Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
Are identity politics dangerous?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 авг 2024
- Some fear that politics based on protecting race, religion or other minority groups can threaten the rights of others. How did identity politics emerge and has it gone too far?
Click here to subscribe to The Economist on RUclips: econ.st/2xvTKdy
Daily Watch: mind-stretching short films throughout the working week.
For more from Economist Films visit: econ.st/2uzcZP9
Check out The Economist’s full video catalogue: econ.st/20IehQk
Like The Economist on Facebook: econ.st/2uzA9F6
Follow The Economist on Twitter: econ.st/2uyjQbO
Follow us on Instagram: econ.st/2uA3BLs
Follow us on Medium: econ.st/2uyUeM1
Identity politics IS divisive in its nature. You can't make it "inclusive".
Thank you!
All politics have an identitarian component, m0r0n. You can't even evaluate economic policies without people identifying with jobless/working demographics in different ways and that's just for starters.
My problem isn't that it's a "Zero Sum", but rather in the political process, people are poisoning the discussion with identity, generalizing and reducing it to how it affects a group than how it affects the population.
MLK had a dream once, that his kids will be judged not by the color of their skins, but the content of their characters. What Identity Politics do is exactly is by the color of their skins, as opposed of the content of their characters.
@Kevin Elsworth YES. 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
Exactly!
Thank you. Identity politics by definition is shallow, skin deep you could say. The most oppressed is always the individual and collectivism is a small step away from genocide.
This! 🙌🏼
Jordan Peterson has entered the chat😁👌🏼💯
Good luck with making "identity politics" more inclusive. Those ideas are designed to divide and segregate. I'm glad people have woken up to this now: good riddance to dangerous rubbish.
People should be allowed to have their own identity.
Agreed this only benefits those that wish to divide and segregate
@@novosprospectus882 Are people not allowed to have there own identity?
Division is only bad when it results in one side believing there better then the others
@@brianbrush5107 Are the majority supposed to be ignored? Division is bad when it results in on side believing they are better than the others which is exactly what is happening with the majority being ignored.
@@novosprospectus882 That ain't what identity politics are. Identity politics is taking pride in yourself and who you are.
The smallest and most oppressed minority is the individual.
Juanito libertarianism built the world that everybody takes for granted now.
Very well said.
that kind of makes no sense...
What a meaningless platitude.
The trouble is liberalism figured this out two hundred plus years ago. Where as intersectional types still haven’t
Why not just have the same rights for all individuals instead of certain rights for certain groups?
Huh? When did identity politics become about having certain rights for certain groups? Wasn't it always about having equal rights?
iih It should be about equal rights but that's not the goal of identity politics.
Bengali - Umm I never even implied one group has more rights than another. I meant that many people are using identity politics to try to achieve unique rights for different groups.
Women.
They have the right to absolve themselves of all legal, financial, and social responsibility of raising a child they do not want.
They have the right (in some countries) to abort their baby and husband has no right to interject.
They have the right to legal protection against genital mutilation, boys do not.
Bengali - name one that doesnt have the same rights then
I think you missed the issue. Identity politics is more about dealing with people on the basis of group membership rather than each person as an individual.
Which is also dangerous... when we are dealt with as groups rather than individuals we carry consequences/guilt/shame as a group for example black/latinos/natives and really every minority group has to carry stereotypes and feel apologetic for crimes some of them has commit and are all stereotyped accordingly ... we should focus more on individual rights rather than group/pack rights and mentality.
Thats the point you fool lol
@Zangyaku Diluc /whoosh
I will join team white male and we will commit violence to persevere ourselves if required. If you want me to focus on your vision of my identity, you will not like the results. If you want to be a fellow American we can play that way too.
@Dorey DNM In terms of rights and opportunities, yes. I don't have to agree with them to acknowledge their right of free speech and individualism. You basicly just proved his point by using identity politics in a destructive way.
I think this video misses some points. Identity politics isn't about some groups benefiting at the expense of others (i.e. zero sum game), it's about shutting out dissenting points of view because you can't speak on behalf of another protected group. I may be against affirmative action, but because I'm not a visible minority (I'm from portugal), I am immediately a racist and I am lumped into the majority male white camp; even though I'm as much of a minority as other immigrants to the US. If you are a visible minority and you are against affirmative action, then people will say you are a traitor or are against your own interests. The very idea that my opinions and actions aren't judged as an individual, but rather as a collective of my group identity, is the exact reason why identity politics is so dangerous.
