Unfortunately, true. IP takes young people that should be taught to get out of their comfort zones and explore new worlds, cultures, and ideas and tells them to do the opposite, and be offended at every idea or custom that they are comfortable with in their insular world.
That used to be the entire point of a liberal education - give people the tools to grow beyond the provincialism of their narrow identity. The IP model is the antithesis of that - discouraging exploration beyond self-regard, being a reactionary against people who challenge your calcified view of your “identity”.
And while it’s a right-wing trope to insult these folks as “snowflakes” there’s truth to it - what good are they? Are they impressive? Would you hire them to help lead anything substantial? Would you trust them to build anything of note? What exactly are they equipped to do in the real world after deciding this is how they engage (or non-engage) the rest of the world outside of their safe nest?
What is recognizing the ills of discrimination and racial privilege called then (I’m asking from the viewpoint of those being discriminated against, ie AA’s in the 60s)? Seems like a lot of the hangup is over verbiage.
Does this not start with first recognizing “who we are” so to speak?
Imo this rounds back to my point to ED about everyone only acknowledging the loudest of the group, instead of the majority of the group. Most people that subscribe to IP aren’t the people you see calling all white people guilty for being white. It’s akin to thinking all feminists are man haters when in reality they’re just the loudest subset of the group. At least that’s been my experience.
I guess I would ask who “they” is in this regards. “They” don’t want a seat at the table. “They” don’t want a seat at the table. Would you say the large majority of the people that subscribe to IP fit into this bucket?
Being liberal, I guess (in the old sense of the word)? And I think it’s more than verbiage - again, the civil rightsv warriors of yesteryear had a different philosophy and strategy than modern adherents of IP. That’s what I’m recognizing, regardless of labels. There’s a difference.
Sure, and I believe that - the problem is, it shouldn’t end there. For IP folks they don’t see “recognizing who they are” as a starting point - it’s the whole enchilada, with no need to go any further.
Anyone who ascribes to the IP philosophy and believes there is nothing bigger and more important in society and politics than their identity.
I’m having a hard time reconciling this statement:
With this one:
Also, I think @pfury is spot-on when he points out that the squeakiest wheels tend to garner an outsized portion of the attention, thereby leading to an overestimation of their numbers and influence.
There’s a world of difference between white nationalists who actively want to purge society of non-whites and IP adherents who have no such agenda but are content of staying within the confines of their “identity” and refusing to engage with people outside of their “identity” out of self-absorption and, really, insecurity.
But you seem to recognize there’s also a difference between IP and IP extreme as well, yes? Wouldn’t that mean the difference you see is with IP of yesteryear and IP extreme of today? That would have an obvious difference, as they’re not the same thing. I’m more comparing the IP of yesteryear with the IP (not extreme) of today.
While I agree there’s a difference between those 2 subsets, I see very little difference between the non extreme’s of both respective time periods.
Again I ask whom you’re referring to? The IP extreme or the IP in general? I’d agree for the IP extreme the convo ends there.
Would you say the large majority of people that subscribe to IP fit into this bucket?
I’d say you’re giving the IP extremists a bit of an undeserved pass. After all, they want to deconstruct capitalist society (and its inherent white-centered power structure) completely, and remake it as some sort of socialist paradise. In short, they are (in their own way) every bit as extreme as white nationalists. At the very least, you seem to make them the black equivalent of the white separatists.
At any rate, I continue to contend that you and others are ascribing too much influence to the IP extremists.
I’ll try to clear this up for you and @EyeDentist in one fell swoop - I’m not talking about IP extremist radicals. They are fringe and while not a good influence, I’m not worried about them and not referring to them.
What I am referring to is the IP general folk - not extremists, but the kinds that are negatively impacting practical politics. They aren’t calling for anarchy or destruction of white people, but there’s enough of them that they are contributing to party platforms and wind and losses in politics. They insist on litmus test politics and have turned the civil rights philosophy on its head.
What I see as the main problem with IP is the belief that because of ones identity (unless you are white) your opinion is unassailable, and substantiated simply by its holders existence.
Thats a damn far cry from the equal rights movement wanting equality (which was sorely lacking) in all aspects of life.
The modern ID political battle cry has become “SHUT YOUR MOUTH! YOU DON’T KNOW ME!”
Sure, they’re not evil, just misguided andbnaive. But generally, they haven’t been good for our politics for a number of reasons, one of which is the inability to prioritize the public interest over the personal.
“The personal”? Is it fair to label concerns regarding race-wide inequities ‘personal’? Would such issues not qualify as being in ‘the public interest’?
Yes, I think their insistence of litmus test politics are a big reason why the Democratic party is at historic lows in offices at all levels. I think America benefits when there are two strong parties, and IP has weakened one of them significantly.
They could, but is race driving the worst of the inequities and public policy problems? Income inequality, wage stagnation, costly health care, foreign policy uncertainty, and the list of important national priorities goes on and on - are these really a function of microaggressions?
Have you considered that people of color may not agree with you re which are the worst public-policy problems we face? And are you really sure their concerns in this regard are trivial enough to render them worthy of mockery?
I’m not mocking them, nor am I dismissing their concerns. My point is contrary to the IP philosophy, most of our big policy problems are not driven by racial discrimination, and the fact that we don’t pretend that they are isn’t further proof of the IP’s “white patriarchy”.
EDIT: The larger point is, like other kinds of single-issue voters, IP adherents are myopically focused on the wrong things as a matter of priority and they identify boogeymen at every turn where there are no such boogeymen. And the myopia is driven by the fact that they have shut down the desire, and really the responsibility, to learn about people different from themselves.