The fuck is identity politics and why are feminists screaming at me calling me a brocialist for it

Identity politics is when you don't agree with a certain portion of leftypol. It has no further meaning. Don't trust people who say otherwise.

Identity politics is bourgeois politics centered on advancing the priviIeges of a minority group. Typically this takes the form of integrating that group more fully into bourgeois society.

For example, trying to end discrimination against homosexuals, while focused on the needs of a particular identity, isn't necessarily identity politics. It depends on the nature of the discrimination and the demands of the protestors. If they are campaigning against letting bosses arbitrarily fire gay workers for their orientation, it's to the broader interest of the working class as a whole that their fellow workers aren't abused.

If they're campaigning, say, to 'fight homophobia' by demanding their university hire more gay Chancellor's or whatever, just trying to force access to a few muh privileged positions for a few muh privileged people, that's identity politics.

Identity politics is bourgeois 'activism' masquerading as class struggle while denying the nature of class conflict, usually instead focusing on petty conflicts between different identity groups.

You had it until only minority group.

This post OP, is an example, of what identity politics is.

Right on two things wrong on three is a standard argumentation for anything related to what people think identity politics is here.

Identity politics is at its simplest: "Identity A has problem B because of Identity C."

Identities are groups formed around social constructs, like Americans or whites or gays. The problem may or may not be real. The key is that instead of actually looking for the root cause of Problem B, the identitarians blame Identity C as being at fault on the basis of the identity. I'm sure you can think of plenty of examples.

Breddy gud but I would add that
Works both ways for minorities and for majorities. With the former there is a sort of pretence given about inclusiveness, all that nanny liberal tolerance that never lets others' take responsibility for their own faults. For the latter they demand integration, where, unlike the aforementioned, place all the responsibility on the minority group. They are both enforced asymmetrically but where one solicits absolute privacy (even veering on civic segregation) the other makes up for in the most austere supervision.

I should have said 'usually' or just 'identity' . On phone, didn't proof, w/e

When I say 'inclusiveness' I mean diversity quotas and so on.

And when I say 'demand integration' I mean it's assimilation or die.

Thanks for the try but this isn't purely identity politics, it's using identity politics to define exactly what it is.

You are using an identity to define what an Other is attempting to do, it's lousy recycled talking points said a million time here

The problem is while there's truth to it, the motivation could be off, setting the entire argument into total fault. And the fact that its motivated by an identity, again, is a fault.

It started off as an externality, but they started doing it intentionally after they realized that without a genuine left, their postmodern feelings bullshit fills the void.

Pretty good, but it's also typically done at the expense of denying other groups their rights or muh privileges causing subsequent social antagonisms to spawn. If you think about it, this is why we should be completely against intersectionality.

Which identity am I using when I say that both majority and minority opinions are not useful in conducting righteous political action?

There happens to be identity politics also as material, since politics for a long period in the time were material identity politics applied.

Whether you want to hear it or not, some nth generation Americans that are affluent, are partially benefiting themselves off old money more than say, the descendants of slaves who did.

And their was post civil war policy reinforcing this. And much policy afterwards upwards until civil rights.

You can shout identity politics but first you have to identify if there isn't also reason to believe that it's motivated by another material application of it.

You cannot soully shout at the Other before analyzing why they are in such a position, and where identity politics of a stronger sort is being applied.

Implied identity. By claiming diversity quota without further specification, you're implying the evidence of a victim of this, an identity itself.

It is murky to argue where or when identity begins because America has been so founded upon and perpetuated by individualism/individuality

I think at this point it becomes important to separate identity politics into the material and imaginary realm. Class is very much an identity and the bourgeoisie and proletariat often have very distinct identities attached, but the relationship is material. Calling for diversity quotas despite there being no material evidence that a certain group is being marginalized by an institution is purely fictional. I think the problem is people conflate the former with the latter, and believe their class antagonism to be a social one.

Why not both? It's easy to use reddit liberals as the perfect false flag for the whole left.

I would use a post-left flag if there was one. That'd be more accurate for me.

Whoa, lookist shitlady detected.

I know that feel famrade.

Regardless of whether I specified who is targeted by a diversity quota it is inherently about addressing a victim of this and that identity.