We are quick to point out that nationalism is a form of identity politics because it creates a binary between you and the other; but if you even hint at being against illegal immigration, you are immedialtely lumped into the zenophobic camp by identitarians.
+Sydney Piper Bristow, there are two approaches to improving representation of low income populations in universities:
1) improve schools, institutions and family structures in these neighborhoods so that they have the same opportunity as those in high income neighborhoods. This may include putting more resources in low-income areas, lowering crime rates, or provide incentives for businesses to invest in these left-behind neighborhoods.
2) leave the system as is and incorporate affirmative action. This evens out the enrollment distribution by enabling those at the bottom to enroll, but at the expense of those who have the highest enrollment scores. This favors some minority groups (such as native born blacks and indigenous) at the expense of other minority groups (asian american and ashkenazi jews).
The second option is of course representative of institutional racism, and is why schools such as harvard are now in court over their historic enrollment records, or why Tokyo medical school is in hot water for preferentially admitting males over females to improve representation of males as doctors.
The former option 1) is one that I support, and I would also support an enrollment system that gave preference to individuals from low income neighborhoods and sub-par upbringing. This option gives preferential treatment to those that had to overcome more in life simply based on upbringing, as opposed to option 2) which discriminates based on skin color, i.e. a practice America is slowly trying to phase out.
+Sydney Piper Bristow, maybe I should have been more direct. I am against affirmative action as it currently stands because it is predicated on race or any immutable characteristic, but I am for a form of affirmative action if it takes into account upbringing. Hope that clarifies it, but I can be more descriptive if you like.
Syndey Piper Bristow, thanks for your response. I also want to commend you for not getting at least too emotionally invested in this argument, as it's difficult to have a telling debate with many people on topics such as this. I will answer your questions in order:
"So even though race, sexual orientation, etc , immutable characteristics are the specific reasons why they are oppressed, you think they don't deserve affirmative action????"
Two things on this point. Firstly, for all the reasons mentioned in my earlier comments, affirmative action is a form of institutionalized racism, simple as that. You cannot discriminate on any immutable characteristic, simple as that. If any group is oppressed we need to remove the barriers of oppression, not punish other minority groups institutionally. Second on this point, birthplace and upbringing are stronger indicators of economic mobility overall that racial identity. In a poor neighborhoods with < 50,000 USD in household income, the black woman have better economic mobility than white woman, with black men having the worst chance of moving out of poverty - largely due to high incarceration rates. In rich neighborhoods, black and white males have the same chance of accumulating wealth; regardless of race. All of this was noted in a study by Stanford University, and was used to indicate the fact that people - regardless of race - have poor income mobility when they are born in areas with fewer opportunities and higher crimes rates.
"Does that really sound logical, when you refuse a group affirmative action based on something they were born as ?:
That's an interesting spin on what I said. I suggest we can't base affirmative action on immutable characteristics, but rather by upbringing, i.e. no race base discrimination. I'm assuming you are for affirmative action, meaning you believe in selecting certain groups of privilege over others, at the expense of other minority groups. I hope you understand the irony in what you say; again, I believe no where in life should you be identified, discriminated or favored because of your racial, sexual or gender preference. We actually have laws on the books saying that explicitly, so I don't think that should be debatable.
"Are you really saying that there are no victims in those minorities?"
There are victims of society in all groups, that's not the point. I have already mentioned at length why some people are disadvantaged in society, but the approach I take doesn't discriminate based on immutable characteristics, and targets the worse off more directly. In race based affirmative action, an asian american is at a disadvantage regardless if he came from a family with nothing, or he was born from a wealthy household. In both instances he is judged based on his racial identity, and that is a practice I hope to phase out over time.
Hope that clarifies by position better. Cheers.
+Sydney Piper Bristow,
"You said you cannot discriminate on immutable characteristics, except, that's exactly what's being discriminated . Discrimination doesn't follow rules or laws, it's why it's called discrimination. Do I really need to provide evidence of this for you?"
I don't know if I'm not conveying myself properly, or english may not be your first language - no offense. I'm saying you cannot discriminate on immutable characteristics, it's illegal and is a policy that traces by to the Jim Crowe era. Discrimination still exists, but we should phase it out in all forms it may take.
