People who complain about identity politics are 90% of the time white men

People who complain about identity politics are 90% of the time white men.

Other urls found in this thread:

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1890/letters/90_09_21.htm
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

if you focus on class issues it brings together all peoples of the same material conditions, black white, yellow, brown, male, female, gay, straight.
Identity politics divides all these people.

What it really means:

This is the internet so statistically the people defending identity politics the most are probably white men.

It also depends on what you mean by identity politics. If by that you mean the general welfare of disenfranchised groups and marginalized minorities should improve. I'm sure most people agree.

If by identity politics you think Hillary deserved the presidency because she was a woman, that we need more diverse CEO's and hedge fund managers and high paid actors. Then I'm afraid you're asking to make the Titanic a more diverse institution. At some point you have to give up vague ideas of "representation" and realize capitalism is killing the planet and crushing our "spirits."

OP, try to look at it this way: if a particular group of marginalised people is oppressed and thus over-represented among the poor, then any initiatives that help the poor on the whole will also disproportionately help marginalised people as a matter of course. The issue with identity politics is that it allows upper class or upper middle class people who are extremely muh privileged on the whole, but who may suffer instances of oppression due to being queer, a person of colour, or a woman, to maintain their class position by redefining the conflict in a way that allows them to exploit others. Race, gender, and sexuality related oppression occur, but we can't let liberals or tankies use that oppression in order to reinforce class inequality- which is basically what identity politics/intersectionality/postcolonial theory and all that trash does.

stop

Hey, get this:
Economic issues
cause
the other issues
dumbfuck

You're golden.

...

If you actually believe this, you need to have your head examined

No war but the class war, back to reddit if you disagree.

why do r9ktards always make vidya attribute allegories

But willpower, intelligence and luck do exist. Elthough luck isnt a number or measurable thing a person has, its just something that happens.

They literally don't exist.

fuck off will ya

A rich black man is way better of and less oppressed than a poor or middle class white man.

None of those things exist.

I agree with you completely. I wish this board didn't think, however, that even mentioning racial or queer issues at all was inherently idpol. There were groups like the Black Panthers, you know. Even the LGBT movement, co-opted as it is now, began its life as spontaneous radical violence against police. The way I see liberal identity politics is as a co-optation of minority issues so that, by focusing on the wealthy segments on minorities, the remaining masses are unable to see that the problem is capitalism.

Just because some uppity college students start whining about how oppressed they are doesn't make it real. I trust a working class white person who never finished high school calling me a fag far more than I would trust anyone who keeps bitching about safe spaces and Holocausts while their dentist parents put them through college.

I don't see the relevance.
There are obviously forms of oppression and suffering far stronger than and independent of race/sex/misc other identity, which also superficially appear not to derive from class. If you reject the premise that class is the ultimate cause of all forms of oppression, your theory still needs to account for robots. That intersectionality clearly fails to do so is what we call a reductio ad absurdum. That is, this is a direct, explicit counterexample to your worldview. Unless, of course, you deny the sort of "real, lived experiences" that form its basis, in the absence of real methodological rigor. Come on.

The Left is convinced that everyone is a closeted extrovert who always prefers a macrocosmic analysis, and that's why the Left can never succeed.
Categorizing people by class is fatalistic and makes it seem like class is immutable. In the US class is nothing but how many commas are in your bank account. Not even etiquette defines class anymore.
There are other forms of discrimination, such as by family lineage, but to define them as class antagonism is shoehorning.

Absolutely not.
I don't see how
It is, at least in the sense that it is an objective phenomenon that cannot be changed by pure ideas or the paper we write on.
Ah, that explains it. This is rabid nonsense. Class is not your income or social conventions. It is not your subjective, consciousness-dependent "identity" or what friends you have. Class is your objective relation to the objective means of production.
How can you post here without even a basic understanding of Marx? I mean, I'm all for our liberal 🍀🍀🍀friends🍀🍀🍀 coming here to learn, but this is ridiculous.
Kek. Maybe gain more than a Holla Forums-tier understanding of our position and what class is before pointing out what arguments you think it has to make to survive.

What does "preference" have to do with the actual laws which govern the course of history? Science doesn't care about your feelings.

Try reading Marx sometime, the MoP is everchanging and circumstantial, the point of Marxism is to change social relationships so that no matter who you are or what piece of equipment you're using, you aren't being exploited by your labor. This is why Marx never made 2 lists of private and personal property.


No it isn't, it's your social relationship to the MoP. If I don't own dick but I live off my rich parents and I support neoliberalism, I'm a bourgeois fuckhead, not a proletariat. There's more to class than what lawnmowers you own.

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1890/letters/90_09_21.htm

Yeah, I've got all that. Society is continually progressing under the development of technology and the productive forces. This doesn't mean that the means of production are not objective at a given instant. If what engines do and do not socialize labor is objectively determined by the progress and state of technology at a given instant then objective relationships to them imply an objective process.
Which is objective. Your actual interaction with these MoP is independent of observation, yours or others'.
"Proletariat" is the name of the group itself, not a singular member of the group. Just like how a "secretary" and a "secretariat" differ. And your relationship here is no less objective for its contingency on the "good graces" of others or family.
kys

That's a materialistic eurocentric definition of class.

Why do you appeal to authority?

...

hi reddit

You are describing this post perfectly