Potential breakthrough in the debate surrounding identity politics

In recent years I’ve taken an interest in the debate surrounding feminism. Through YouTube and similar media I thought I had everything figured out quite nicely, that feminism and racism were just a load of leftist nonsense and that when one were to look closely, he’d notice that reality doesn’t support those positions. But then I met a feminist who was surprisingly good at defending her position, and who could show me quite a lot of data that supports her claim. This got me thinking, because how is this possible? I realized that there’s just so much data out there, that you can “prove” both positions. You can make a solid case for both ideologies. But then what’s the difference, and what am I missing?
1/7

Eventually I figured out that the issue might just be in the difference in the understanding of the word “systemic”. To be precise:

People who believe in the oppression of certain minorities in society, or intersectionality, think that humans are a part of the system, and when the people in the system discriminate, the system discriminates, and therefore there is a systemic issue.
The people who don’t believe in that, think that the system is a collective set of rules that humans obey and execute, like a framework in which the subjects of the system operate. They do not view these actors as a part of the system, but rather as the subjects of the system.
It is vital that the difference between the inanimate rules of the system and the animate actor/operator is acknowledged. This is the essence of the difference in position of both parties. The liberals view “the system” as the source of the issue, which is absolutely correct when you take their definition of the system. Others see ‘the individual” as the issue, which is also correct if you take their definition of the system. The conclusion is that both parties are in essence looking at the same problem, but they take different approaches to the solution.
2/7

When ‘the system” is seen as the problem, then that system has to be changed. This justifies changing the rules of the system to alter its results, because the inanimate rules and the actors/operators are under a common denominator.
On the other side, when the actors/operators are not seen as a part of the system, then the system is totally fine, and the humans who are acting in a discriminatory way within the framework of the system are the problem, and they are the ones to be changed.

This understanding obviously leads to some implications, and I developed a new theory on the back of this.
To be able to successfully attack a problem, you first need to define it, and locate the source. This is why I started thinking about a model through which you can process a law to check whether it is fair or not, and therefore, using this model, you can locate whether the source of the problem is in the inanimate, or the animate part of the system.
3/7

To start my argumentation:
There are two parts of the system, the animate and the inanimate.
If a system, including its execution, has discriminatory outcomes, that means that somewhere in the process, there is something off. This can be in either or both parts of the process.
If a system is discriminatory in either or both parts of the system, the outcome will be discriminatory. Only when both parts are fair, the outcome will be fair.
The first part of locating the problem is noticing that the outcome of a certain system is discriminatory. Discriminatory means: if you put two people that have different characteristics irrelevant to the subject matter through the same process, the outcome will be different.
This is the first rule of locating the problem: it starts with examining the inanimate. If two people move through a framework, does the outcome differ based on characteristics irrelevant regarding the subject matter, assuming the operators of the system are perfectly impartial?
An example of this would be: if a black and a white person go through a process (or, as I’d say, move through a framework that we refer to as a system), where their skin color is irrelevant to the subject matter (such as voting, crime, etcetera), does the outcome differ between the two, if we assume the operators are perfectly impartial?
4/7

Once you have established that the inanimate part of the system is not discriminatory, you move on to the animate sector. If the system is impartial, yet the outcome of the system is discriminatory, then the people operating within the framework of the inanimate section of the system must be the source of discrimination.
This seems very simple, but I believe this is essential to break the cycle of endless debates with data from both sides. The amount of discrimination happening is completely irrelevant, because both parties acknowledge that there is still racism out there. The degree doesn’t have to be agreed on, because the solution is exactly the same.
5/7

Firstly you examine the current inanimate part of the system, and when it is discriminatory, it can be easily fixed: you just change the rules. This can be done by voting, or violent uprising.
When the system is already fair however, there is absolutely no need for changing the system, but you want to change the operators. In short term this can be done by replacing those people, but the only durable solution is to educate children on equality.

In short: I show that the common mistake made by the left (such as in their implementing of affirmative action) is that they can influence the animate part of the system by changing the inanimate part. The attempt is to offset the discrimination of the animate section by causing the reverse effect on the inanimate system. They are, however, two separate entities that require two different approaches.
6/7

I hope this was a good explanation, and I’m curious to hear your thoughts. I have already spotted an issue with this model, but it’s not a devastating issue, just a temporary thing, and if I were to fix it, it’d take away from the beauty of the simplicity of its form right now. I’d rather focus on the idea of this, rather than the little inaccuracies.
7/7

...

