How to defeat the left’s identity politics

[Peter1469]

How to defeat the left’s identity politics (http://spectator.org/articles/65965/teddy-roosevelt’s-wisdom-donald-trump)

The left is made up of diverse victims groups. This leads them to politic in the terms of identity. Republicans fall into the trap of playing along. They err when they do that.


Donald Trump has a problem with women.
So say the sages of the political elites in both parties and throughout the media.


Stop. Stop, stop, stop!



What Donald Trump has been presented with here is a considerable opportunity to begin to break the political back of the American Left and its GOP Establishment camp followers who divide America by gender and race for political profit. Instead of playing defense — by saying, in essence, “women” or “Hispanics” love him, Trump has the opportunity to play the “American card” — a card which, pun intended, can powerfully trump the race and gender cards for a reason. The reason: it’s the right thing to do. And in fact, once upon a time a prominent Republican of the day — Theodore Roosevelt 101 years go — did exactly that.

Read the article and think about it as opposed to becoming unhinged and posting nonsense.

[Safety]

The left has diverse victim problem....the right has a singular victim problem...I would imagine that is due to....

[Peter1469]

The left has diverse victim problem....the right has a singular victim problem...I would imagine that is due to....

The right, or at least my right, has no victims. We are self-reliant, productive, and community oriented. When someone says we hate women - the statement makes no sense.

We want the best for the community.

[Safety]

The right, or at least my right, has no victims. We are self-reliant, productive, and community oriented. When someone says we hate women - the statement makes no sense.

We want the best for the community.

It's no different than saying liberals hate white people, Christians, Americans, God, bakeries, Chick-fil-a, Hobby Lobby, and the Constitution.

[Peter1469]

Well one side does it occasionally. Another side does nothing but.

[Common Sense]

The right, or at least my right, has no victims. We are self-reliant, productive, and community oriented. When someone says we hate women - the statement makes no sense.

We want the best for the community.

I constantly hear how the right is oppressed by gun grabbers, affirmative action, a war on Christmas, a war on Christians and everything good and decent etc... The perpetrators are "leftists", "socialists", "progressives", "liberals", "communists", etc...

Are we sure that some on the right don't see themselves as victims? Or are they just not self aware?

[Common Sense]

Well one side does it occasionally. Another side does nothing but.

Perspective is a hell of a thing...

[Subdermal]

It's no different than saying liberals hate white people, Christians, Americans, God, bakeries, Chick-fil-a, Hobby Lobby, and the Constitution.

No, that's a response. What the article cites - and it's a fantastic article - is that the strategy of the left is a conscious and anti-American strategy intended to sow division.

We Conservatives understand that and must destroy the effort at every opportunity.

In fact, if you love your country, you should too.

[Peter1469]

I constantly hear how the right is oppressed by gun grabbers, affirmative action, a war on Christmas, a war on Christians and everything good and decent etc... The perpetrators are "leftists", "socialists", "progressives", "liberals", "communists", etc...

Are we sure that some on the right don't see themselves as victims? Or are they just not self aware?

No, the concept of being a victim is foreign to the right. That is why we look at some on the left and chuckle. P word comes to mind.

[Subdermal]

I constantly hear how the right is oppressed by gun grabbers, affirmative action, a war on Christmas, a war on Christians and everything good and decent etc... The perpetrators are "leftists", "socialists", "progressives", "liberals", "communists", etc...

Are we sure that some on the right don't see themselves as victims? Or are they just not self aware?

You seem unable - or unwilling - to distinguish between 'victims' and 'targets'.

[Common Sense]

No, the concept of being a victim is foreign to the right. That is why we look at some on the left and chuckle. P word comes to mind.

Well you should tell the right, because they often look and sound exactly like victims.

Don't worry, some on the left chuckle too.

What does pussy have to do with anything?

[Common Sense]

you seem unable - or unwilling - to distinguish between 'victims' and 'targets'.

lol...

[Chris]

It's no different than saying liberals hate white people, Christians, Americans, God, bakeries, Chick-fil-a, Hobby Lobby, and the Constitution.

Except those groups are not protected classes the way victims of oppression are made out to be on the left.

[Safety]

No, that's a response. What the article cites - and it's a fantastic article - is that the strategy of the left is a conscious and anti-American strategy intended to sow division.

We Conservatives understand that and must destroy the effort at every opportunity.

In fact, if you love your country, you should too.

Yea, keep believing that. People see who is wanting division and who doesn't.

[Subdermal]

Well you should tell the right, because they often look and sound exactly like victims.

Don't worry, some on the left chuckle too.

What does $#@! have to do with anything?

Your entire ideology hinges around your need for a Big Brother, and you're clucking about others being victims? Nucka please.

[Subdermal]

Yea, keep believing that. People see who is wanting division and who doesn't.