+Sydney Piper Bristow,
"Minorities are not a privileged group. Affirmative action is there for oppressed groups. Not sure why you think they're privileged? What is at the expense of other groups? What exactly is expended?"
Privilege comes in many forms, any application/process that overtly gives preference based on race is giving some privileges to some groups over others. As for what is expended, in affirmative action if you are asian america you have points docked against you, while if you are african american or latino, you have points added to your score. Do you understand what is expended? Some people don't get in because they are asian american, simply because they were born of a certain ethnicity; that's institutional racism clear and center.
Congrats, the Economist. You just lost a subscriber. Identity politics is wrong. Plain and simple. Yes to equal rights, no to equal outcome. As simple as that!
Марко Тотев It certainly is suspicious when The Economist logo is a “Red Square”. I’m sure it’s purely coincidental of course.
I had the utmost respect for The Economist for years. Then, you come out with this. What happened to your logic and intellect? How can you not see that "identity politics" is a dangerous concept? This shouldn't even be a term considered for use in our everyday language. IDENTITY POLITICS IS NOT POLITICS FOR EVERYONE BUT RATHER POLITICAL REPRESENTATION FOR YOUR GROUP IDENTITY. According to this logic, anyone "not" in your camp is automatically disregarded and often times, bias is exercised. How is this equal representation for everyone? So now, in order to be properly represented, there has to be a subgroup for every race/gender/orientation? Yes, bias and racism do exist even today but "identity politics" isn't stifling it. It just put it into overdrive.
Identify politics will ALWAYS be DESTRUCTIVE. there are literally too many reasons to say in one comment. This kind of subtle approach just makes it even more insidious.
Yes identity politics is dangerous
I thought civil rights movement was about abolishing identity politics, that favored one group, in order to bring equality for all, no matter what.
What if we all just got equal protection under the law?
Like we already have?
@@mynamemylastname1835 nope. Some groups have special protection under law.
@@Naveenkr7102 OK I'll bite, what groups have special protection in your opinion?
@@mynamemylastname1835 women and children
Giving children additional legal protections seems legitimate.
I remember, years ago, when the Economist was considered one of the go-to mags worldwide. I worked in Embassies for over 20 years during the 80's and 90s and during that time it (the Economist) was probably the most sought after mag when the diplomatic bag came in! That, dear friends, is no longer the case. Sad.
Identity politics is, essentially, a form of intellectual and social apartheid. I am staggered that some have attempted to rebrand such a curse for such nefarious reasons.
@@eddiew2325 you better find your "safe space"
So true
The whole idea behind identity politics is to divide humanity. Are you really not seeing that?
We should unify instead of divide ourselves. Children are stimulated to be different allt he time but, in the end, are they really?
Divide and Conquer is the term and it's being used right now, at this very moment.
The problem with identity politics is that it usually gets in the way of substantial class and economic issues that impact all disadvantaged people in America.
Identity Politics can be summed up in one word...TRIBALISM....The worst kind of society to have
Identity politics is a nice term for racism, period
The fact that you want a database categorizes people based on race, then you want to make decisions about those people based on that data seems to meet the definition of racism. You are correct that identity has always been apart of politics but your identity is usually based off of ideology, not skin tone. Your identity should be based off changeable ideas not immutable differences like skin tone. Most people probably have no problem giving a poor child a scholarship for school but to give one to a kid because he is black and you have statistics that say black people are poor, that seems a bit bigoted.
woodchuck 00 if you don't track demographics, then you won't see disparaties in the population. And when there's an unexplained underrepresentation of a group in a population, you have the option of either letting it persist or correcting the disparaties to what is expected holding all else constant. Disparaties of minorities in populations for various services/etc have and continue to exist.
TL:DR colorblind is not equal to not racist
Derek Chance If you want to be not racist then maybe you should refrain from racial discrimination. Unexplained under-representation is a statistical leftover, not a blank check for you to write into whatever you want. If you don't know what causes the disparities then you won't correct them either. The only thing you will achieve is discriminating against certain individuals based on their race. Some might call that racist in and of itself, but I'm sure you have some neat euphemism for it and all the double standards you might possible need to back its use.
romaliop Even if I, or the public, refrain from discrimination doesn't mean others will. Simply observing the spread of a population is not discriminatory. Sure, policy that is discriminatory could be made based on it, but to say that policies that seek to prevent racial discrimination are racist is about as oxymoronic as it gets.