So you admit that niggers are fucking stupid? You'll be one of us soon.

Correlation is not causation. For example if a cop shoots a black man it doesn't automatically mean it is because he is black, it could be that black people more often posses traits that are seen as threatening such as height, and a deep voice. All of these are scientifically proven to be intimidating and that is regardless of race. So they are right at times but not to the extent or in the way they think they are.

Identity Politics is a somewhat simple subject:
Affirmative Action can help you bring opressed groups to a better status.
However, it tends to generate reactive far right movement, similar to how in the US you often see people mocking feminism.
The best example I can give is my country, Brazil's, university's system of "cotas". Y'see, there's a minimum of afro-brazillians in public university classes, in spite of their grades on tests that get them into universities, so every year, this expands the number of black brazillians going through university.
However, this system created the idea that black people who went through public university "did not deserve to get in" or "only got in through cotas", "worse than white students". Ultimately, the growth in racism almost entirely voids whatever positive gain the system has.
Ultimately, it doesn't actually matters if women do or do not have less rights than men in the US (or possibly wherever you want to have the discussion), the situation has gone well past the point where any form of affirmative action would do more good than bad.

Weren't academic quotas first imposed by buttmad goy untermensch because Jews BTFO too hard for anyone else to get in on merit? t. Jew

I have absolutely no idea why you're bringing jews into this.
But k.

Is this really a case though? Lowering expectations will likely end with lower performance of a group. Think of an education system that went to shitter because every student is supposed to graduate.
I agree with the rest.

or simply because they commit more crimes…

This, I'm afraid, is where the idpol people will disagree.

In fact, most tests where you put individuals through the system already find out there's no difference in outcomes. A woman is not treated differently from a man, a black person from a white person, etc. Yet, at the same time, as the idpol leftist will argue, statistics spanning the whole groups show a disparity between how the system treats them.

So what's happening? The answer is either that the difference is innate and the result, though unequal, is actually fair, or there is some other kind of discrimination going on that's not directly related to characteristics being tested, yet still skews the outcome. Likely, it'll be a combination of both.

The right will emphasize the first explanation.
The non-idpol left - the second - the discrimination exists, but is purely a result of economic conditions.
The idpol left, at best, denies the results of the tests, and at worst - denies both alternative explanations altogether, and it's really hard for me to see how can they ever be convinced otherwise.

One correction - I've made a mental shortcut that resulted in me calling people who deny the economic explanations altogether "left". They are, obviously, not leftists by definition.

So are individuals the animate or inanimate part of your theory? Cause a lot of outcome is dependent on the individual.

Don't bring this shit here.

You know what the communists of old did to homosexuals and niggers? Know your roots and don't let them win.

you do know that between hiring a top grade student and a nigger who only went to uni because of diversity quotas almost anyone would pick the former right? Diversity is the biggest scam of the century. Unless goverments force bussiness to have fill quotas themselves (lmao good luck with that) you just end up with a lot of unemployed people

The problem with identity politics is that it conflates the individual with the category they belong to. Conventional racism tends to justify itself by using aggregate statistics about the category of black people to prove that any individual black person is bad. Liberals justify affirmative action and "reverse" racism using exactly the same kind of reasoning - they claim that comparing the statistics of entire categories of people proves that a given individual is treated differently and therefore they must correct for that by being discriminatory themselves.

The fact is that aggregate statistics do not matter. A starving man will not have a full belly just because, on average, people who look like him are well fed. A black professor will not be stupid just because, on average, black people score lower in IQ tests.

Anyone who tries to get the broad statistics to balance while ignoring the individuals who make up those statistics isn't just wasting their time - they're actively harming people. If nothing else they perpetuate the ideas of identity politics - the belief that race, gender, sexuality, and numerous other irrelevant characteristics matter - and encourage more bigotry from all sides.

Any attempt to solve racism or any other kind of bigotry must start off by rejecting the idea that any should give a fuck about these characteristics. It must focus on individuals and tackle discrimination and bias on a case-by-case basis. It must treat people as human beings rather than just a bunch of labels like "black", "gay", "cis", etc. In short, it must practice what it preaches.