Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Your examples, which always seem to suit whatever your current argument is, just sound made up.

I know exactly one minority who supports Trump. And he's a gun fanatic (and in The Sunken Place, generally, but what're you gonna do?). Absolutely everyone else I've come into contact with who supports Trump, is a white man.

TM

The cross tabs on just about every poll I've looked at for the last year verify this. The number of republican votes from Hispanics and Asians declined considerably in the Obama years, but took a nose-dive in the last year.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

We pay attention to #metoo. The average American does not. It's not going to be statistically significant. Whatever it gains, it gains in areas already dependably blue.

Race is much bigger, but does largely the same thing.

Identity politics is dangerous shit. There's no choice but to engage in it, as Trump started it all. But the actions and reaction cycles in that type of politics are really fucking ugly. And not as certain to bring about an exclusively blue future as one may think.

I see a 2018 election that favors Democrats. No doubt about that in the least. But I also see a bubble in terms of media cheerleading for it, and audiences for such cheerleading (us) who have no clue about what the average American voter is thinking.

We're clueless here. Me as much as an anyone else.

In your world, it sounds like the average American is a white guy. In mine, there are a lot of women and minorities in purple states, and they are particularly mobilized to vote this year.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Adder

I'm not talking about how most people think. I'm talking about how you get a big wave of latinx turnout for your side, as opposed to encouraging the marginal latinx voter to stay home.

You're going to need other things for other voters, but you can't shoot yourself in the foot with any of the groups you need.

I think it's more important to encourage hispanic citizens to register and to become voters first. Thousands of man hours have been spent in Texas trying to figure out how to do this, with very little success.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

This, in a vacuum, sounds really great. But tilting at windmills when you have absolutely no ability to institute the policy at issue does not cement the Latino vote in your favor. When it comes down to it, Republicans will vote, as a block, to screw Dreamers. Democrats will vote, as a block, to help them. Closing the government to make it look like you're even more in favor of Dreamers is stupid.

Of course, I agree with you on this, but Adder has been so wrong so much lately that I thought I'd mention that he has a point. Setting aside the question of shutdown tactics, success in November is going to have a lot to do with turning out the base, which is going to turn on how motivated they are. Sebby has just posted about all the Trump voters who aren't changing their minds. Maybe so, but if they're less excited about The Donald and disliking Hillary, then they're going to be less likely to vote.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

All politics are identity politics. It only gets labeled "identity politics" and is deemed "dangerous" when people who aren't white are asking for equal treatment. Every single political issue is framed in such a way to appeal to the white male voter. When someone else says, "Hey! We want some of that too," all we hear is there go those minorities, women and/or bleeding hearts with their identity politics.

Every so often I point out that Simone de Beauvoir said:

"Man is defined as a human being and woman as a female – whenever she behaves as a human being she is said to imitate the male."

Or, what TM said.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

I think it's more important to encourage hispanic citizens to register and to become voters first. Thousands of man hours have been spent in Texas trying to figure out how to do this, with very little success.

Should be a very high priority.

Does it really require winning some more races to motivate people?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

All politics are identity politics. It only gets labeled "identity politics" and is deemed "dangerous" when people who aren't white are asking for equal treatment. Every single political issue is framed in such a way to appeal to the white male voter. When someone else says, "Hey! We want some of that too," all we hear is there go those minorities, women and/or bleeding hearts with their identity politics.

TM

What’s dangerous is the response to what you’ve cited.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Every so often I point out that Simone de Beauvoir said:

"Man is defined as a human being and woman as a female – whenever she behaves as a human being she is said to imitate the male."

Or, what TM said.

If you think the current identity politics doesn’t invite a much more apt quote, from Machiavelli, regarding dividing and conquering the common people (and on this stuff, where the trick is to pit the self-ordained enlightened against the troglodytes, that includes us), you’re not looking at the issue closely enough.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

If you think the current identity politics doesn’t invite a much more apt quote, from Machiavelli, regarding dividing and conquering the common people (and on this stuff, where the trick is to pit the self-ordained enlightened against the troglodytes, that includes us), you’re not looking at the issue closely enough.