Derek, this is The Economist you know what kind of affirmative action they are talking about. They want the affirmative action that lead the FAA to think its a good idea to allow unqualified people to be air traffic controllers, the kind that Harvard is being sued over (making it harder for Asian-Americans to enter), the kind that made Saddleback College think it was a good idea to give two title IX investigations to a student with autism and cerebral palsy.
Derek Chance Seeking to prevent racial discrimination with policies of racial discrimination is the real paradox here.
The problem with identity politics is that there is no such thing as a constructive or destructive identity politics. By it’s own nature identity politics is a subjective experience depending on the group you identify as. In other words where as one group might view the use of identity politics as constructive another group will inevitably find the use of identity politics to be destructive. You usually will find this in groups who oppose each other based off of beliefs.
Your rights are my responsibilities. Increasing one unproportionally automatically means you're decreasing others. Increasing rights to one, means you're increasing responsibilities of others.
We should all have same opportunities, but not hindrances or aids. Pretending that increasing rights of one, magically does not impose stricter responsibilities on others is disingenuous.
Backlash isn't against fair treatment, it's against UNfair treatment. Social justice isn't justice. It's mob rule and it isn't very social either.
identity politics is dumb on so many levels. helps dehumanizing and stereotyping people...
How many minutes of nothing was that video?
When i graduated high school i enlisted in the marines and swore an oath to defend americans, not asian americans, not african americans, not white americans. Just americans
So you swore on oath to only defend people who share the same national identity as you? That is the very definition of identity politics! Did you get hit on the head in the marines?
@@dangumbo4835 marines aren't the brightest crayons in the box :/
@@michaeldudley3756 Or the sharpest stars in the sky. :)
@@dangumbo4835 I don’t remember a single country’s soldier vowing to protect the world instead of the nation
@@dangumbo4835 Call me wrong but, when was the last time members of foreign armies or defense forces vowed to protect the US? Or any other nation beside theirs?
Identity politics is cancer.
But it's inevitable so deal with it.
@@Ryan-gz6ym It isn't inevitable. The ruling elite have simply made it acceptable, by introducing the concept of privilege. Racism, tribalism, bigotry and discrimination used to be morally bad, whoever you were, but now all of them are acceptable, so long as the person you are doing it to is "Privileged". Of course the concept of privilege is seductive, and is so loose and ill-defined, impossible to prove one way or another, it is perfect for their needs.
The media, the rich and politicians are stirring up hatred and division, to get viewers, maintain the status quo, and earn votes. That is the same morally evil thing as Mao, Stalin or Hitler did. The problem is that we (the public) have been persuaded that it is not evil, by these very generally bad people who now have all the wealth, run our governments and broadcast our entertainment.
@@marioferreira7605 No, If you decide that you are going to belong to a tribe and identify with that tribe, you immediately create the situation where another tribe opposes you. It is like gang warfare. Unless you think you are better than everyone else, if you can do it why can't everyone else?
It is morally wrong. If you want to help the poor, help poor people of every gender and color. If police are shooting innocent people, it is wrong whatever color they are. As soon as you say, we only support helping people who are a certain color, its you who is the racist. If black people only help black people, why shouldn't white people only help white people?
You create exactly what you are trying to avoid.
You miss the point. Identity politics on its own is not the problem. After all, the civil rights movement in the US for example, was clearly identity politics. The problem is when identity politics meets collectivism, the believe that all members of a group - defined as all people that share an immutable characteristics such as skin color or sexual preference - are the same. Arguably in America, black people - on average - are poorer than lets say Asian people. Hence, there will be more black kids than Asian kids that grow up in bad neighborhoods and go to bad schools, dealing with more obstacles as they grow up. But in collectivist identity politics, all black people are disadvantaged, and all Asian people are advantaged. Hence black people should get special help for example when applying for college. But in reality, Obamas daughter is certainly not disadvantaged compared to Weng Chiu, son of Chinese immigrants, where the father is alcoholic and the mother works as dish washer in a restaurant. Collectivism also is the reason why in identity politics, the explanation why a group is underprivileged is always oppression by other groups. There is nothing wrong in identifying that a group is - on average -underprivileged, and that we should try to change this.