Yes, thanks for proving my point.

[Common Sense]

Except those groups are not protected classes the way victims of oppression are made out to be on the left.

Oh yeah, the "protected class". Thanks Chris I forgot about that one. More victim speak.

[Safety]

Except those groups are not protected classes the way victims of oppression are made out to be on the left.

Many seems to misunderstand that "protective" classes are not blacks, it is "race". It's not muslim it's "religion". It's not gay, it's "sexual orientation". If you are white and you are discriminated at the office, you can file the same grievance a black person does.

[Dr. Who]

Well one side does it occasionally. Another side does nothing but.
Mmmm... the left is guilty of trying to promote good health, education, civil rights, personal dominion and fair wages and the right is guilty of trying to impose religious morality, the status quo, social domination and allowing business to dictate wages, no matter that they may not be sufficient to sustain life. It seems that both sides try to control.

[Common Sense]

Your entire ideology hinges around your need for a Big Brother, and you're clucking about others being victims? Nucka please.

You a victim of big brother?

[Peter1469]

Mmmm... the left is guilty of trying to promote good health, education, civil rights, personal dominion and fair wages and the right is guilty of trying to impose religious morality, the status quo, social domination and allowing business to dictate wages, no matter that they may not be sufficient to sustain life. It seems that both sides try to control.

That is aside from the identity politics.

But yes, you are correct. Both parties are trying to increase government control. They both take orders from the Establishment.

That is why we need to break the two party system.

All of this is off topic. Which is identity politics. It is a tool extensively used by the left.

[Crepitus]

No, the concept of being a victim is foreign to the right. That is why we look at some on the left and chuckle. P word comes to mind.
This made me chuckle.

The word hypocrisy comes to mind.

[del]

This made me chuckle.

The word hypocrisy comes to mind.

for me, it was horse shit.

lol

[Peter1469]

This made me chuckle.

The word hypocrisy comes to mind.

oh sure

[Chris]

Oh yeah, the "protected class". Thanks Chris I forgot about that one. More victim speak.

Yea, those poor victims, so oppressed they get classed and protected. It's what justice warriors are all about.

[Chris]

Many seems to misunderstand that "protective" classes are not blacks, it is "race". It's not muslim it's "religion". It's not gay, it's "sexual orientation". If you are white and you are discriminated at the office, you can file the same grievance a black person does.

Putting people in classes defined that way, isn't that discriminatory?

[Dr. Who]

How to defeat the left’s identity politics (http://spectator.org/articles/65965/teddy-roosevelt’s-wisdom-donald-trump)

The left is made up of diverse victims groups. This leads them to politic in the terms of identity. Republicans fall into the trap of playing along. They err when they do that.





Read the article and think about it as opposed to becoming unhinged and posting nonsense.
America institutionally hyphenates Americans. Why else would you have a separation between Hispanics and White Hispanics like one is better by virtue of skin color? People in America initially hyphenated themselves because of bigotry. It was a point of pride in the face of discrimination.

I agree that it makes no sense to make assumptions on people's political preferences just based on sex, race or ethnicity, but I'm pretty sure that any ethnicity whose illegals are just generally looking to survive and who are thus being described uniformly as rapists and criminals, might be offended by the insinuation.

Likewise, women might be offended by the misogynous and/or sexist ramblings of that same political figure regardless of political leanings.

Trump is an egotistical jerk who believes that he will be able to dictate in government like he does in business. Trump has never in any project needed the agreement of hundreds of people at the same time to realize his objectives. He has only ever had to convince a few greedy people to finance his plans and had to manipulate a few politicians to streamline the process.

Anyone who thinks that his I'm smarter than you antics will sway career politicians is deluded

[domer76]

Many seems to misunderstand that "protective" classes are not blacks, it is "race". It's not muslim it's "religion". It's not gay, it's "sexual orientation". If you are white and you are discriminated at the office, you can file the same grievance a black person does.

or a certain age
or a certain gender
or a certain national origin

Something we all have.

[Safety]

Putting people in classes defined that way, isn't that discriminatory?

The discrimination came first. Check that before trying to say people defined themselves.

[Safety]

or a certain age
or a certain gender
or a certain national origin

Something we all have.

It is just humourous how today it's "victim" groups. Whatever.

[domer76]

for me, it was horse shit.

lol

For me, it was chest-thumping puffery. Consistent with the Drumpf campaign

[domer76]

It is just humourous how today it's "victim" groups. Whatever.

These days, there is no greater victim group than the white, male conservative Christian. They see their way of life disappearing and are afraid. The wailing and gnashing of teeth is amusing to watch.

[Peter1469]

or a certain age
or a certain gender
or a certain national origin

Something we all have.Or we drop the victim status and just be human.

