Jordan Peterson criticises identity politics, and I think he is broadly right to, although some vulnerable groups do need collective representation. What are your thoughts? — bert1

Identity politics have existed since the Roman Republic. They have since been vital in supplying universal suffrage, civil rights, LGBT rights, worker's rights, woman's rights, etc. Criticizing identity politicstout court, as Peterson often does, is crap, and done from a privileged vantage point of being a white male.

It's just common sense to be as specific as possible in terms of groups in proportion to the intensity of your criticism. As in when dealing with groups as vague as Republicans or Democrats pretty much every type of person is represented, so there's not a lot you can say accurately with any force.

Genocide starts in the waters of hate and psychopathy. Do you really think that posting on the internet fuels some sort of intense madness? I presume most people have their big boy pants on and won't jump off a cliff based on criticism from invisible internet strangers.

Criticizing identity politics tout court, as Peterson often does, is crap, and done from a privileged vantage point of being a white male. — Maw

You taking the piss here, bro?

The privilege is that everyone else's problems are identity politics. While "my" problems are simply politics.

As in, the black gay female needs uplifting while the white straight male needs shaming and segregating? Is that right?

I've had a bad conscience since my last thread in which I made a casual unfunny dig at republicans by putting them somewhere half way on a scale of 'degrees of consciousness'. — bert1

My son, this is not a sin and therefore can not be forgiven. You are being too sensitive. Now, get out of the confessional; there is a long line of people who have real sins to confess and for which severe penance will be required.

I've picked on a group of people, — bert1

"Groups of people" don't have feelings, consciousness, morals, or anything else. "Groups of people" is a vague concept. As for the individual persons in groups... if the shoe fits, wear it.

it's OK to criticise individuals, or better, their opinions, values and actions, but criticising groups of people is potentially dangerous. — bert1

As a homosexual, I would much prefer people reference us as "a group of perverted, immoral, disgusting, monsters, a genuine threat to the American Way of Life" (or Turkish, Russian, North Korean, Saudi Arabian, Ugandan... WOL) than have them say that about me personally. While we certainly are a collective threat to American manhood and empire, I am as pure as the driven snow.

On the other hand, please do remember that we took down the Roman Empire.

some vulnerable groups do need collective representation. — bert1

There are numerous vulnerable individuals who can be grouped into a common cause. Take physically handicapped people. It wasn't that long ago (within the lifetimes of living people) that people with physical handicaps were not recognized as people who faced real barriers: like millions of buildings that could not be accessed without inconvenient and visible assistance. Like millions of people with sensory deficits (varying degrees of deafness and blindness) who could not access large parts of the culture because there were no assistive devices.

In response to agitation, there are now many buildings entrances without stairs, equipped with elevators. There are assistive devices at many intersections that verbally announce a walk sign and a countdown to "don't walk". Many public bathrooms now have doors which allow access to wheelchairs. Braille markings have been added to visual symbols in buildings (like elevators). Closed captions allow the deaf to follow television programs. And more, besides.

That is all to the good.

Criticizing identity politics tout court, as Peterson often does, is crap, and done from a privileged vantage point of being a white male. — Maw

↪Buxtebuddha The privilege is that everyone else's problems are identity politics. While "my" problems are simply politics. — Maw

↪Maw As in, the black gay female needs uplifting while the white straight male needs shaming and segregating? Is that right? — Buxtebuddha

Politics is about individuals forming groups to represent their peculiar interests. There is nothing new about it, and nothing special about it. Whether it is coal mine owners, gay men, sexually harassed women, small farm owners, lesbian vegans, mass transit drivers, cod fishing boat owners, and so on--it is all pretty much the same. And it's fine and dandy -- that's how a diverse more or less democratic society is supposed to work -- people represent their interests and attempt to protect themselves.

It's fine and dandy until, as often happens, a group takes up protective positions which positively disadvantage other interests group. Mine owners, for instance, represent their interests so well that mine workers get shafted. Mass transit drivers go on strike to protect their interests, but entire populations of commuters are negatively affected, sometimes severely. Relatively small numbers of gays and lesbians claim absolute equality with heterosexuals in religious, civic, family, and moral contexts, which conflicts with the at least as strong beliefs of relatively large numbers of heterosexuals that gays and lesbians are not absolutely equal in all contexts.

All this makes for lively politics, good outcomes and bad outcomes.

Tactical errors are made. BLM protestors shutting down mass transit lines at rush hour probably costs them more sympathy than the attention they gain is worth. Straight white males are as diverse a group as straight white females, all females, and all males. The coal industry and coal miners may be in direct conflict with the goals of reducing greenhouse gases. Gays and lesbian activists may display tone deafness when making their arguments.

