(05-15-2019 02:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 01:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 12:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Going back to the discussion about liberals and how they *never* employ 'identity politics':

Quote:Gillibrand, in an interview after the event, let out a hearty "yeah" when asked if she felt she was currently being underestimated in the race for the Democratic nomination.

"I think it's just gender bias. I think people are generally biased against women. I think also biased against young women," she said. "There's just bias and it's real and it exists, but you have to overcome it."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/12/politics/gillibrand-early-2020-campaign/index.html

Best thing is that this is seemingly blue on blue identity politics porn........

Has anyone said Dems never employ identity politics?

Both parties do that, and I would agree that Dems are more likely to do that.

You are correct lad. But 93 has seemingly argued that that perception is not justified, iirc.

From the chronicles of '93:

Quote:Really? I actually haven't heard anybody making any level of fuss regarding the ethnicities of these candidates.

While Gillibrand's comments arent 'regarding *ethnicity*' they *are* specifically regarding sex.

From the identity politics 'cookbook' --- any division is good to do this with.

Ethnicity, sex. Potayto, potahto.

I wonder if 93 stands behind that statement as clearly and unflinchingly as at the time of his comment above......

(05-15-2019 05:35 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 03:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I do think there is a difference between saying "I support X because they're Y" and saying "I think people are underestimating X because they're Y." So I definitely don't see Gillebrand and one who is currently playing identity politics, but rather commenting on its existence.

The most common formulation seems to be "If you don't support X, it's because he/she is Y, and therefore you are Y-ist" -- which is identity politics in condescending and divisive form.

(05-16-2019 06:12 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 05:35 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 03:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I do think there is a difference between saying "I support X because they're Y" and saying "I think people are underestimating X because they're Y." So I definitely don't see Gillebrand and one who is currently playing identity politics, but rather commenting on its existence.

The most common formulation seems to be "If you don't support X, it's because he/she is Y, and therefore you are Y-ist" -- which is identity politics in condescending and divisive form.

Well, based on comments from Owl#s and OO, it seems that both have experience suggesting that this formulation does exist. So if we admit that people do act against others because they are Y, how do we go about talking about that and combatting it? Or do we not for fear that someone might feel that someone is being condescending to them?
It seems to be a rather difficult issue, rife with problems, that doesn’t lend itself to generating any productive conversations.

(05-16-2019 06:12 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 05:35 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 03:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I do think there is a difference between saying "I support X because they're Y" and saying "I think people are underestimating X because they're Y." So I definitely don't see Gillebrand and one who is currently playing identity politics, but rather commenting on its existence.

The most common formulation seems to be "If you don't support X, it's because he/she is Y, and therefore you are Y-ist" -- which is identity politics in condescending and divisive form.

Well, based on comments from Owl#s and OO, it seems that both have experience suggesting that this formulation does exist. So if we admit that people do act against others because they are Y, how do we go about talking about that and combatting it? Or do we not for fear that someone might feel that someone is being condescending to them?

It seems to be a rather difficult issue, rife with problems, that doesn’t lend itself to generating any productive conversations.

(05-16-2019 07:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-16-2019 06:12 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 05:35 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 03:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I do think there is a difference between saying "I support X because they're Y" and saying "I think people are underestimating X because they're Y." So I definitely don't see Gillebrand and one who is currently playing identity politics, but rather commenting on its existence.

The most common formulation seems to be "If you don't support X, it's because he/she is Y, and therefore you are Y-ist" -- which is identity politics in condescending and divisive form.

Well, based on comments from Owl#s and OO, it seems that both have experience suggesting that this formulation does exist. So if we admit that people do act against others because they are Y, how do we go about talking about that and combatting it? Or do we not for fear that someone might feel that someone is being condescending to them?
It seems to be a rather difficult issue, rife with problems, that doesn’t lend itself to generating any productive conversations.

Exactly what formulation am I suggesting does exist?

With respect to Tanq's formulation, note specifically that he is not admitting that people do act that way because they are Y-ist, but rather stating that it is alleged any time one expresses any disagreement with X (and often alleged with absolutely zero support).

For example, if I argued against Obamacare (which I think is horrid), the counter I would receive is, "It's a republican idea (it's not, and I'm not a republican), you're just opposed because a black man proposed it." No, I'm opposed because it is a terrible idea that retains the worst part of our old system (tying health insurance to employment, which is a democrat idea) combining it with the worst of single-payer/single-provider systems (replacing the doctor-patient relationship with centralized, bureaucratic decision-making), and I have suggested a viable alternative (Bismarck, the approach used by what are generally regarded as the best health care systems in the world).

