Is that not in itself an identitarian argument? The whole left/right divide is antiquated and artificial, and it has lasted much longer than can possibly be justified. We ought to be able to thrash out solutions in the marketplace of ideas without banging identitarian drums.
-
-
-
Isn't what an identitarian argument? That the left has been accused of losing the ability to make arguments and just calling everyone racist & sexist? That's either happening or it isn't.
-
Yes, I'm referring to the lumping together of a great many people under one hand-wavy word: "left". I try to be careful to assess the arguments people make on the basis of what they say, rather than the politics they espouse. And from what I've seen, so do you (mostly). (cont)
-
If I can use the ghastly phrase, you "self-identify" as being on the left. And yet I don't think you've lost the ability to make arguments. Nor do I think you are either racist or sexist. So you are a counter-example to your own claim, and so am I.
-
It's not my claim! My claim is that the accusation exists and we need to address it by dealing with the shit that caused it to be made.
-
Well, the shit that caused it to be made is the distressing tendency of people to over-simplify by pinning oligosyllabic labels onto large groups of people so that they can deal with them *as* groups rather than as individuals. The word "left" is one such label.
-
OK. I'm not sure why you seem to think I am a person who needs telling this tho. Have I not written enough pieces defending the liberal left and talking about how to distinguish it from the SocJus left and marginalise the latter?
-
Helen, I don't think you need telling this. I just love arguing, especially with people on the left, because they're so good at it.
Your remark seemed to me to be identitarian, and I called you out on it - not to beat you down, but to find out what you meant.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Mishra is hyperbolic but I think it's fair game to question JP's beliefs/motivations and his influence/effect, and to draw parallels. The last thing we need is a 21st-century L Ron Hubbard.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The guiding assumption of the enlightenment project is that one can ultimately argue down to the foundation in favor of one value system instead of another. That’s impossible. Some will always opt for the comfort only an authoritarian or tradition can give. What do you do then?
-
The answer is pluralism.
-
Pluralism within a single integrated polity doesn’t work for people who don’t want to live in a pluralistic society. They in a sense require their own ‘island’.
-
I agree, there is a limit to how divergent people's values can be and can still live in peace even in a pluralistic society. But the less the state involves itself in its citizens' lives, the more divergence is possible, & the more likely pluralism will work.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.