Civil rights can be argued to be the opposite of identity politics, it was about getting to the point where we'd see ppl as individuals rather than members of groups
Yes. The answer is: yes, it is dangerous.
In Germany there is a literally sexist quota, there have to be at least 30% women in the board of directors for large corporations.
Identity politics belong to our tribal past.
Tribal past? When did we ever evolve past tribalism? I haven't seen one piece of evidence to support that.
I agree completely. It has done nothing to unite us and merely appeals to the worst elements of our nature.
Is it sexist that 70% are men? Sexism is needed to fight sexism
One can be a woman and competent. I'll just point that out
@@Burikami Way to miss the point dumbass. Learn to read . ATLEAST ATLEAST ATLEAST. Not 30 percent, ATLEAST 30 percent.
Quotas are brilliant. My friend says at his company they are obliged to interview every numpty who meets certain minimum right-on criteria. They're mostly useless.
I would say the term "special treatment" is itself biased. Asking to have the same rights as other people is not "special". It is the opposite.
Agreed
Kevin O'Brien
Asking for it specially for your group is not the same, then.
Women have had equal rights with men for decades now.
Yes it is dangerous because it threatens the individual.
I am disappointed. What happened to the true liberal values like the human potential and individual pursuit of happiness? Problem with these egalitarian identity politics isn't that it exclude white males, but that it diverts our attention from what is important. Race, gender, sexual orientation and all these immutable characteristics shouldn't matter, character should matter! We don't even know what makes excellent moral character any more.
Problem with egalitarian identity politics is that it's flawed at its fundamentals. Create equal opportunity and free choice, and you WILL get an unequal outcome. Pointing at the unequal outcome and saying (for example) that it's sexist is a dangerous oversimplification of a complex reality.
This problem did not start under him, but this particular issue was greatly exacerbated by the Obama administration.
Coby Whitaker can you explain what he did to make it worse?
Ravi GOPINATHAN let me educate you. Obama is a collectivist. He called conservatives bitter clingers that cling to guns and bibles. Identify white police as racist. He created the DACA program just for votes with no Pathway to citizenship. He told cities to ignore immigration law and favor foreigners over citizens. The media called anything negative against Obama racist. The Democratic party completely gave up on the white working man if he is straight.
Coby Whitaker what? Did you miss the 60's or something?
Weren’t Nazis the most notorious group based on identity politics. They stood for the idea of Germanic superiority and thought their interests (racial purity, lebensraum, German ultranationalism) were more important than others, labelling opponents of their regime as “Jewish puppets” or “Bolsheviks.” That’s how I think about it. I don’t think identity politics is limited to oppressed minorities.
In lots of ways modern day SJWs have lot in common with eugenics people in 1900s, which was tribalistic and racist. But after the nazis the eugenics vanished
@@matrix91234 Hardly. SJW’s are more like whiny brats who need to grow up and stop living in a bubble.
@@CoreyStudios2000 I can kinda say same thing with right wing autocrats. I just mean the effects identity politics is it bases brash generalization and can hurt pointing out the actual problem
This was a wholly opinionated yet uninformative piece
bro how are you gonna make the argument that they want “special treatment” when you got them holding equal rights signs 😭😭
To make identity politics constructive and open is the biggest challenge. So many people are turning the fight to equal rights into hate for the "normies" or the majority. We have to be very careful about how we go forward because everyone's way of life is under threat.
every violent revolution started with the promise of "going forward" there should always be an awarness and skeptisism to who says those words and what are their ideas for doing so .
"everyones equal; but some people are more equal than others" finally understood what that phrase meant. its identity politics.
Identity Politics allow for a preprogrammed checkoff list of talking points against each group.
No longer do we hear individuals and their arguments. Instead, we immediately label; Then according to the label, start traversing the corresponding checklist. Both participants ignoring one another, both not reaching any substantial understanding of the other. After which, all that's left is undiluted toxicity.
Why intersectionality is part of it, in other words, a victimhood checklist.
Facts
Identity politics is a low resolution idea... People vary in almost infinite ways, however IP focuses on race, gender, disability, and sexuality etc. But they ignore hugely important factors such as IQ, personality traits, interest, culture, physical attractiveness, etc.