[Safety]

These days, there is no greater victim group than the white, male conservative Christian. They see their way of life disappearing and are afraid. The wailing and gnashing of teeth is amusing to watch.

Justice warriors...

[domer76]

Or we drop the victim status and just be human.

Works for me.

Spread the word

[Peter1469]

These days, there is no greater victim group than the white, male conservative Christian. They see their way of life disappearing and are afraid. The wailing and gnashing of teeth is amusing to watch.

Silly myth making. If it helps you get by, go for it sport.

lol

[domer76]

Silly myth making. If it helps you get by, go for it sport.

lol

Myth? Hardly. We see the black and white evidence on these threads every day.

sport

[Peter1469]

Myth? Hardly. We see the black and white evidence on these threads every day.

sport

Only in the lefts' drug addled mind is such things seen.

True conservative give a shit less what others think about them. Such thinking is 100% alien to leftists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cQNkIrg-Tk

[domer76]

Only in the lefts' drug addled mind is such things seen.

True conservative give a shit less what others think about them. Such thinking is 100% alien to leftists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cQNkIrg-Tk

We have Zelmo who had to get a divorce because gays obtained marriage rights. How much more victim can you get?

Pretty fucking funny though.

[Peter1469]

We have Zelmo who had to get a divorce because gays obtained marriage rights. How much more victim can you get?

Pretty fucking funny though.

What is 'victim about that'?

What is he asking for? It seems to be the opposite of victim hood. Who did he sue for his "rights"? He said no and took action as opposed to asking for help.

The hard left is so engrossed in victim identity that they can't envision that others are not.

[Crepitus]

Only in the lefts' drug addled mind is such things seen.

True conservative give a shit less what others think about them. Such thinking is 100% alien to leftists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cQNkIrg-Tk
Oh please Pete. How many threads have you seen here wailing about Christians being mistreated or discriminated against? How many about affirmative action? How about how gays and lesbians are militant and taking over? How "they" are coming for our guns?

The right wing victim mentality is going strong. I understand you recently decided you have an agenda to push but use some common sense man.

[Safety]

Only in the lefts' drug addled mind is such things seen.

True conservative give a shit less what others think about them. Such thinking is 100% alien to leftists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cQNkIrg-Tk

LoL, you almost had me there, that's funny.

[Peter1469]

Oh please Pete. How many threads have you seen here wailing about Christians being mistreated or discriminated against? How many about affirmative action? How about how gays and lesbians are militant and taking over? How "they" are coming for our guns?

The right wing victim mentality is going strong. I understand you recently decided you have an agenda to push but use some common sense man.

You referring to the leadership of the party- they are as useful as tits on a bull. I am referring to the people. The salt of the earth.

[Crepitus]

You referring to the leadership of the party- they are as useful as tits on a bull. I am referring to the people. The salt of the earth.
So, the leaders of the party are posting threads here?



Like how I manfully resisted the urge to comment on what happens when you salt the earth?

[Peter1469]

LoL, you almost had me there, that's funny.

This is funny (http://www.thelifeofjulia.com)

The dream of the hard left at the link.

[Safety]

Julia didn't grab her boot straps hard enough. How much better would she have fared, if she stayed barefooted and pregnant, making sandwiches in the kitchen?

[Peter1469]

Julia didn't grab her boot straps hard enough. How much better would she have fared, if she stayed barefooted and pregnant, making sandwiches in the kitchen?

Or didn't make those choices?

[Safety]

Blame it on the obamaphone.

[Peter1469]

Blame it on the obamaphone.

You can if you like.

I would not.

[Chris]

or a certain age
or a certain gender
or a certain national origin

Something we all have.

Right, something we all have, yet only some are put in protective classes. That's discrimination. From a government that's supposed to treat all equally.

[Chris]

The discrimination came first. Check that before trying to say people defined themselves.

Came first, and continues. You don't solve the problem of discrimination with more discrimination. It's like solving the problem of government corruption by making the government bigger.

[Peter1469]

The left is so dependent on identity politics that they won't ever admit it exists. It is their world view.

[Chris]

These days, there is no greater victim group than the white, male conservative Christian. They see their way of life disappearing and are afraid. The wailing and gnashing of teeth is amusing to watch.

This is the hypocrisy of the left: It's OK for some to cry victim and be protected but not others.

[Chris]

Justice warriors...

That's the left. Though I don't doubt some on the right see advantage in emulating the left.

[Peter1469]

This is the hypocrisy of the left: It's OK for some to cry victim and be protected but not others.

It is far more than hypocrisy. It is a deliberate bold faced lie.

[Chris]

The left is so dependent on identity politics that they won't ever admit it exists. It is their world view.

What's odder to me is that many who identify this way do not even belong to those social groups but simply serve as justice warriors.