(05-16-2019 07:14 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(05-16-2019 06:12 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 05:35 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 03:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I do think there is a difference between saying "I support X because they're Y" and saying "I think people are underestimating X because they're Y." So I definitely don't see Gillebrand and one who is currently playing identity politics, but rather commenting on its existence.

The most common formulation seems to be "If you don't support X, it's because he/she is Y, and therefore you are Y-ist" -- which is identity politics in condescending and divisive form.

Well, based on comments from Owl#s and OO, it seems that both have experience suggesting that this formulation does exist. So if we admit that people do act against others because they are Y, how do we go about talking about that and combatting it? Or do we not for fear that someone might feel that someone is being condescending to them?

It seems to be a rather difficult issue, rife with problems, that doesn’t lend itself to generating any productive conversations.

Certainly not with that attitude. :(

In my experience — specifically including interactions with Rice faculty — difficulties in having useful conversation are mostly driven not by alleged racists, but by racism-baiters, who are hardly paralyzed by any reluctance to condescend. Almost as a rule, they do not even want conversation. They want to scold; whether their target deserves scolding is mostly irrelevant.

(05-16-2019 07:32 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-16-2019 07:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-16-2019 06:12 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Well, based on comments from Owl#s and OO, it seems that both have experience suggesting that this formulation does exist. So if we admit that people do act against others because they are Y, how do we go about talking about that and combatting it? Or do we not for fear that someone might feel that someone is being condescending to them?
It seems to be a rather difficult issue, rife with problems, that doesn’t lend itself to generating any productive conversations.

Exactly what formulation am I suggesting does exist?
With respect to Tanq's formulation, note specifically that he is not admitting that people do act that way because they are Y-ist, but rather stating that it is alleged any time one expresses any disagreement with X (and often alleged with absolutely zero support).
For example, if I argued against Obamacare (which I think is horrid), the counter I would receive is, "It's a republican idea (it's not, and I'm not a republican), you're just opposed because a black man proposed it." No, I'm opposed because it is a terrible idea that retains the worst part of our old system (tying health insurance to employment, which is a democrat idea) combining it with the worst of single-payer/single-provider systems (replacing the doctor-patient relationship with centralized, bureaucratic decision-making), and I have suggested a viable alternative (Bismarck, the approach used by what are generally regarded as the best health care systems in the world).

Earlier you stated that others had underestimated women solely because they were women. That comment means you believe there are people who don’t support women specifically because there women...

(05-16-2019 07:37 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-16-2019 07:32 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-16-2019 07:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-16-2019 06:12 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Well, based on comments from Owl#s and OO, it seems that both have experience suggesting that this formulation does exist. So if we admit that people do act against others because they are Y, how do we go about talking about that and combatting it? Or do we not for fear that someone might feel that someone is being condescending to them?
It seems to be a rather difficult issue, rife with problems, that doesn’t lend itself to generating any productive conversations.

Exactly what formulation am I suggesting does exist?
With respect to Tanq's formulation, note specifically that he is not admitting that people do act that way because they are Y-ist, but rather stating that it is alleged any time one expresses any disagreement with X (and often alleged with absolutely zero support).
For example, if I argued against Obamacare (which I think is horrid), the counter I would receive is, "It's a republican idea (it's not, and I'm not a republican), you're just opposed because a black man proposed it." No, I'm opposed because it is a terrible idea that retains the worst part of our old system (tying health insurance to employment, which is a democrat idea) combining it with the worst of single-payer/single-provider systems (replacing the doctor-patient relationship with centralized, bureaucratic decision-making), and I have suggested a viable alternative (Bismarck, the approach used by what are generally regarded as the best health care systems in the world).

Earlier you stated that others had underestimated women solely because they were women. That comment means you believe there are people who don’t support women specifically because there women...

Underestimated =/= acted against. But that semantic argument is not the primary point here.

Do you, or do you not, agree that race-baiting arguments are hurled without hesitation against people who express contrary ideas, as a method of condescension and scolding in order to deflect away from discussion of substantive issues?

(05-16-2019 07:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-16-2019 07:37 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-16-2019 07:32 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-16-2019 07:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-16-2019 06:12 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Well, based on comments from Owl#s and OO, it seems that both have experience suggesting that this formulation does exist. So if we admit that people do act against others because they are Y, how do we go about talking about that and combatting it? Or do we not for fear that someone might feel that someone is being condescending to them?
It seems to be a rather difficult issue, rife with problems, that doesn’t lend itself to generating any productive conversations.