I am trying to avoid this too, using only the relations between parallels as they define each others movements. Of course this pales in comparison to reality because there is only individuals that exist, not static majorities and minorities. But, so long as a identity politics is shaped by those categories I do not think my analysis will fail in their respects.

There are also strong indications that it was employed during OWS for specifically that purpose.

Disparaging anime girl.jpg

stupid anime poster

If you cannot be identified by differences in your relationship to productive means then perhaps we are already in communism.

See my problem is, that it is inherently a victim mentality of identity.

Identities are being forced, so, my identity must also be at risk from the Other.

I don't think it is good analysis of what identity politics actually is.

The real threat of identity politics, is the subversion we have less towards collective well being, what that means strategically or otherwise, and what is identity.

I do not think we can do this just by slinging around the word to describe identities.

Describing something is in itself justifying the identity being described, it's implicitly giving it, its own sense of flesh.

No.
Yes.

Class is the material relationship. Many identities form around these relationships. You have "job creators" and you have "plutocrats" and you have "black businessmen" and you have "businesswomen" and you have "junkies" and you have "soccer moms" and you have "salarymen" etc. All the identities comingle and interact with class but they are a separate layer on top of class. "Identifying" with your class, the working class, isn't the same thing as an identity unless you're missing the point. The point is to recognize the material relationship, not to feel like you're part of some hivemind that isn't real.

(trans-class fyi)

It's much more nuanced than that since individuality is so prevalent amongst us like a virus.

We can give identity to class, while class is very material. We can interpret it differently, as clearly there is much sectarianism

Have you considered starting a comedy troupe?

His entire point is that class is irrelevant to your personal feelings about it as an individual, regardless of how you tie your identity to it. It is about how people relate to one another in an objective manner.

You're not being subtle.

Anyways my point is that in the West, identity is an implicit indicator in our language.

The Enlightenment did us no favors in regards to politics, and up to the 19th century, it hardly helped.

Language itself gives identity in sentence structure. This is an identity and that and so forth.

Language gives us our identities, it encourages us to make identities.

The English language itself, is loaded with ways in which we develop ourselves around the idea of identity.

True but I'm not arguing that.

I'm arguing, afterwards, what is to be done about this material gap.

We must identify it. So, we must ask, is there a time when identification is required? Simply because our language does not work without an identity, there is gender identity in language, there is personal identity, there is emotional investment from both in difference.

What is to be done, has to be cleared from identity, in order for communism to arise, because I'm afraid, it is impossible to do so without being set in our language and lifetime experience we won't create power relationships based upon it.

It would be a process, but I think something revolutionary, different from Esperanto, would be creating a language that is somehow free from identity.

It's like there's more to real life than language.

Dare I say it, is Marx, /ourguy/?

There is, but we are bound by understanding the world first by our mother tongue as children.

This along side development, shapes what identities we perceive without being cogent of it.

Yes, and the same could be used by the intersectionalists who misinterpret the Frankfurters, and post-structuralists works.
Sure, but whether or not they do isn't the issue more than it is that they identify with the specific group that they're a part of. Whether that identity they attribute their individuality to is conscious or unconscious, they've taken that position. My problem is being able to separate that individual identity, from the collective and therein lies the problem. For identity politics regarding material issues like segregation laws, they're very clear to see, but for someone arguing on the basis of diversity quotas has to provide the evidence first, and could very well be acting in bad faith. I can't say whether or not identity politics can act as a super-ego for people, but that seems like the case, and denying a "marginalized "group special muh privileges these days seems to be the ultimate sin in the modern world.

Class is very much an identity insofar as its meshed itself in the culture industry of society, and the social antagonisms it has produced. You can argue about the superficiality of these constructs all you want, but they're a very much real problem, and they've reproduced material relations all together. Just think about blackness, and whiteness in hip-hop culture.

Tell me more.

marx was a filthy commie who shoah'd 100 gorillion aryan babies and subverted the white race

I didn't think class was an identity because it describes a material relationship rather than a self-adopted relation to culture. All you have to do to be a goth is call yourself a goth, but whether or not you're working class or bourgeois, or whether you call yourself one or the other, depends on if you have to sell your labor or not.

Wrong.