[Standing Wolf]

The left is so dependent on identity politics that they won't ever admit it exists. It is their world view.

Please put aside the hyperbole and the Straw Men for just a few minutes, Peter, and explain to us the essential difference between a politician seeking support from self-identified Christians by appealing to their self-interest, and a politician seeking support from self-identified Gay people by appealing to their self-interest.

[Chris]

Please put aside the hyperbole and the Straw Men for just a few minutes, Peter, and explain to us the essential difference between a politician seeking support from self-identified Christians by appealing to their self-interest, and a politician seeking support from self-identified Gay people by appealing to their self-interest.

Should a government restricted to serving the general welfare serve special interests? In the business world that's called corruption, cronyism. Why is this any different?

[Safety]

What's odder to me is that many who identify this way do not even belong to those social groups but simply serve as justice warriors.

It's no different than those who don't belong to nationalist groups serving as advocates for them, or saying they aren't in the GOP, defending republicans....

[Safety]

Should a government restricted to serving the general welfare serve special interests? In the business world that's called corruption, cronyism. Why is this any different?

What people call special interests are incorrect. If straight people were being discriminated against, the government would hold the same position. If the majority was treated like minorities were, the government would hold the same position.

Discrimination /= black or gay
Discrimination = race or sexual orientation.

[Safety]

That's the left. Though I don't doubt some on the right see advantage in emulating the left.

That's a personal perception, it all boils down to whose ox is gored.

[Chris]

That's a personal perception, it all boils down to whose ox is gored.

Whites whining whites are treated unfairly is a very recent phenomenon.

[Chris]

It's no different than those who don't belong to nationalist groups serving as advocates for them, or saying they aren't in the GOP, defending republicans....

It's very different. Argument from hypocrisy is also illogical.

[Standing Wolf]

Should a government restricted to serving the general welfare serve special interests? In the business world that's called corruption, cronyism. Why is this any different?

What is the difference, in your view, between a "special interest" and a simple "interest"? Does every law passed, every regulation approved, every court decision made have to directly affect every citizen in exactly the same way for it to be a legitimate use of governmental power? If we were all exactly the same in terms of personal attributes, job, religious affiliation, etc., yes, many governmental actions would be unnecessary - but we're not. The laws that used to exist that restricted the ability to obtain a marriage license to opposite-sex couples was serving the interests (or was it the "special interests"?) of those who believed anything else was against God's will or counter to tradition and the welfare of society; those laws were made to go away - which is the kind of thing that should make those who oppose "special interest government" very happy. P.S. It wasn't Conservatives who wanted everyone to be treated equally in that case - was it?

[Chris]

What people call special interests are incorrect. If straight people were being discriminated against, the government would hold the same position. If the majority was treated like minorities were, the government would hold the same position.

Discrimination /= black or gay
Discrimination = race or sexual orientation.


Baloney, and no one is arguing that analogy. Christians are being discriminated against by laws that specially favor protected classes. See, when the government protects one class specially, it mistreats another with reverse discrimination. If the government follows rule of law whereby all are treated equally then these problems don't arise.

[Safety]

It's very different. Argument from hypocrisy is also illogical.

It's not illogical when the proof of it is in black and white. Not one aspect of it is any different.

[Safety]

Baloney, and no one is arguing that analogy. Christians are being discriminated against by laws that specially favor protected classes. See, when the government protects one class specially, it mistreats another with reverse discrimination. If the government follows rule of law whereby all are treated equally then these problems don't arise.

Missing the forest for the trees. Nobody is being persecuted for false reasons. Somebody makes a claim, and the claim is investigated, if it holds no merit, then the claim is dismissed.

I can't help it if the claim someone makes is valid.

[Chris]

What is the difference, in your view, between a "special interest" and a simple "interest"? Does every law passed, every regulation approved, every court decision made have to directly affect every citizen in exactly the same way for it to be a legitimate use of governmental power? If we were all exactly the same in terms of personal attributes, job, religious affiliation, etc., yes, many governmental actions would be unnecessary - but we're not. The laws that used to exist that restricted the ability to obtain a marriage license to opposite-sex couples was serving the interests (or was it the "special interests"?) of those who believed anything else was against God's will or counter to tradition and the welfare of society; those laws were made to go away - which is the kind of thing that should make those who oppose "special interest government" very happy. P.S. It wasn't Conservatives who wanted everyone to be treated equally in that case - was it?



Does every law passed, every regulation approved, every court decision made have to directly affect every citizen in exactly the same way for it to be a legitimate use of governmental power?

Yes. If we are a nation ruled by laws, not men, then yes--and what nation legitimately rules by men? But also because the Constitution the government is founded on demands it in the general welfare clause.


If we were all exactly the same in terms of personal attributes, job, religious affiliation, etc., yes, many governmental actions would be unnecessary - but we're not.

