(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?