It is the inverse of MLK's prescription to judge people based on the CONTENT of their characters
This video has it all wrong. Identity politics requires antagonizing another group people of society. Feminism, for example. Why do we need feminism? Because some men have a bias against women (even though the vast majority of men don’t have a bias). This is the problem with identity politics: it’s built on ideologies that antagonize groups rather unify them. There should only be one ideology: the equalist, which seeks to treat people as individuals rather than group them based on some objective marker (race, religion, sex, etc).
EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL! If that’s identity politics I’m on board.
Seems more or less spot on to me.
No, the question is not « in what form should identity politics exist ». Identity politics themselves exacerbate differences, focusing ARBITRARILY on one specific characteristic of an individual and allowing that individual to have an opinion based on that. It is flawed as an intellectual thought process and prevents any type of constructive discussion.
What a useless bunch of word salad!
The background music is just too stressful for me to stress about the content
I personally abhor identity politics. To me its rather trivial. There shouldnt so much importance on identity....
Equal rights regardless of identity is an identity politics position. You can deny that but when you feel someone wants to take rights from you based on identity and those people exist on all sides you might feel differently. It does not make sense to reject identity politics as a concept, instead we should identify bad ideas within identity politics and fight those.
Civil rights movement was not identity politics. In fact it was against identity politics ; not to be judged by color, raise etc. Now it’s all about identity politics. We have black only domes in unis, white people in unis not being allowed on certain days etc. on the right side , gender roles , white Christian only movements etc… I have a dream ; May be one day US politics will be about making a better world for everyone ; every single individual rather than focusing on groups
Its not a zero sun game sure since men aren't technically loosing rights. But this doesn't mean it still isn't unfair for one group of people to have more rights just because one group isn't loosing any
Completely missed the entire point of identity politics. It’s to group people and label them, therefore certain groups are worth more than others. It’s Marxist 101. It has nothing to do equal rights, or equal opportunity employment.
Glad to see a lot of commenters noticed they missed the issue
The problem with identity politics is NOT that enacting POLICIES that help minority groups negatively effect the majority. They don't. It's that when the POLITICS become all about helping minorities everyone becomes divided into groups and we lose sight of the things that help all of us! Of course issues facing distinctive groups need attention, but there are things that we all need and are all losing, I.e. a living wage, clean air and water, healthcare, an education, etc..
Besides, many of us would describe "identity politics" not as talking about issues facing a race or ethnicity or whatever. But as in a "I want one of ME in control to take care of MY issues" kind of ethos. Oh, and just so you know I'm being fair: white males are probably the most guilty of being this way..
Identity politics is cancer
Racism sparks racism
We need protection for the basics rights. Forget equality. Competition
The single most effected minority of Identity Politics is the adoptee community. No other group is so deeply affected yet completely ignored and disenfranchised. The term Identity Politics should be solely an adoption related term for the following reasons.
Did you know in adoption:
The original birth certificate is cancelled along with that identity
A new birth record is created along with a new identity.
Many people are unaware they have 2 birth certificates.
The adoptive parents are listed as the biological parents.
An unknown amount of adoptees don’t even know they are adopted.
There are no legal requirements to inform them of such.
Adoption permanently severs relationships with parents, grandparents, siblings, cousins, aunts and uncles.
Adoptees are legally disconnected from their history and culture for life.
Adoptees have no access to vital medical family medical information.
As an informed adult you have no rights to restore legal relationships with your family even after the age of 18.
Some adult adoptees are in failed adoptions, are in reunion with family an are still legally prevented to restore legal relationships with their family.
Many adoptees are confused that their experience does not match with how adoption is perceived by the public and people around them.
There has been limited to no research in to the longterm effects.
Adoptees have continued to be over represented in crime, poor mental health and addiction statistics.
It is always baffling to me to realise some people refuse to understand that when we are discussing facts our identity is irrelevant.