The only solution in the short, medium and long run is to continue politics, and let the abrasion of politics grind off the unacceptable prominent views that groups tend to have. This, in itself, can be disappointing to people deeply invested in a cause. Gay Liberation began with what I thought were good aspirations, but they were also extreme, in comparison where most people were at in 1969. Over time, the extreme points were ground away and we ended up gaining a set of civil rights and protections (all to the good) but lost "liberation". So, gay marriage in imitation of heterosexual marriage means getting locked into a chaste relationship with ONE INDIVIDUAL until one dies, or flies the coop. Barbaric.

Another thing, there are a lot of named groups that barely exist. Take "sex workers" -- ameliorated from "prostitute" and "whore". I rather doubt that there is an actual "community of common interest" made up of "whores, prostitutes, and/or sex workers". It isn't a field of endeavor that many people, men or women, opt into because it is more interesting than say selling real estate. It's fairy dangerous, involves a lot of potentially bad experiences (worse than losing a real estate listing), and is illegal and stigmatized. I don't think the term arose indigenously, either. I think it was created by people who wanted to upgrade the work of the clients they were dealing with. Then it became unacceptable to refer to "whores and prostitutes" though the actual job didn't change one whit.

"sex worker" appeared in print around the 1985-1990, pretty much the same way that "identity politics" did.

It's one thing to criticize a group of people on the basis of trivial and/or inborn qualities such as race, sex, or sexuality. That's the kind of thing that is wrong and leads to unfair prejudice.

But when you pick on Republicans, you're picking on people on the basis of their values, beliefs, and actions. Although one ought to be careful in how far that goes in some cases, it's also often justified. Descrimination shouldn't be made legal towards opinions and political views, but for instance, if I choose to avoid socializing with a KKK member, that's not bigoted of me. I can also call those people out for being racist dimwits. It's not an unfair criticism.

With political affiliation it's the same thing. You just have to be prepared for some Republicans to claim not to be one of THOSE Republicans.

Identity politics have existed since the Roman Republic. They have since been vital in supplying universal suffrage, civil rights, LGBT rights, worker's rights, woman's rights, etc. Criticizing identity politicstout court, as Peterson often does, is crap, and done from a privileged vantage point of being a white male. — Maw

Sure, you could be right. I'm fairly new to the concept.

As in when dealing with groups as vague as Republicans or Democrats pretty much every type of person is represented, so there's not a lot you can say accurately with any force. — Baden

Indeed

Genocide starts in the waters of hate and psychopathy. — Buxtebuddha

This doesn't seem right to me. Doesn't genocide happen when one group is demonised and blamed for the suffering of another group? In which case the origin is in the suffering and passivity of a population.

Do you really think that posting on the internet fuels some sort of intense madness? I presume most people have their big boy pants on and won't jump off a cliff based on criticism from invisible internet strangers.

One hopes your presumption is correct. I fear it may not be. My particular comment is obviously insignificant. But a heap of a million other similar ones may become significant.

My son, this is not a sin and therefore can not be forgiven. You are being too sensitive. Now, get out of the confessional; there is a long line of people who have real sins to confess and for which severe penance will be required. — Bitter Crank

If only confession were so popular absolution had to be rationed.

As a homosexual, I would much prefer people reference us as "a group of perverted, immoral, disgusting, monsters, a genuine threat to the American Way of Life" (or Turkish, Russian, North Korean, Saudi Arabian, Ugandan... WOL) than have them say that about me personally. While we certainly are a collective threat to American manhood and empire, I am as pure as the driven snow. — Bitter Crank

Indeed, it's far less personally offensive. However I suspect it's a heck of a lot more dangerous. Individual members of a collective threat (such as the Gays) are targeted because they are an example of that collective - and any example will do, it doesn't matter about any of your other virtuous individual qualities. Whereas an attack on you as an individual (rather than a representative example) must take into account all your complexities.

Identity politics is where you choose to lose your identity as an individual, in favor of being part of a herd identity. As part of a herd, there is safety. Also one gets to accept credit for anything anyone in the herd does that is favorable, or which gives you leverage. It detaches the individual from realty in favor of a group projection.

As an example, a white supremacist will attach himself to all the important things that white people have done; strength and/or accomplishments. As part of this herd, you can sort of accept credit for what Abraham Lincoln or Albert Einstein did, since both were white and therefore part of that same herd. This can inflate the ego, so it is no longer grounded in reality.

As another example, those who relate to the black victim herd, can find a way to accept restitution for slavery, even though this all happened a century before they were born. Again, an attachment to that herd, extrapolates the ego beyond their own reality.

Identity policies is currently pushed by the left, since they know when people lose their individuality, to become attached to a herd, you can manipulate lots of individuals, by simply spooking the herd, thereby compounding unconsciousness. A herd of buffalo can be made to stampede if you startle one. The rest will move in unison without consciousness. The herd mentality is lower than human but above an animal; beast. A beast is an unnatural animal.