More apt? Why not both?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

If you think the current identity politics doesn’t invite a much more apt quote, from Machiavelli, regarding dividing and conquering the common people (and here, that includes us), you’re not looking at the issue closely enough.

"Identity politics" is just a euphemism for white supremacy, right?

I mean, it's either a term used by white supremacists to say, "stop caring about civil rights", in some way that implies only African Americans should care about racism or only women should care about sexism, or it's a term used about white supremacists themselves who consciously identify themselves as superior based on race.

Is there any other use that makes sense?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

"Identity politics" is just a euphemism for white supremacy, right?

I mean, it's either a term used by white supremacists to say, "stop caring about civil rights", in some way that implies only African Americans should care about racism or only women should care about sexism, or it's a term used about white supremacists themselves who consciously identify themselves as superior based on race.

Is there any other use that makes sense?

It makes sense mostly as something used to tribalize and divide.

Of course, it makes sense in some regards. I mean, in re justice reform, Black people are enormously disproportionate victims. And in re wage discrimination against women, women are the only victims.

But it’s used too often by bigots to describe “others” and interests seeking to capitalize on grievances to create categories of victims.

In the end, it’s all a power game, and we’re just pawns. Some of us are aware and see no choice but to play the game offered. Some are willing idiots (alt-right, “bring back ur coal jobs,” immigrants are enemies, etc.). But it’s still someone else’s game. If you don’t see corporate and special interests co-opting the arguments here, you’re blind.

It’s only when the common people, including us on these issues, come together and reject the arguments of those who seek to keep everyone fighting, while .00001% of society runs away with everything, that we’ll see real change.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

It makes sense mostly as something used to tribalize and divide.

Of course, it makes sense in some regards. I mean, in re justice reform, Black people are enormously disproportionate victims. And in re wage discrimination against women, women are the only victims.

But it’s used too often by bigots to describe “others” and interests seeking to capitalize on grievances to create categories of victims.

In the end, it’s all a power game, and we’re just pawns. Some of us are aware and see no choice but to play the game offered. Some are willing idiots (alt-right, “bring back ur coal jobs,” immigrants are enemies, etc.). But it’s still someone else’s game. If you don’t see corporate and special interests co-opting the arguments here, you’re blind.

It’s only when the common people, including us on these issues, come together and reject the arguments of those who seek to keep everyone fighting, while .00001% of society runs away with everything, that we’ll see real change.

But to be clear, if some asshole charges I'm engaging in "identity politics" because I care about civil rights, that asshole would be your basic white supremacist. He think's I'm betraying my "identity" by siding with "blacks".

So why the fuck do people use the term?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

But to be clear, if some asshole charges I'm engaging in "identity politics" because I care about civil rights, that asshole would be your basic white supremacist. He think's I'm betraying my "identity" by siding with "blacks".

So why the fuck do people use the term?

I don’t think that’s identity politics at all.

Identity politics is generalizing that all people of a certain background have or should have identical views and grievances.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Dude, she should have won with 400,000 third party voters. Bernie swung the populists to Trump, whose economic arguments resembled Bernie's more than Hillary's.

You don't get it, and I doubt you ever will, but the reality was, we had a three party race. Only it wasn't Hillary v. Trump v. Gary Johnson or Evan McMullen. It was Hillary v. Trump v. the Ghost of Bernie. And while Sanders finally, grudgingly, campaigned for Hillary, his Ghost -- all the arguments he had made which were identical to Trump's, remained.

Two economic arguments aligned, quite compellingly. Those were Trump's and Bernie's "Bring America back and give the working stiff a shot!" platforms. Hillary had what? Three hundred nuanced policy prescriptions.

I remember watching Bernie and Hillary debate and thinking, "He fucking smoked her." It's all about emotion, candor -- feeding the lizard brain. Bernie and Trump were geniuses at it.

You believe what you like Hank. But the reality is a lot more complex.

Race implies chance to win. But of course Bernie turned lots of should be Hil voters off.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I don’t think that’s identity politics at all.

Identity politics is generalizing that all people of a certain background have or should have identical views and grievances.

That's a fine definition, but it's not what anyone else means when they use the term.