*Identity Politics is discrimination in the name of tolerance.*
I'm not sure that this hits the nail squarely. The video repeatedly says that rights are the issue, and it brings in the concept of zero sum with regards to rights. I think the identity issues are largely outside of the legal structures where rights reside. This is about culture and what lies in the hearts of humans and the discourses of speech that believers say cause Injustice and harm. Rights are relatively easy to measure and rectify, and there is much more universal support for rights. But the identity movement focus on concepts that cannot be measured or reasoned on and takes as dogma that power and privilege is not unique to the individual's circumstances but can be divined by what relevant identity group the individual falls within as defined by the current progressive academics in the sociology and humanities departments. As such, progress on equality can never be made as inequality is nearly impossible to measure and the chosen identities and hierarchies are often based on historical injustices, not present ones. It is hard to view this as anything other than educated progressives finding power and influence, not through merit and constructive leadership and new ideas, but by becoming priests of a new religion.
Spoiler alert... Dangerous is an understatement...
Newsflash, humans are not equal, we are all very different, any mechanism to try and force similarity and stifle natural differences will only damage societal structure.
Circadin all humans are equal, no one person is the same.
Identity politics is not about reducing people to one characteristic, it a way of monitoring if society is open and equal. Same with measuring outcomes. It is a way of mobilising, if not. It is a way of ensuring that institutionally marginalised groups are protected and have recourse to legal protection. There are upsides and downsides to quotas. Identity politics should not be about silencing anyone, that would be divisive. Current politics arguably reject identity politics and are the most divisive we have seen in decades.
This question has now answered it self. Just look at the world
Its extremely dangerous. Defend the rights of individuals not groups. Political correctness is the worst thing to happen in the last few years.
identity politics is like pouring gasoline in the fire of human tribalism
The key is seeing the line where it crosses over into "toxic tribalism" and the need for being loyal or favorable to one's own group at the exclusion or demonization of others. The line where calling for equal rights for one ethnic group doesn't cross over into ethno-nationalism or eugenics.
People must also realize that identities are merging, and must accept that many traditional views of identities are no longer valid. Many of us (including myself) are a mix of one or more ethnicities, and how identity politics now harms us at the benefit of others. The feminist movement and trans movement are now clashing because past views of gender identity and gender tribalism are now being changed.
People must realize identity is a malleable thing, an ever-changing one. One must constantly look for ways of creating equality based on a universal view of empathy rather than stick to the competitive and outdated notions of tribalism or nationalism.
Facts
Identity politics is bad when we all already have the same rights.
Women have some rights that men don't. Men don't have any rights that women don't. But men do have responsibilities that women don't. Like entering the draft.
Can't say "my money my choice" when it comes to child support or alimony.
This video said nothing worth a damn.
Exactly
HUMAN. RIGHTS. THAT'S IT, THAT'S ALL WE NEED.
Yep that's all. Human rights. That's all we need. That's it.
That music does my head in, and takes away from the very important narrative.
when will we realize the real problem that racism is never solved is becuz of the social gap? Instead of fighting over identity politics internally , everyone who are suffering under the system need "class struggle" as our first step to really solve racisms, and other discriminations. for instance, an African American man living in ghetto and one living in wealthy suburb are living completely different life, how can they simply be categorize as the same group of people? just compare how many wealthy suburb African American man or woman got killed violently by police in their area to the ones living in ghetto. Same idea for any other races or gender.
The problem, in my opinion, is that if my hands are wet, no matter how hard I try, my grip just simply slips around the lid of the pickle jar, which is really embarrassing in front of the ladies I'm trying to impress with my strength, or lack of.
You quoted the main problem in the beginning and didn't answer that, which is people calling you racist for wearing a Halloween costume, for example
I feel like taking someones ideas, totally twisting them, and then misrepresenting them is totally breaking the morality point your trying to hold.
Whenever I talk about the 4 times higher suicide and homelessness rates in men, those who love identity politics shoot me down. They say that men are a privileged group. Identity politics are therefore dangerous because they stop vulnerable men getting support. E.g. 40% of domestic abuse victims are male yet there are almost no refuges for men. Groups should be scrapped when thinking about equality, just try to help ALL vulnerable individuals.
The problem with identity politics is not to privilege or forsake one group or another, but the divisiveness of segregating groups by using certain criteria. This fuels the "red vs blue" mentality, and robs people of their individual identity overwriting it with the group identity. That is the stuff racism is made of, to see people as a homogeneous heard. To believe someone can get this principle and turn it into something virtuous is commendable, but incredibly naive.
The only people that effectively gain with group identity are politicians and corporations that can leverage on the divisiveness, and explore a simple and easy political platform.
how about a hierarchy of competence and not a hierarchy of identity groups? Thats achieved through equality not equity
This video would have been better if you discussed example of when "identity politics become too much". I can see this being a bit hard because most of such examples would just be of people complaining online.