An individual has their own history, their own dreams and accomplishment and their own dark times and disappointments. This history belongs to them. If we were all individuals, politicians and other who wish to shepherd herds, would need to spook each person separately, to get people to stampede as groups. This is way too much work. If we can attach individuals to herds, it is easier to get everyone to move. One shepherd dog can move a herd of sheep.

Belonging to a herd and losing your individuality has its downside, since you can be hurt simply by someone keying in on a few negative or vulnerable stereotypical attributes of the herd. The left has reinforced this with PC. PC does not teach one to have a tough skin by showing you how to separate oneself as an individual. Rather it teaches how each herds to stampede on cue, adding further unconsciousness.

Consider the term white guilt. One, if white, is expected to stampede with the white herd, even when you know there is no wolf. One is being induced, to be part of a herd, by accepting its downside as your own, so you can be stampeded for something you did not do. If you allow this to happen you will lose your contact to reality. The evil shepherds have no concern for you they need to get you to market.

although some vulnerable groups do need collective representation. What are your thoughts? — bert1

Who selects the representative? How is such a representative selected?

done from a privileged vantage point of being a white male — Maw

Group identity politics right there. Sexist and racist.

Let's then forget Martin Luther King Jr's famous words then shall we?

As another example, those who relate to the black victim herd, can find a way to accept restitution for slavery, even though this all happened a century before they were born. Again, an attachment to that herd, extrapolates the ego beyond their own reality. — wellwisher

How does the fact that it happened a century before they were born prevent it from having a detrimental effect on their reality today? Are you suggesting that events are isolated and none have any influence on how the future pans out?

Are you suggesting that events are isolated and none have any influence on how the future pans out? — Pseudonym

Although "restitution for slavery" is not a remedy. Perhaps a good psychologist, just as a good psychology approach can be a positive help for a victim of something that actually happened to said victim within their own lifetime.

What?

What? — Pseudonym

I used English words.

Yes, just not in an order which made any sense.

Yes, just not in an order which made any sense — Pseudonym

.

I'll attempt to simplify for you.

Those who feel they are victim of a victim of a victim of an actual victim of slavery should probably seek out a psychologist to address their personal issues.

As I said in my original post, are you suggesting that it is not possible for historical events to have a continued real impact on people in contemporary society? At what point does the impact of events stop? Is it immediately after they have happened? Do events somehow only affect the people alive at the time? If there was a wildfire during one generation which destroyed a forest, would the next generation miraculously find the forest had returned because the event is only able to affect the generation alive at the time? I'm baffled by your logic here.

My response was to the question of restitution for slavery.

Yes, and slavery obviously had impacts on the descendents of slaves in addition to the slaves themselves. The first generation faced resentment and bigotry which made it harder to get earn money and limited social opportunity. The next generation faced prejudice resulting from the predominantly low social class of the first generation, resulting from slavery. The third generation suffer from low educational opportunity, low investment and prejudice caused by the previous generation's status, which in turn was caused by that of the generation before, which in turn was caused by slavery.

I don't understand what you're finding so hard to comprehend about this that you think anyone who feels affected by slavery needs a psychiatrist.

I don't understand what you're finding so hard to comprehend about this that you think anyone who feels affected by slavery needs a psychiatrist — Pseudonym

There are many ways to address the psychological without necessarily seeing a psychiatrist.

I think that the 'restitution' idea is not one of them. I think 'restitution' has gone as far as it can go, such as equality rights that the US has evolved into.

There are many ways to address the psychological without necessarily seeing a psychiatrist. — raza

The point is, what in all of this is 'psychological'. People who have been affected by slavery as a consequence of their heritage tend to be poorer with fewer social and educational opportunities. How are they 'psychological'?

To simplify, if your father stole from my father such that now you are now rich and I am poor, how is my contention that my poverty is caused (at least in part) by your father's actions a psychological issue? Its quite a simple material issue. I now have less money than I would have had because your father stole from mine. If I'm excessively angry or upset about that I might need to address my psychological issues, but asking you to share some of the wealth you gained to redress the harm done is an entirely material claim. It could be done calmly and rationally or emotionally and bombastically.

The point is, what in all of this is 'psychological'. People who have been affected by slavery as a consequence of their heritage tend to be poorer with fewer social and educational opportunities. How are they 'psychological'? — Pseudonym

Many people are poor. Many people suffer a poverty of consciousness. Life is difficult most of the time for most of the population of the entire world.

Some can escape their poverty of consciousness and still be poor materially. Some escape their poverty of consciousness and rise up materially.

And then some are very wealthy and powerful but still live in a state of poverty of consciousness.

Yes, so how does any of that change the fact that the treatment of slaves materially affected their descendants?