How Identity Politics Are Killing Social Liberalism - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Mild necroposting has been permitted because it has always been mild but since it is growing into a bane it will no longer be tolerated.

Moderators are therefore advised to initially move necroposts into stand-alone threads and for repeat offenders to hand out official warnings if said posters continue the practice.
All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#14783325
Let's say that a long time ago, many people were prejudiced against. Those prejudices took something away from those people, and others got something from what was taken away. That which they got was what we call a privilege.

Let's also say those privileges were handed down from generation to generation, and from those who originally had them to others who they associated with. We call this heritage, pedigree, dynasty, legacy, etc.

In turn, we can say systemic prejudice and privilege exists due to the widespread practice of these prejudices and privileges, right?

Wrong.

If we do this, the following is what ends up happening:

Those who actually committed said prejudices and benefited from said privileges get to spread the blame. It's like when you belong to a team, someone on your team screws up, and everyone on the team gets blamed for it. The difference here, of course, is that on a team, you choose to participate, so you are guilty by association due to approving of the character of others on the team. When it comes to this, however, you don't choose to do so. You never judged the character of others who were prejudicial or privileged, so it's not your fault.

The actual problems of prejudice and privilege come about because some people at some time insisted on jumping to conclusions based on learning from their own specific experiences. They stereotyped. On top of that, they simply felt a certain way about others, and refused to recognize the difference between not liking someone and not respecting someone. For example, women were discriminated against because some men found them physically weak and found their tendencies to be difficult to deal with. Homosexuals were discriminated against for similarly finding their tendencies difficult to deal with. Ethnic groups were discriminated against because their anatomy was found to be ugly, and their lifestyles were found to be difficult to deal with.

I say this second part especially because a lot of people like to believe prejudice and privilege are all about profit. What those who say this ignore is how profit is not merely about being wealthy. It is also about converting your wealth to consumed experiences that you enjoy, and sustaining your revenue streams and conversion process. If you find other people difficult to deal with and you don't care about what's difficult is partially a matter of opinion while refusing to tolerate the diversity of people's opinions, then you will discriminate against others who you find difficult to deal with just to sustain your revenue stream and converting your revenues to consumed experiences.

These attitudes are not limited to women, homosexuals, and ethnic groups. They apply in general throughout humanity. If anything, focusing on identity politics here is reminiscent of prejudicial attitudes themselves because they focus on being specifically results-oriented which is the same problem that stereotyping has in the first place. It actually enables the psychological vicious cycle to repeat itself, and it makes you wonder if identity politics advocates are getting things wrong on purpose because it constantly leads to a problem that needs to be solved such that advocates have a job to work on into the perpetual future. They exploit the traumatized mindsets of victims in order to make a living instead of genuinely helping victims recover so they can get on with their lives.

In any case, let's talk about what happens when this is carried out.

The implication is four groups come into existence. We have the original prejudicial/privileged people, the victims of prejudice and privilege...

...and we have people who are similar to those who are prejudical/privileged despite not actually being such, and others are who are similar to said victims. Some might say nobody's "similar" to the victims, but we can recognize at the very least that some will claim they're systemically prejudiced against by others who indeed are not prejudicial or privileged. That is some people will take advantage of structural chaos to avoid having to specifically outline the agency of how prejudice and privilege actually happen.

From this, what happens is the following:

The actually prejudical/privileged sometimes just keep their mouth shut. They realize that if they don't speak up, then they'll never be properly identified. On top of that, they anticipate that others who aren't prejudical/privileged will speak up out of being defensively concerned. The traumatized won't get the difference and will clamor about their frustration, and those similar to the victimized will take it as an opportunity to get something for nothing. This especially happens because those who aren't prejudicial/privileged don't (necessarily) know who the actually prejudical/privileged really are. In turn, they're often the victims of witch hunts where they're told, "Tell us who they are or else." Of course, they don't know, so they end up suffering the consequences. Other times, it especially happens because the traumatized mindsets of victims makes them relatively minded in the wrong way. Relativism is good when it comes to relating with the humanity in others to care about their well-being. Relativism is bad when it comes to creating a victimhood Olympics in saying that just because others don't have it as bad as yourself means that others are privileged so they owe you something.

The actually prejudical/privileged will sometimes also engage in negative leveling. It's like how if you belong to a country club, you raise the fees so newer members can't join the club so easily. It keeps social status exclusive. Similarly, the actually prejudical say that everyone who's like themselves needs to pity those who are prejudiced against. Of course, they anticipate everyone isn't privileged, so those who are privileged maintain some of their benefits while those who aren't privileged and up getting knocked down. This also has a legal side-effect of discouraging proper accountability such that some of those who belong to prejudiced against groups tear each other down and get away with it which prevents recovery further.

From here, what we realize is the non-prejudical get destroyed, the actually privileged thrive, those who were prejudiced against don't really recover except at the expense of those who are destroyed, and those who are similar to those prejudiced against become spoiled.

Once the non-prejudicial are destroyed though, a major problem happens.

Those prejudiced against and those similar to them don't have anyone to blame for their problems anymore...

...and that's where we exist today in light of Trump getting elected, something we very explicitly saw from the Republican Primary where his nasty manners beat the rest of the field while clamoring against political correctness, not caring about bullying, and attacking the "culture of victimhood" which generalized between those who are actually victims versus those who simply play the victim.

When the non-prejudicial get destroyed, it leaves those prejudiced against and those similar to them with only one other counter-party, and that counter-party does not go down quietly. It is much stronger than them due to not being interfered with (since it interfered with others) as well as benefiting from privilege in the past, and it's ready to smash those who are still expecting compensation for "systemic problems" that are really just attitude problems. In fact, this counter-party deliberately reinforces the destruction of those similar to itself by exploiting how those similar to the prejudiced against destroyed them for no good reason. Just like how the counter-party tells those who actually are prejudiced against to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, it also tells those similar to themselves the same excuse.

Social liberalism is now at a moment of confrontation, but the bottomline is it is not organized enough to confront its opponents. Its obsession with being wise guys who ruin the lives of others who really aren't to blame has resulted in it failing to actually acquire the resources it deserved from properly identifying those who behaved prejudicially and were privileged in the past. The consequence of that is it remains weak, and it now has nobody else to blame but itself.
#14783400
I think you need to define "social liberalism" if you want to argue that ID politics is killing it.

Your OP seems to be about the right to demonstrate "prejudice," and I would agree that identity politics actually increases people's prejudices by creating more out-groups for them to loathe (whites, men, heterosexuals, natives, etc.)

Can you please define "social liberalism" a bit more clearly?

The media and many others warned about Trump, but[…]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/20[…]

Will America Collapse?

It's possible America could collapse one day, but[…]

No, it really isn't any more complicated than thi[…]