Exactly what formulation am I suggesting does exist?
With respect to Tanq's formulation, note specifically that he is not admitting that people do act that way because they are Y-ist, but rather stating that it is alleged any time one expresses any disagreement with X (and often alleged with absolutely zero support).
For example, if I argued against Obamacare (which I think is horrid), the counter I would receive is, "It's a republican idea (it's not, and I'm not a republican), you're just opposed because a black man proposed it." No, I'm opposed because it is a terrible idea that retains the worst part of our old system (tying health insurance to employment, which is a democrat idea) combining it with the worst of single-payer/single-provider systems (replacing the doctor-patient relationship with centralized, bureaucratic decision-making), and I have suggested a viable alternative (Bismarck, the approach used by what are generally regarded as the best health care systems in the world).

Earlier you stated that others had underestimated women solely because they were women. That comment means you believe there are people who don’t support women specifically because there women...

Underestimated =/= acted against. But that semantic argument is not the primary point here.

Do you, or do you not, agree that race-baiting arguments are hurled without hesitation against people who express contrary ideas, as a method of condescension and scolding in order to deflect away from discussion of substantive issues?

I think that is a tactic some people use for sure.

(05-16-2019 07:37 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-16-2019 07:14 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(05-16-2019 06:12 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 05:35 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 03:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I do think there is a difference between saying "I support X because they're Y" and saying "I think people are underestimating X because they're Y." So I definitely don't see Gillebrand and one who is currently playing identity politics, but rather commenting on its existence.

The most common formulation seems to be "If you don't support X, it's because he/she is Y, and therefore you are Y-ist" -- which is identity politics in condescending and divisive form.

Well, based on comments from Owl#s and OO, it seems that both have experience suggesting that this formulation does exist. So if we admit that people do act against others because they are Y, how do we go about talking about that and combatting it? Or do we not for fear that someone might feel that someone is being condescending to them?

It seems to be a rather difficult issue, rife with problems, that doesn’t lend itself to generating any productive conversations.

Certainly not with that attitude. :(

In my experience — specifically including interactions with Rice faculty — difficulties in having useful conversation are mostly driven not by alleged racists, but by racism-baiters, who are hardly paralyzed by any reluctance to condescend. Almost as a rule, they do not even want conversation. They want to scold; whether their target deserves scolding is mostly irrelevant.

I see what you’re saying on an individual, one-on-one conversation, and jumping the gun in terms of someone’s rationale, but do we not think sexism is still influencing a portion of the population’s decision making?

(05-15-2019 10:22 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 02:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 01:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 12:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Going back to the discussion about liberals and how they *never* employ 'identity politics':

Quote:Gillibrand, in an interview after the event, let out a hearty "yeah" when asked if she felt she was currently being underestimated in the race for the Democratic nomination.

"I think it's just gender bias. I think people are generally biased against women. I think also biased against young women," she said. "There's just bias and it's real and it exists, but you have to overcome it."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/12/politics/gillibrand-early-2020-campaign/index.html

Best thing is that this is seemingly blue on blue identity politics porn........

Has anyone said Dems never employ identity politics?

Both parties do that, and I would agree that Dems are more likely to do that.

You are correct lad. But 93 has seemingly argued that that perception is not justified, iirc.

From the chronicles of '93:

Quote:Really? I actually haven't heard anybody making any level of fuss regarding the ethnicities of these candidates.

While Gillibrand's comments arent 'regarding *ethnicity*' they *are* specifically regarding sex.

From the identity politics 'cookbook' --- any division is good to do this with.

Ethnicity, sex. Potayto, potahto.

I wonder if 93 stands behind that statement as clearly and unflinchingly as at the time of his comment above......

"Unflinchingly". That's funny.

*Disclaimer: I basically fire off hurried responses in between my busy work life and taking care of my kids. None of this should be treated as my personal credo.*

That being said... I still haven't felt a great deal of excitement over the ethnicity/gender over the current Democratic presidential candidates. I'm sure there is some out there. You are probably more likely to notice it just as I am more likely to notice annoying things that Republicans do. I agree with Lad that identity politics is more likely to come from the Democrats but neither side is immune. Remember all the excitement when John McCain named his female running mate?

(05-16-2019 10:14 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/careersandeducation/sat-to-give-students-adversity-scores-to-capture-social-and-economic-background/ar-AABrwix?li=BBnb7Kz

(05-16-2019 10:04 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/men-cast-every-vote-for-alabamas-restrictive-abortion-law/ar-AABr0dc?li=BBnb7Kz#page=2

"Twenty-five members of the Alabama State Senate voted to pass the nation's most restrictive abortion bill on Tuesday — and every single one of them were white men."


\Why is their race important?

\Also, should men not be allowed to vote on this?

(05-16-2019 11:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-16-2019 10:04 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/men-cast-every-vote-for-alabamas-restrictive-abortion-law/ar-AABr0dc?li=BBnb7Kz#page=2

"Twenty-five members of the Alabama State Senate voted to pass the nation's most restrictive abortion bill on Tuesday — and every single one of them were white men."