No, we're not. But that is not the government's business--think so, find it granted in the Constitution. The people need to be left alone to pursue happiness, iow, their own and special interests.


The laws that used to exist that restricted the ability to obtain a marriage license to opposite-sex couples was serving the interests (or was it the "special interests"?) of those who believed anything else was against God's will or counter to tradition and the welfare of society; those laws were made to go away - which is the kind of thing that should make those who oppose "special interest government" very happy.

Those laws were special interested.

[Chris]

It's not illogical when the proof of it is in black and white. Not one aspect of it is any different.

The proof in in your head. Do you really presume I'm arguing the same argument for justice you are? I'm not.

And argument from hypocrisy is always fallacious. Assume I am hypocritical in demonstrating you are wrong. My assumed hypocrisy doesn't make you right. Thus the fallacious nature of arguing hypocrisy.

[Chris]

Missing the forest for the trees. Nobody is being persecuted for false reasons. Somebody makes a claim, and the claim is investigated, if it holds no merit, then the claim is dismissed.

I can't help it if the claim someone makes is valid.


Oh most definitely I am missing your forest--because i disagree with you.

What true (moral) reason has the government to force bakers to bake cakes for gay wedding celebrations? I know the court's reasoning behind it, do you?

[Peter1469]

Please put aside the hyperbole and the Straw Men for just a few minutes, Peter, and explain to us the essential difference between a politician seeking support from self-identified Christians by appealing to their self-interest, and a politician seeking support from self-identified Gay people by appealing to their self-interest.

numbers

society ought not do back flips for 2% of the population.

[Safety]

What is the difference, in your view, between a "special interest" and a simple "interest"? Does every law passed, every regulation approved, every court decision made have to directly affect every citizen in exactly the same way for it to be a legitimate use of governmental power? If we were all exactly the same in terms of personal attributes, job, religious affiliation, etc., yes, many governmental actions would be unnecessary - but we're not. The laws that used to exist that restricted the ability to obtain a marriage license to opposite-sex couples was serving the interests (or was it the "special interests"?) of those who believed anything else was against God's will or counter to tradition and the welfare of society; those laws were made to go away - which is the kind of thing that should make those who oppose "special interest government" very happy. P.S. It wasn't Conservatives who wanted everyone to be treated equally in that case - was it?

Same argument was made throughout history, interracial marriage is persecuting Christians, etc. etc.

[Safety]

numbers

society ought not do back flips for 2% of the population.

Why not, 2% isn't worthy of being citizens? What's the action level? 13%? 25%?

[Peter1469]

Why not, 2% isn't worthy of being citizens? What's the action level? 13%? 25%?

Strawman. It didn't mention citizenship.

[Safety]

Oh most definitely I am missing your forest--because i disagree with you.

What true (moral) reason has the government to force bakers to bake cakes for gay wedding celebrations? I know the court's reasoning behind it, do you?

That's fine, disagreement is healthy. Morality should be the simple fact that if a citizen is truly a citizen, then they should have the same freedoms and liberties other citizens enjoy. If not, then we have a caste system.

If you allow only part of the citizenship to do one thing, and not allow another part, even if they are 2%, that is discriminatory.

[Safety]

Strawman. It didn't mention citizenship.

No, but is it still not valid? If you want to talk about illegals not having the same rights, that's one thing, but to say 2% doesn't deserve the same consideration is totally different.

[Standing Wolf]

Yes. If we are a nation ruled by laws, not men, then yes--and what nation legitimately rules by men? But also because the Constitution the government is founded on demands it in the general welfare clause.

The point is that every citizen doesn't need exactly the same protection. Men don't need laws that would prevent them from having to go through with unwanted pregnancies. People who own businesses have different legal needs than those who do not. People who do not own guns and don't wish to don't have any immediate need for the Second Amendment...and so forth. The fact that a law may not affect you - or any number of other citizens personally - does not make it an illegitimate use of government.

[Safety]

The proof in in your head. Do you really presume I'm arguing the same argument for justice you are? I'm not.

And argument from hypocrisy is always fallacious. Assume I am hypocritical in demonstrating you are wrong. My assumed hypocrisy doesn't make you right. Thus the fallacious nature of arguing hypocrisy.

Ad hom aside, you are arguing that because someone isn't black or gay, it should somehow discredit their position. I'm also not discussing anyone being right or wrong, you are.

[Peter1469]

No, but is it still not valid? If you want to talk about illegals not having the same rights, that's one thing, but to say 2% doesn't deserve the same consideration is totally different.

I am not talking about rights. I am talking about society wasting resources to deal with non-issues.

If people wouldn't turn things into crusades they would get want they want without anyone noticing the difference.

