EU referendum, brexit and the aftermath

Calling out "identity politics" is a basic bitch right wing tactic to shut down debate / divert criticism

Anyone else feeling the irony here?

if you mean the people most likely to employ "identity politics" as a way of ensuring privileges go unchallenged are by and large of the right, then yes. i suppose so.

And I may have misunderstood Miro's argument but I think it's clear why - I suggest that you need to see colour to understand the concept of privilege

I agree with you on this, but I'm always confused about how we actually apply this in real life to any given individual. If profiling (which we take to be a problem in and of itself) includes trying to infer whether someone is carrying a knife from their skin colour, then it also presumably includes trying to infer other aspects of their experience of their behaviour or experience (even positive/beneficial ones) from their skin colour. That (albeit less oppressive) form of profiling is how we end up with journalists implying that David Cameron didn't really suffer when his son died because "he's privileged."

These types of arguments frequently fall down (just as they do with stop and search) when you try to move from a societal problem affecting a whole group to talking about an individual. This version of "identity politics" needs critiquing as much as anything else, but it's really difficult to do without people assuming that you are coming at it from an alt-right perspective.

but it's really difficult to do without people (or at least @greenhell) flipping out.

I'm guessing you don't know him so it may be hard to read, but, despite being a bit sweary, geenhell is hardly "flipping out." And calling out a specific person in your post, well attempting to take on some sort of tone of maturity, isn't really that good of a look.

Entirely fair point. Now edited. I don't mind sweariness, I dislike people pre-emptively shutting down debate by proscribing the use of specific terminology (unless it's overtly hateful). That was the irony that I was pointing out previously.

Ah, right.

I don't hear about it much in the news either, you'd think BBC or somebody or other would highlight it.

And yeah, they probably just leave as Dammit wrote. Take back control, leave the UK ...

I agree with you on this, but I'm always confused about how we actually apply this in real life to any given individual. If profiling (which we assume is a problem in and of itself) includes trying to infer whether someone is carrying a knife from their skin colour, then it also presumably includes trying to infer other aspects of their experience of their behaviour or experience (even positive/beneficial ones) from their skin colour. That (albeit less oppressive) form of profiling is how we end up with journalists implying that David Cameron didn't really suffer when his son died because "he's privileged."

These types of arguments frequently fall down (just as they do with stop and search) when you try to move from a societal problem affecting a whole group to talking about an individual. This version of "identity politics" needs critiquing as much as anything else, but it's really difficult to do without people assuming that you are coming at it from an alt-right perspective.

But it feels like you're arguing against a straw man - no-one who really understands the concept of privilege would ever argue that it's freedom from all pain or all oppression or all hardship. It just says that you're free of certain types of hardship based on your sex, or skin colour, or culture, or class. You can still feel grief and loss and suffer from other types of discrimination as much as anyone else.

I'm as happy to discuss the failings of identify politics as anyone, but misunderstanding/misrepresenting the basics as you seem to have done, or blanket denying them, as that alt right dude did earlier on, is not a good faith basis for a discussion.

I don't fully understand what you mean by the argument falling down when we move from groups to individuals. I can only speak for myself, but my awareness that women will often be minimised during meetings means I'll often amplify if they're being interrupted or sidelined. If it turns out that individual does not need that sort of amplification, I zip it. That's not the argument falling down, it's just being polite and responsive to a social situation. Or if you meant something else please shout, it's possible I'm misunderstanding you too.

Gagging orders? Got any info?

But it feels like you're arguing against a straw man - no-one who really understands the concept of privilege would ever argue that it's freedom from all pain or all oppression or all hardship. It just says that you're free of certain types of hardship based on your sex, or skin colour, or culture, or class. You can still feel grief and loss as much as anyone else.

I agree with that definition (although I might say "barrier" rather than "hardship"), but it's clear from the existence of articles like the one that I referred to above about David Cameron that there are people out there who don't understand the concept. They publish across the internet and are sometimes given platforms on broadsheet newspapers. The fact that they have a warped understanding of the concept doesn't stop them from pushing for change based on their view.

I don't fully understand what you mean by the argument falling down when we move from groups to individuals.

I guess I mean two things: the first is that you cannot necessarily accurately infer from a person's identity what their experience has been or what their beliefs or actions will be, as useful a lens as "identity" is across a society it can fall down hard when it comes to the individual. Worse, individuals' experience is embraced when it supports one interpretation of a group's experience but dismissed when it contradicts it.

The second is summed up in a quote from that Kimberley Foster article I linked to

"Identity politics become flimsy when they devolve into shallow back-and-forths that conflate lived experience with sound political analysis. A worldview that moves us closer to equality doesn’t stem from living in a certain kind of body. It emerges from pursuing a certain kind of politics."

Gagging orders? Got any info?

https://news.sky.com/story/brexit-hundreds-of-gagging-orders-taken-out-by-government-11671933

(First result in google, there’s are loads of articles)

“ Sky News has since confirmed that the Home Office has taken out at least 100 gagging orders, simply in relation to ports. It is unclear how many gagging orders it has in relation to the rest of its work.”