\Why is their race important?

\Also, should men not be allowed to vote on this?

Race isn't important.

Men should certainly be allowed to vote on women's issues.

People's backgrounds inform and influence their views.

(05-16-2019 11:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-16-2019 11:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-16-2019 10:04 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/men-cast-every-vote-for-alabamas-restrictive-abortion-law/ar-AABr0dc?li=BBnb7Kz#page=2

"Twenty-five members of the Alabama State Senate voted to pass the nation's most restrictive abortion bill on Tuesday — and every single one of them were white men."


\Why is their race important?

\Also, should men not be allowed to vote on this?

Race isn't important.

Men should certainly be allowed to vote on women's issues.

People's backgrounds inform and influence their views.

So why bring it up?

(05-16-2019 01:55 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-16-2019 11:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-16-2019 11:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-16-2019 10:04 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/men-cast-every-vote-for-alabamas-restrictive-abortion-law/ar-AABr0dc?li=BBnb7Kz#page=2

"Twenty-five members of the Alabama State Senate voted to pass the nation's most restrictive abortion bill on Tuesday — and every single one of them were white men."


\Why is their race important?

\Also, should men not be allowed to vote on this?

Race isn't important.

Men should certainly be allowed to vote on women's issues.

People's backgrounds inform and influence their views.

So why bring it up?

I think the optics of a bunch of white men voting for a law that is going to disproportionately affect poor women (and therefore black women) in Alabama is what has generated some anger.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/may/16/alabama-abortion-ban-us-women-state-senate


"An abortion ban as radical as the one voted for in Alabama is about the elimination of women – particularly poor women – as a threat to the social order; it is a measure designed to ensure that poor people stay poor, and women stay home."

"to lose control of one’s reproductive health is to lose control of one’s life, or that a woman without means to travel will be forced to carry a baby with severe fetal abnormalities to term, or simply that the consequence of sex is once again borne by the woman – all the things that were supposed to have been banished in 1973."

"People of means who want abortions in Alabama will fly out of state, as they always have, given that the state has only three abortion clinics. For everyone else, an abortion is not only a cost investment but an emotional and imaginative one. It is hard enough, in a state such as Alabama, to get the courage up to go to an abortion clinic. But to have to travel vast distances for a frightening procedure that is illegal at home might be for many, too much. Which is of course why the bill passed. Everything about it says: stay where you are."

(05-16-2019 11:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-16-2019 11:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-16-2019 10:04 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/men-cast-every-vote-for-alabamas-restrictive-abortion-law/ar-AABr0dc?li=BBnb7Kz#page=2

"Twenty-five members of the Alabama State Senate voted to pass the nation's most restrictive abortion bill on Tuesday — and every single one of them were white men."


\Why is their race important?

\Also, should men not be allowed to vote on this?

Race isn't important.

Men should certainly be allowed to vote on women's issues.

People's backgrounds inform and influence their views.

So why bring it up?

(05-16-2019 02:07 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-16-2019 01:55 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-16-2019 11:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-16-2019 11:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-16-2019 10:04 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/men-cast-every-vote-for-alabamas-restrictive-abortion-law/ar-AABr0dc?li=BBnb7Kz#page=2

"Twenty-five members of the Alabama State Senate voted to pass the nation's most restrictive abortion bill on Tuesday — and every single one of them were white men."


\Why is their race important?

\Also, should men not be allowed to vote on this?

Race isn't important.

Men should certainly be allowed to vote on women's issues.

People's backgrounds inform and influence their views.

So why bring it up?

I think the optics of a bunch of white men voting for a law that is going to disproportionately affect poor women (and therefore black women) in Alabama is what has generated some anger.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/may/16/alabama-abortion-ban-us-women-state-senate


"An abortion ban as radical as the one voted for in Alabama is about the elimination of women – particularly poor women – as a threat to the social order; it is a measure designed to ensure that poor people stay poor, and women stay home."

"to lose control of one’s reproductive health is to lose control of one’s life, or that a woman without means to travel will be forced to carry a baby with severe fetal abnormalities to term, or simply that the consequence of sex is once again borne by the woman – all the things that were supposed to have been banished in 1973."

"People of means who want abortions in Alabama will fly out of state, as they always have, given that the state has only three abortion clinics. For everyone else, an abortion is not only a cost investment but an emotional and imaginative one. It is hard enough, in a state such as Alabama, to get the courage up to go to an abortion clinic. But to have to travel vast distances for a frightening procedure that is illegal at home might be for many, too much. Which is of course why the bill passed. Everything about it says: stay where you are."

Nothing like a dual 'sexist' and 'racist' deplorable knee jerk. When in doubt, use all the divisions you can.