If you are a man who wants to use the woman's restroom, use it. But when you turn it into an Oprah event people notice.

[Peter1469]

The point is that every citizen doesn't need exactly the same protection. Men don't need laws that would prevent them from having to go through with unwanted pregnancies. People who own businesses have different legal needs than those who do not. People who do not own guns and don't wish to don't have any immediate need for the Second Amendment...and so forth. The fact that a law may not affect you - or any number of other citizens personally - does not make it an illegitimate use of government.

Underlined: tell that to Obamacare. :smiley:

[Chris]

Ad hom aside, you are arguing that because someone isn't black or gay, it should somehow discredit their position. I'm also not discussing anyone being right or wrong, you are.

Where's the ad hom, safety? There is none.


you are arguing that because someone isn't black or gay, it should somehow discredit their position

No, I am not arguing that. Making that a strawman.


I'm also not discussing anyone being right or wrong, you are.

It was a simple explanation for why argument from hypocrisy is falaction. Making that comment a nice distraction from my point.

[Safety]

I am not talking about rights. I am talking about society wasting resources to deal with non-issues.

If people wouldn't turn things into crusades they would get want they want without anyone noticing the difference.

If you are a man who wants to use the woman's restroom, use it. But when you turn it into an Oprah event people notice.

That's what people have been hearing throughout history, "just be patient", "wait your turn". MLK was told that he should stop being in people's faces and he is stirring up racial tension, stop being a race hustler. Would you agree or disagree with MLK's action?

[Cigar]

This is a real easy problem to Fix

The problem is, one said want inclusion and the other want exclusion.

Sooner or later ... The Demographics will solve this problem for us and there's nothing anyone can do about.

[Chris]

The point is that every citizen doesn't need exactly the same protection. Men don't need laws that would prevent them from having to go through with unwanted pregnancies. People who own businesses have different legal needs than those who do not. People who do not own guns and don't wish to don't have any immediate need for the Second Amendment...and so forth. The fact that a law may not affect you - or any number of other citizens personally - does not make it an illegitimate use of government.

I guess it all depends on how you frame it. Unborn babies deserve protection whether their male or female.

My point is the government has no business regulating private lives in the pursuit of happiness. It should regulate itself since that's its constitutional mandate.

My point is also not about laws that do not affect some but laws that do, as in the case of bakers force to bake for those they don't want to.

[Peter1469]

That's what people have been hearing throughout history, "just be patient", "wait your turn". MLK was told that he should stop being in people's faces and he is stirring up racial tension, stop being a race hustler. Would you agree or disagree with MLK's action?

Blacks make up a significant percentage of society.

[Peter1469]

This is a real easy problem to Fix

The problem is, one said want inclusion and the other want exclusion.

Sooner or later ... The Demographics will solve this problem for us and there's nothing anyone can do about.

The problem should be easy. But it is hard because activists are involved.

[Cletus]

I constantly hear how the right is oppressed by gun grabbers, affirmative action, a war on Christmas, a war on Christians and everything good and decent etc... The perpetrators are "leftists", "socialists", "progressives", "liberals", "communists", etc...

Are we sure that some on the right don't see themselves as victims? Or are they just not self aware?

They don't see themselves as victims.

The just see the Left as scum... and they are correct.

[michiganFats]

How to defeat the left’s identity politics (http://spectator.org/articles/65965/teddy-roosevelt’s-wisdom-donald-trump)

The left is made up of diverse victims groups. This leads them to politic in the terms of identity. Republicans fall into the trap of playing along. They err when they do that.





Read the article and think about it as opposed to becoming unhinged and posting nonsense.

Great idea, I've said this myself. You win this game by not playing.

[Chris]

That's what people have been hearing throughout history, "just be patient", "wait your turn". MLK was told that he should stop being in people's faces and he is stirring up racial tension, stop being a race hustler. Would you agree or disagree with MLK's action?


Yes, what he did was right.

He wasn't the damned government.

[Cigar]

Well, we (America) have the opportunity to work together to resolve issues and problems, or the Balance of Power will.

Nothing ... Nothing ... stays the same forever.

So either get off the Tracks of Progress, or Stand just your Ground in hopes the past comes back or nothing changes.

Your Choice, it really doesn't matter to me. :wink:

[Chris]

Well, we (America) have the opportunity to work together to resolve issues and problems, or the Balance of Power will.

Nothing ... Nothing ... stays the same forever.

So either get off the Tracks of Progress, or Stand just your Ground in hopes the past comes back or nothing changes.

Your Choice, it really doesn't matter to me. :wink:

Ah, but it does, my choice, your choice, his and hers all matter in this "opportunity to work together to resolve issues and problems" that society pursues, and the government interferes with by picking winners and losers.

[Peter1469]

Well, we (America) have the opportunity to work together to resolve issues and problems, or the Balance of Power will.