Related to car industries since the components generally comes through the ports.

I agree with that definition (although I might say "barrier" rather than "hardship"), but it's clear from the existence of articles like the one that I referred to above about David Cameron that there are people out there who don't understand the concept. They publish across the internet and are sometimes given platforms on broadsheet newspapers. The fact that they have a warped understanding of the concept doesn't stop them from pushing for change based on their view.

I don't disagree about the existence of those people, of course. I remember reading a tweet by someone who had misunderstood a fairly nuanced idea (that white people in America could not suffer from institutional racism) so radically that they believed that it was not possible for black people to be racist - there'll always be people who misunderstand things, and often they'll have a platform. But plenty of people misunderstand the theory of relativity, and that doesn't stop it being a force for good overall. It's also not a criticism of the theory of relativity itself.

I guess I mean two things: the first is that you cannot necessarily accurately infer from a person's identity what their experience has been or what their beliefs or actions will be, as useful a lens as "identity" is across a society it can fall down hard when it comes to the individual. Worse, individuals' experience is embraced when it supports one interpretation of a group's experience but dismissed when it contradicts it.

Of course, these are all generalisations. I'm mates with enough weirdos to know that members of even quite niche groups can have significantly divergent experiences. But again, this is not hard and fast, it's an offer. Think about my example before - I do my best to amplify, rather than interrupt women at work. If the woman in question doesn't need amplification, I wind my neck in. That's not the theory falling down, that's just being responsive to it. There'll never be any kind of theory that explains 100% of individuals within a group, we're all unique - it's just that we can draw broad brushstrokes given some key information.

The second is summed up in a quote from that Kimberley Foster article I linked to

"Identity politics become flimsy when they devolve into shallow back-and-forths that conflate lived experience with sound political analysis. A worldview that moves us closer to equality doesn’t stem from living in a certain kind of body. It emerges from pursuing a certain kind of politics."

So that's an argument in favour of eradicating identity politics altogether. Which is fine as far as it goes, but it's not a DISCUSSION of identity politics. And again it's a bit of a straw man. Identity politics doesn't replace group politics, it augments them.

I was listening to James O Brien on LBC this morning. He was arguing with a working class bloke about Brexit. And the working class bloke was wrong, and JOB was having a bit of fun with it, and interrupting him, and bashing him about a bit. From a traditional 1970s (pre identity politics) perspective, there's nothing wrong with that. Robust debate is how we get to some kind of truth, honesty is kinder than a comforting lie, etc.

But from a more modern analysis, what I was listening to was a public schoolboy with a book deal and a listenership in the millions, taking the piss out of someone who left school at sixteen, for not being educated enough. It's a much uglier thing.

I think the first approach is very useful. But I also think it's unreasonable for us to discount that second analysis in its entirety. Identity politics tell us a lot about power - less pretentiously, it tells us a lot about what our manners should be. It allows us to contextualise the debate, and that's very useful.

There must be a halfway house between those two things. Speak truth, but compassionately. Speak honestly, but with sensitivity. I really don't think it needs to be so black and white as one or the other and nothing else.

Completely agree, just like 'virtue signalling' just because some alt right cunts hijacked the term doesn't mean that it's no longer valid

I seriously don't know what the fuck is going on in this thread right now

Same.

Typical JOB then? A condescending and patronizing middle-class 'I know better' twat?!

That's a significant chip on your shoulder, champ.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/06/uk/top-british-diplomat-quits-brexit-intl/index.html

Got to be Mamnick

OK boomer.

Just saying it as I see it, champ.

A product of your environment eh?

“I see you”
@Bastin_D poster in an earlier incarnation:
https://youtu.be/3z9uLdARaNU

JOB is a bit of a condescending prick. That's his thing.
A bit like paid opinion haver Clarkson.

If "left school at 16" wants to bring his fact-light opinion into a debate with people who know what they're talking about, that's entirely on him. He knew who he was calling. His background makes no difference.

I wish I was living in a house bought with regular wages back in the 70s that's now worth a sizeable fraction of a million :(

But plenty of people misunderstand the theory of relativity, and that doesn't stop it being a force for good overall. It's also not a criticism of the theory of relativity itself.

Yeah, but relativity is true whether you believe so or not and its effect isn't really subject to being altered. Part of the interesting thing about sociological theories is that the way in which they influence society is dependent on how they are widely understood and consequently how they shape public opinion and policy. For example the fact that there are some very intelligent American theologians sitting in their university departments elaborating on very nuanced views on the nature of christianity does not change the fact that the the common US view of god as a belligerent, judgemental beardy bloke on a cloud leads to those "christian" values causing a huge amount of misery. We can discuss the validity of the theories in an abstract sense, but we also have to deal with their effects on the ground.

So that's an argument in favour of eradicating identity politics altogether.

Is it?! That's a very strange reading of that quote, which is from an article entitled "Identity politics has veered away from its roots. It's time to bring it back". My take is that it means exactly what it says i.e., that the expression of one's lived experience adds a limited amount to the debate if it's not backed up with a sound wider analysis.

There’s a breach in the echo chamber