negative connotations is necessary for this particular discourse. You have not provided a definition and, in fact, you have provided two examples of politics that have nothing to do with the definition of identity politics.

I'm just basing my posts on your past activities on this website in this particular forum. I suspect, but don't know, that you don't act this way in real life as there would be likely significant negative consequences.

Your original post started with this proposition:

[quote=Symmetry]I think the right wing shifted a while back into identity politics, but it's heightened over the years.[/quote]

And then you provided two examples, neither of which are identity politics (boycotting Netflix because Obama; boycotting Cheesecake Factory because of Trump) based on the standard definition I provided. I also provided the liberal example of boycotting Chick-Fil-A because of abortion or Christianity (either one really). This is also not identity politics. People boycott businesses for all sorts of reasons including, but not limited to, politics.

Here is what looks like a good article on the history of identity politics (I don't know anything about theguardian.com, but this is basically my understanding):

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... o-division

The tl;dr version:

(1) The civil rights movement primarily concerned itself with equality ("an American in which skin color doesn't matter") - You can insert any phrase/characteristic you want for "skin color" like "sexual preference" or "religion." The civil rights movement was largely a liberal movement.

(2) Conservatives began to use colorblindness as a way to oppose policies that would combat racism (e.g. to combat affirmative action).

(3) Liberals saw this and and changed to "group consciousness, group identity, and group claims." "The politics of redistribution was replaced by the politics of recognition."

(4) Liberal politics, especially recently, has moved toward exclusion and division (e.g. "You can't understand X because you're white." "You can't understand Y because you're a man." "You can't understand Z because you're not gay.")

(4.5) Liberals continue to move this to the left. At a BLM march in Philadelphia, the black leaders told the white people to move to the back of the line because it wasn't their issue. It used to be those white people would be included or interspersed.

(5) The alt-right (e.g. Steve Bannon) (read: actual racists) have also used identity politics primarily on behalf of heterosexual, white men. And many other white people are picking this up primarily, it appears, because if you are white that is your primary label for folks on the left. Bernie Sanders isn't a liberal politician first, he's white.

The only identity politics I've seen from somewhat mainstream conservatives is the "war on Christmas" nonsense. Otherwise, this the almost exclusive province of liberals with some very far right folks thrown in. When liberals are marginalizing liberals from 5 years ago (or Dr. King) they are certainly the ones proffering and spreading identity politics.

Just after the 2016 election, a former Never Trumper explained his change of heart in the Atlantic: “My college-age daughter constantly hears talk of white privilege and racial identity, of separate dorms for separate races (somewhere in heaven Martin Luther King Jr is hanging his head and crying) … I hate identity politics, [but] when everything is about identity politics, is the left really surprised that on Tuesday millions of white Americans … voted as ‘white’? If you want identity politics, identity politics is what you will get.”

[Symmetry]

Wow, ok. I don't know what you did, but I will come back to this. Maybe make the tl:dr version shorter than the other version?

[thegreekdog]

Wow, ok. I don't know what you did, but I will come back to this. Maybe make the tl:dr version shorter than the other version?

Okay. tl;dr tl;dr version:

- Liberals created (many years ago), continuously evolve and use identity politics a lot (e.g "You're white, you wouldn't understand.")
- Conservatives started using them like a year or two ago in response to their use by liberals (e.g. "Fine, we're white, you're excluding us, we'll be white and vote for the guy who is speaking to us."). The only identity politics that I've seen conservatives use before Trump was the bullshit War on Christmas.

[Symmetry]

Wow, ok. I don't know what you did, but I will come back to this. Maybe make the tl:dr version shorter than the other version?

Okay. tl;dr tl;dr version:

- Liberals created (many years ago), continuously evolve and use identity politics a lot (e.g "You're white, you wouldn't understand.")
- Conservatives started using them like a year or two ago in response to their use by liberals (e.g. "Fine, we're white, you're excluding us, we'll be white and vote for the guy who is speaking to us."). The only identity politics that I've seen conservatives use before Trump was the bullshit War on Christmas.

Ok- although I should point out that replying to your post was actually broken and something that I'm talking to the mods about fixing whatever that was.

That said, this suits me fine, as your points were a bit weird anyway.

[thegreekdog]

Wow, ok. I don't know what you did, but I will come back to this. Maybe make the tl:dr version shorter than the other version?

Okay. tl;dr tl;dr version:

- Liberals created (many years ago), continuously evolve and use identity politics a lot (e.g "You're white, you wouldn't understand.")
- Conservatives started using them like a year or two ago in response to their use by liberals (e.g. "Fine, we're white, you're excluding us, we'll be white and vote for the guy who is speaking to us."). The only identity politics that I've seen conservatives use before Trump was the bullshit War on Christmas.

Ok- although I should point out that replying to your post was actually broken and something that I'm talking to the mods about fixing whatever that was.

That said, this suits me fine, as your points were a bit weird anyway.

This is why people don't like you Symm. To be fair, I should know better and shouldn't have engaged with you at all. But given the lack of interesting posters and interesting posts around here I thought it might be fun to have an intellectually honest debate about identity politics. Fool me 375 times, shame on me, I guess.

[Symmetry]

Wow, ok. I don't know what you did, but I will come back to this. Maybe make the tl:dr version shorter than the other version?

Okay. tl;dr tl;dr version:

- Liberals created (many years ago), continuously evolve and use identity politics a lot (e.g "You're white, you wouldn't understand.")
- Conservatives started using them like a year or two ago in response to their use by liberals (e.g. "Fine, we're white, you're excluding us, we'll be white and vote for the guy who is speaking to us."). The only identity politics that I've seen conservatives use before Trump was the bullshit War on Christmas.

Ok- although I should point out that replying to your post was actually broken and something that I'm talking to the mods about fixing whatever that was.

That said, this suits me fine, as your points were a bit weird anyway.

This is why people don't like you Symm. To be fair, I should know better and shouldn't have engaged with you at all. But given the lack of interesting posters and interesting posts around here I thought it might be fun to have an intellectually honest debate about identity politics. Fool me 375 times, shame on me, I guess.

Oh no- I got scarlet lettered!

Maybe just don't be so easily offended and quick to dismiss other people, TGD. Just because you disagree with them doesn't mean that you need to retreat into an echo chamber where everyone has to agree with your preconditions before they enter.

I mean really, have you never heard of things like The Southern Strategy?