Nothing ... Nothing ... stays the same forever.

So either get off the Tracks of Progress, or Stand just your Ground in hopes the past comes back or nothing changes.

Your Choice, it really doesn't matter to me. :wink:

Right. Work together.

Cease identity politics.

[Standing Wolf]

What true (moral) reason has the government to force bakers to bake cakes for gay wedding celebrations? I know the court's reasoning behind it, do you?

In my opinion, both sides are at times guilty of conflating Constitutional protections with statutory steps that a government entity will take in order to promote and advance decency, citizenship and good public order. Few people truly want to live and work in a society where the business community consists of a patchwork of businesses that welcome you as a customer and those who do not - for reasons entirely separate from your ability to pay for their services - and the people have spoken through their elected representatives in establishing something very different from that as a prerequisite for conducting business in the society which they make up. Few sane and reasonable individuals would argue that the State has no right to insist that a business conform to health and safety codes, tax regulations, even things like signage restrictions; Society's insistence on the inclusion of non-discrimination policies as a cost of doing business with the public is not that different, and is certainly not unreasonable.

[Standing Wolf]

numbers

society ought not do back flips for 2% of the population.

How would you describe "back flips", in this context?

[Standing Wolf]

Strawman. It didn't mention citizenship.

I took Safety's use of "citizen" to mean "full" or "first class" citizen.

[Chris]

How would you describe "back flips", in this context?

Adding levity...

http://i.snag.gy/6JL5b.jpg



Society oughtn't to do back flips for the 1% either.

[Standing Wolf]

Men don't need laws that would prevent them from having to go through with unwanted pregnancies.


Underlined: tell that to Obamacare.

Your "response" appears to be something of a non sequitur. I was writing about laws that don't necessarily directly impact every individual in society. How many pregnant men have you ever heard about, outside of the Weekly World News or The Onion?

[Chris]

In my opinion, both sides are at times guilty of conflating Constitutional protections with statutory steps that a government entity will take in order to promote and advance decency, citizenship and good public order. Few people truly want to live and work in a society where the business community consists of a patchwork of businesses that welcome you as a customer and those who do not - for reasons entirely separate from your ability to pay for their services - and the people have spoken through their elected representatives in establishing something very different from that as a prerequisite for conducting business in the society which they make up. Few sane and reasonable individuals would argue that the State has no right to insist that a business conform to health and safety codes, tax regulations, even things like signage restrictions; Society's insistence on the inclusion of non-discrimination policies as a cost of doing business with the public is not that different, and is certainly not unreasonable.


The people, some, have spoken though their elected officials, some, who coerce what they have no constitutionally granted power to do.

The notion that because a business takes in intra-state goods and customers opens the door to government regulation of who they serves stretches the Constitution like a rubber band to the snapping point, a snapping that is painful in backlash.

I agree that discrimination is often unreasonable and it is my business to not do business with such businesses but, again, it is not the government's business.

[Standing Wolf]

My point is also not about laws that do not affect some but laws that do, as in the case of bakers force to bake for those they don't want to.

If a baker is performing a genuine, legally recognized religious duty or function, and is being asked to compromise his or her Faith in some way by serving an individual with whom they have some moral argument, their refusal would be a Constitutionally protected action. What kind of religious duty entails baking cakes and such for the general public? If it is same-sex marriage he or she objects to, it isn't as though they are being asked to participate in the ceremony.

As for a baker (or other tradesman) arguing from a secular perspective, invoking their right to "do what I want to on my own property", requiring him or her to conform to Society's direction in certain matters pertaining to their business practices is an established fact of life - one that has existed since the first historic civilizations. A public business does not operate in a vacuum, as I've said before.

In the military, many offenses are punished as violations of what is known as "good order and discipline"...and while we're, most of us, not living life and interacting with others as members of a military organization, the same general principle applies. There are rules you follow because to do otherwise would contribute, needlessly and inordinately, to public disorder and low level chaos.

[Standing Wolf]

Adding levity...

http://i.snag.gy/6JL5b.jpg


If you've got a video of Ruth Bader Ginsburg doing that, bring it on.

[Chris]

If a baker is performing a genuine, legally recognized religious duty or function, and is being asked to compromise his or her Faith in some way by serving an individual with whom they have some moral argument, their refusal would be a Constitutionally protected action. What kind of religious duty entails baking cakes and such for the general public? If it is same-sex marriage he or she objects to, it isn't as though they are being asked to participate in the ceremony.

As for a baker (or other tradesman) arguing from a secular perspective, invoking their right to "do what I want to on my own property", requiring him or her to conform to Society's direction in certain matters pertaining to their business practices is an established fact of life - one that has existed since the first historic civilizations. A public business does not operate in a vacuum, as I've said before.

