No, you reply to any disagreement by asserting a single definition of "identity politics" and dismissing someone as illiberal. You go after low-hanging fruit instead of steel-manning the opposition so criticisms ring hollow for ppl who might disagree and increases polarization.
-
-
-
Is it possible that I am only opposed to what you see as 'low hanging fruit' - extremists - and am not actually in opposition to moderate ideas? Tell me what good arguments you think I disagree with. Then I can tell you if I do and why I do.
-
Very possible! That's why I don't understand why you try to label all low hanging fruit as identity politics, even though there are many instances of self-identified identity politics that wouldn't qualify (like the link I sent you).
-
Same tactic as ppl who decry all those who disagree with them as nazis or fascists. When you push them, they often only commit to disagreeing with obviously objectionable views, but then go back to clumping all of it together as whatever outgroup they wanna signal against.
-
You'll have to be very specific. What ideas do you think I disagree with actually have merit? What am I lumping with intersectional identity politics which shouldn't be? I openly support Gay Pride, genuinely liberal feminists, anti-racists.
-
Better way of phrasing my view: seems as if you only go after particularly odious or extreme applications of "identity politics" or "intersectionality" when plenty of the sorts of things I linked to you exist and so muddy the conceptual waters.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Traditional semantics is confusing enough. Can you imagine where language (especially legal constitutional) will be when intersectional theory is embraced institutionally?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.