Identity politics

faggot.

that's not hypocrisy. grab a dictionary dude

Read a fucking dictionary.

DUDE GRAB A DICTIONARY

LOL

Like saying go get a job and a gf

take your pills friendo

Identity = your biology that you can't change

political beliefs= the opinions you hold, extremely changeable

For something to be an identity, one has to absolutize a definition of the thing now as being in itself and posit a necessary and eternal relation within and between constructed categories.

In short: no, those aren't identities.

Literally the first search result

Saying go look at a dictionary is an ad hominem just like referring to me as Holla Forums is

The synonym works, unlike you, ya bum

never heard that definition before. must be a contemporary americanism

...

Description of political beliefs is not identity politics.
what the fuck are you smoking OP?

Retarded much?

The biology definition is wrong, I think, but not entirely off. It's more that an identity is viewed as something that can't be changed, something biological or otherwise "natural" when it isn't. Words can lead us into thinking that temporary states of things and descriptions/definitions as we know them right now are the real and permanent states of those things.

But you associate yourself within a group, how is that not identity politics?

Biology can be changed, it's constantly changing

Just changed my identity (something which can't be changed)

Identity changes

An important implication relates to identity change, i.e. the transformation of identity.

Contexts include:

radical career-change (Ibarra 2003)
gender identity transition
national
The practice of adoption

nope. the point of identity is that it is changeable, impermanent and mostly imaginary. which is why politics based on identity is so stupid and meaningless

leftism opposes idpol because idpol ignores material realities like class, wealth and power (things that matter), instead focusing on meaningless trivialities like "race" and what one does with their genitals

But if things such as these:

radical career-change
gender identity transition
national
The practice of adoption

Are interchangeable and a part of what makes your identity, why isn't political affiliation?

No they don't

The problem is that they're viewed as being permanent and necessary states of one's own being. Political affiliation isn't by itself an identity. Saying "I'm not a Communist, I'm a Marxist" isn't a commitment to this being the permanent and necessary state of things so much as a statement of how things are right now. "The laundry basket is over there" is not necessarily true forever, and it similarly doesn't commit me to that statement as having to be true forever.

political affiliation can be part of an identity. anything can. the affiliation isn't the point, the material issues are
yes they do

This doesn't mean anything though

Either is race or gender

Identity politics are about taking non-political things and making them political because feelings.

youtu.be/rDgXeYlpbOE?t=1m31s

You do a thing and that's what you are.

identity politics, by definition have biological root.
feminism, BLM, white identitarian….etc

its the politicization of a biological trait.
as retarded as it sounds.

...

Your fucking feelings can be separated from the objective realities that govern society. Go back to your postmodernist academic circlejerk.

"Viewed as"? As in "seen as". Or are you having problems with the formulation "the problem [with seeing political affiliation as an identity]." You're not making sense.

If you mean that these are both temporary states of things, I completely agree. They have no real, absolute existence.

If you mean that no one views such categories as permanent and necessary states of affairs, then go tell Holla Forums that categories of race and gender describe no underlying reality. For example, start a thread with "race isn't real." Feel free to report the results.

It has nothing to do with feelings.

So I guess any political position will always be identity politics and thus all politics is identity politics by definition? That's a meaningless definition.

The fundamental difference here is that we complain about politics that ride on basic characteristics of certain people, eg "you aren't black so you have no idea 🍀🍀🍀real🍀🍀🍀 oppression is like". These arguments rest on virtually irreducible and artibrary foundations that only serve to divide others and stifle dialog.

The "identity politics of leftypol" you're referring to however are not the same. These are differences based not on traits, but ideology, which is completely different from skin color or gender. Particularly because arguments between ideologies rely on argument and reason. You're critiquing an ideological system, which can be large, critiquing the system as a whole, or small, criticising a small aspect of a given theory.

This doesn't exist under normal identity politics. There is little to no ideological theory to, "all men are rapists" or "all white people are racist".

We want argument based on ideas and reason, not shit like hair color or nose size.

I should add, because of this, terms like "left communist", "Marxist-Leninist", and "anarcho-communist" are not 🍀🍀🍀identities🍀🍀🍀 so much as they are quick ways of referencing an individual's ideology in order to simplify and organize discussion

Damn dudes. The shitposting is crazy today