That being said, I thought this video was really well-put and explained really well.
iih. Certainly when gulags are created it's too much.
Identity politics creates an us vs them mentality which is bad
More "we vs them". Focusing on us means we get along
It's a simple case of divide and conquer.
Divide and conquer is how Europe colonised the world
Person 1: We need to hire more mathematicians, here's the list of top performers we can try.
Person 2: We can't sire! we need 43% more race Y in our database!
Every person should be judged based on their capability by the respective matrices for a particular role. That's it.
Identity politics means special privileges at the expense of others.
Human beings are born with different capacities. If they are free, they are not equal, if they are equal, they are not free.
This has to be the most idiotic thing humanity came up with after religion .
The most reasonable argument for identity politics I’ve seen, but not enough to convince me that one should be reduced to the identity of a group rather than of an individual.
Whatever stance you have when it comes to identity is identity politics. From all people deserve equal rights regardless of identity to one identity deserves all the rights. If people of your identity started losing rights you would probably be against that, it’s identity politics. Stop focusing on attacking Identity politics and start attacking bad ideas.
This a false premise. Advantaging one group is no different than disadvantaging all who aren't a part of that group. In the broader social context this is distorting one groups accomplishments, thereby creating an inferiority culture whereby all people not apart of the advantaged group are viewed as inferiors. This is the premise upon which we determine racism to be unjustified. You are playing with fire.
This is too loaded of a topic to do justice with this piece. There are terms that need defining. There are biases that are not obvious, but are there nonetheless. But a worthwhile topic to discuss. Better to have those discussions in person or in much longer pieces.
Identity politics is fascism.
Black lives matter is not about getting special treatment it about being treated equally
The first thing that needs to be done is the free world needs to learn the difference between rights and privileges, so that we don't violate liberty for the sake privilege.
Identity politics is politics that is informed by and inspired off of identity
Gaslighting is a malicious power tactic in which “the gaslighter tries (consciously or not) to induce in someone the sense that her reactions, perceptions, memories, and beliefs are not just mistaken, but utterly without grounds-paradigmatically, so unfounded as to qualify as crazy.
Is it possible that there is a Zero-Sum game when Trans-Rights objectively conflict with the rights of Women? Think about the current examples of Trans-Women competing with Biological Women in athletics.
The Zero-Sum point was poorly constructed.
just to clarify if i understood it correctly. identity politics refers to how the demand of right being sought to protected but being too demanded maybe taken to far and thus undermine the right of others.
Again... I'm very honoured to have this platform. I'd never ever have imagined going head to head with top brass...
Let the games begin.
Platform. Precedent.
Consciousness of these, always.
This is the exact reason I stopped my subscription with The economist. Very hipocrite
What about allowing trans identified males into female only spaces, putting males on shortlists meant for women and legislating forced speech that’s incongruent with an individual’s view of reality (such as having to use female pronouns for an obviously male individual)? Not hurting anyone? Hm…
Those groups were discriminated and unjustly treated because their individual content of the character was ignored. they were reduced to mere identities(black, homosexual, Jew). Such division into groups made them unite not just because they wanted their identities to be protected, but also because they wanted the system to see them as individuals with individual rights and freedoms. The problem with identity politics isn't that it highlights certain perceptions of people about themselves, problem arises when it just reduces individuals to certain groups creating fragmented view and landscape of population.
So "supporting" one group´s rights does not "undermine" the other group´s rights, what the hell!! They even say there is no question about if this is fair or correct (or "should exist"), but about "in which form" it should exist, which means we have to accept it and watch whoever is going to dictate the rules of this game of supporting and not undermining this group or the other. The most hilarious thing is when they propose to go to the next step: So quotes are not good enough yet, we need to force public institutions and universities to make their "diversity" data public so they can push this nonsense much efficiently. They completely omitted a small detail that contradicts all this lie: our civilization has been built successfully on COMPETENCE. There is just one way to protect the future of our civilization and it is supporting equal opportunities for everyone and competence at all cost. If we play the animal farm, saying all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others, we are doomed. It was written with blood during the 20th century, the most violent in history! This video is reprehensible, to say the least!!
Identify politics just causes division.