Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
(Post 513000)
How would one "identify" Jews as voters, however?
This is where identification becomes problematic. 1 out of 4 Jews is a lot of Jews. But if we "identify" Jews as reliable D voters, we lump that 1 exception in with the rest.
I don't object to identity politics because I'm against it. Quite to the contrary, I think it has done wonders to raise awareness and start change where it applies (BLM, female wages).
But it applies only in very, very limited areas. And it's overuse, and loose usage, is maddening. You can't just throw people into groups and say, "That's how they act, and that's how they should vote." It's just... wrong.
|
As I recall mentioning, that's not what anyone else means by "identity politics," so you should take comfort in the idea that you have been misunderstanding people, and move on.
Relatedly, you may have noticed that many people who talk about politics have opinions about how other people should vote. If that bothers you, that's too bad.
Quote:
Similarly, you can't say, "Everything Trump does is awful because he is awful." The tax cuts were on balance not an excellent thing. But that doubling of the standard deduction does help a lot of renters, many of whom are struggling.
|
I appreciate the contrarian impulse you have to find the silver lining in the Trump Shitstorm. Here, I'm not sure why you credit Trump for a Republican tax bill. Do you really think that Trump had a view about whether the standard deduction should have been doubled, or did anything to make it happen?
Quote:
I'm seeing on the Left at the moment a lot of the same siloing I saw on the Right during Obama's terms. Now, of course, Obama is a much more normal President, and not comparable to Trump. But there isn't much difference between people on the Right howling that everything Obama did was evil, and people on the Left howling everything Trump does is evil.
|
Why is that you object so vigorously to generalizations about how Jews vote, but you have no problem ascribing to "the Left" some stupid thing you read somewhere from some stupid leftie? I will stipulate that you saw some leftie say something stupid, particularly if I don't have to hear about it. But the only reason for you to mention it hear, as far as I can tell, is to try to score cheap rhetorical points off any of us who identify with "the Left" more than you do, which is all of us.
And those rhetorical points are truly cheap. Christopher Hitchens would not be impressed. Tomi Lahren might go for it, and if that's the crowd you're trying to impress, you should grab the nearest bottle of scotch and bludgeon yourself with it until you stop responding.
Quote:
In Obama's term, I'd hear, "Obama's a socialist!" and respond, "Yeah, how's your portfolio doing? 3X where it was in '08?" Now, I hear, "Trump is destroying the world," and while I must say he is doing a lot of damage, is it so wrong to take the contrarian pitch a little bit... to look for the silver linings here and there? Some of that tax bill does help the middle class.
|
I don't know about "wrong" if you can tie it to anything Trump has done. The economic indicators I see show continuity with what Obama did, making it hard for me to believe that your portfolio is loving Trump per se.
And if some of that tax bill benefits the middle class, so much of it doesn't, and -- surprise! -- it was a package deal.
Quote:
I think people have to stop looking at groups and politicians' aggregate policy packages. The better way to look at everything is in as granular a way as possible -- one small item at a time. Like a buffet. "This is good... This is not so good... This is fucking awful."
|
I look forward to hearing you discuss policy in as granular a way as possible.
Quote:
Yeah, I do hate tribalism. It's not an act. I don't like being lumped into any group, and I hate when it goads me into reflexively arguing against other people by asserting they are part of some group who all think similarly.
|
Right and left are fundamentally different in important ways. You repeatedly prefer to equate them as tribalist, and in dwelling on their similarities rather than acknowledging their differences. The point is to burnish your own self-image as an individualist, not part of some group. If we just agree that you are an individualist and not part of a group, can you agree to acknowledge reality?