I do not understand what you are trying to say. Identity politics uses both victimization and aggression technique so…

Read Nietzsche :v)

You mean social mobility? This is precisely my point though, that there is a true antagonism between two groups which we only see in their movements between the other, that feeling of achievement one gets when one finally owns all their life, or the altruism the rich feel for keeping the poor alive with welfare.

We don't question language when we learn it. I don't know if you're being sarcastic, but let's take English for example.

But there is more identity in other languages as well, Spanish is a huge example.

Many languages code inanimate objects with gendered nouns.

It's all very complicated but language in many cases reinforces the identity we already have, and identities we are bound to know well.

It's the primary problem.

I don't think politics in the West can even be separated from identity.

Identity is so core to the idea of how we perceive everything on a second by second basis that we could not imagine a world without a definition for the cup on your desk in some cases without a gendered way to put it.

I am not making this about gender, but I am using it as an example.

Arguing about identity politics by applying analysis that is not through and looks at clear material, is bound to be itself, identity politics.

What madman is currently in control of the trip.

So if I dress like a soldier, talk like a soldier, and walk like a soldier, I'm a soldier.

There's much more to how we percieve identities therefore our initial response as we have it here, to identity politics, is bound to be influenced by different types of it.

There must be clear material reason for negative effects in the material before we use the term, as it can be a scapegoat, or to identify something indirectly as bad, and not further look into why it is that it is, bad.

To be as offensive as possible to this boards taste, feminism as example. Feminism, has implicit existence, because identity politics existed in the past. You cannot engage within it without identifying what exactly it came from, and that is a problem itself. But for such a time we never thought about these problems of identity that our language influenced our politics etc.

The long lasting effects of other forms of identity enforced from language is still felt in many ways.

If you are perceived as a soldier for that, then why not? You might even be issued a gun for your dedication.

Do you think I'm multiple people

So if I dress like I'm rich, talk like I'm rich, and walk like I'm rich, I'm rich.

Think you need to ask yourself that.

it's the dialectical process between the base and the superstructure that gives class its identity. Class is initially defined in the production process through the division of labor, but those differences in material conditions will reflect back upon the market, and then back to the people and the media which will further develop these relations into new structures/institutions. It's why this division between urban and rural people proletariat exist despite their material relations being the exact same thing, they're both proles.

I am a person. Solid and fleshy.

So was Hitler.

k

So was Stalin

horseshoe theory confirmed

There are rich people who dress like they are homeless and people treat them like so. Of course it does not change how much power they hold in society, but it is precisely in this perverse act of pretending that the power is perceived, and identified with. An actual homeless person does not have the power to merely pretend to be homeless, and it is this powerlessness that defines them.

You know, this is what's called a strawman. When I say social mobility I am not implying that there are no barriers for entry. And to say that there is no social mobility is a little naive when at any moment you could find a relative dying and giving you possession of MoP.

Why do you hate me?

What do you mean, my lovely little user? I am too tired and stupid to hate people.

Please stay around. This board needs people like you.

You've to stop this. You gotta stop fucking around with this kind of crap. Al of you.

Meh. You flatter me, but this board needs better people than I can make myself truly. For example, I am glad that I am getting some resistance to saying something like social mobility matters here, (either capitalist being driven out of business with wage labour and price competition, or with working class raising capital, so-called 'finance' to create their own successful business) when I instead really want to talk about the two classes and what their antagonism is itself. It means that you guys are good Marxists for recognizing how these types of movements are usually stratified, and that even if given such parameters for changing who is bourgeoisie and who is proletarian the fundamental concept of class stays the same.

It hasn't been confirmed, but there is both doctrinaire indication and ample precedent for the postmodernist critical theory SJWs being literal COINTELPRO from start to finish.

For instance, I'm not a ledditor, but there's a very common rumor going around that one particular top "Fempire" mod in control of /r/Socialism and /r/Anarchism is a literal FBI plant.

It's the nice anfem, the hero we need to drive out the malevolent vietcong.

Temporarily embarrassed millionaires can believe what they want, but they're still working a bum job. What they believe doesn't change anything and doesn't reproduce anything. Actually filling the class position of worker reproduces their material social relations, and the broader social relations of bourgeois society.