In the military, many offenses are punished as violations of what is known as "good order and discipline"...and while we're, most of us, not living life and interacting with others as members of a military organization, the same general principle applies. There are rules you follow because to do otherwise would contribute, needlessly and inordinately, to public disorder and low level chaos.


I don't see it as a religious right, but a right to private property and free association.


As for a baker (or other tradesman) arguing from a secular perspective, invoking their right to "do what I want to on my own property", requiring him or her to conform to Society's direction in certain matters pertaining to their business practices is an established fact of life - one that has existed since the first historic civilizations. A public business does not operate in a vacuum, as I've said before.

The problem with that argument is man is a social animal and never exists in a vacuum, much as collective abstractions might want to isolate him in dependence on the State, but is always dependent on if not even defined by the society and culture around him. Your argument slippery slopes into regulating everything we do--and the court would open the door to our homes because it was built by and we consume intrastate goods and services.

Hell, it might even slippery slope into a woman's supposed private right to choose as regards abortion. --Hypocrisy of the left!

[Peter1469]

How would you describe "back flips", in this context?

Coming unhinged over bathroom privileges. Some suggested remolding bathrooms nationwide. Nonsense. That would be a malinvestment and a waste of money.

[Peter1469]

I took Safety's use of "citizen" to mean "full" or "first class" citizen.

And? 2% of the population ought not cause the other 98% to spend millions for their desires.

[Peter1469]

[/U]



Your "response" appears to be something of a non sequitur. I was writing about laws that don't necessarily directly impact every individual in society. How many pregnant men have you ever heard about, outside of the Weekly World News or The Onion?

Incorrect. My response was an aside and applied only to the underlined text. I can go back and delete all the stuff that I was not responding to if that would help.

[Standing Wolf]

The problem with that argument is man is a social animal and never exists in a vacuum, much as collective abstractions might want to isolate him in dependence on the State, but is always dependent on if not even defined by the society and culture around him. Your argument slippery slopes into regulating everything we do--and the court would open the door to our homes because it was built by and we consume intrastate goods and services.

The State is already in your home, in a hundred ways - from what herbs you can burn in your pipe in the privacy of your own home, to how high you can let your grass (the other kind) grow on your lawn. I don't think you can reasonably ascribe either of those two examples - or very many others - to "the Left". The first has to do with Conservative beliefs about things people shouldn't ingest that make them feel good, and the second to do with neighborhood property values. You might be able to blame having to buy those ridiculous curlicue light bulbs on the Left, but for most of this country's history it has been the forces of Conservatism that have attempted to micro-manage the lives of citizens.

[Standing Wolf]

Incorrect. My response was an aside and applied only to the underlined text. I can go back and delete all the stuff that I was not responding to if that would help.

I understood perfectly what part of my post you were "responding" to - that's why I quoted it before quoting you. I commented that men didn't have to worry about being legally forced to carry a fetus to term, and you responded to the effect that Obamacare meant that they did. My response to that is, as it was before, "Huh?"

[Peter1469]

for most of this country's history it has been the forces of Conservatism that have attempted to micro-manage the lives of citizens.

How so?

[Chris]

The State is already in your home, in a hundred ways - from what herbs you can burn in your pipe in the privacy of your own home, to how high you can let your grass (the other kind) grow on your lawn. I don't think you can reasonably ascribe either of those two examples - or very many others - to "the Left". The first has to do with Conservative beliefs about things people shouldn't ingest that make them feel good, and the second to do with neighborhood property values. You might be able to blame having to buy those ridiculous curlicue light bulbs on the Left, but for most of this country's history it has been the forces of Conservatism that have attempted to micro-manage the lives of citizens.

Point taken on whether it's the left or the right acting "progressively" on identity politics.

I think my point still stands that the people have never granted the government such powers. They have instead looked the other way. As Ford put it in some speech, a government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take it all away. As Madison put it...


Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. On a candid examination of history we shall find that turbulence, violence, and abuse of power by the majority trampling on the rights of the minority, have produced factions and commotions, which in republics, have more frequently than any other cause produced despotism. If we go over the whole history of the ancient and modern republics, we shall find their destruction to have generally resulted from those causes.

That the government does this, that it is law, does not make it right.

[Safety]

Blacks make up a significant percentage of society.

Granted, taking your previous statement and if blacks were only 2% of the population, are you implying they should not have the same rights and privileges afforded to the majority? Or as another member suggested, people cannot advocate for their equal treatment because they aren't black?

[Safety]

How so?

Confederacy, black codes law, woman's suffrage, Jim Crow, abortion, SSM.

[Standing Wolf]

...for most of this country's history it has been the forces of Conservatism that have attempted to micro-manage the lives of citizens.


How so?

Few "Blue Laws" are still being enforced, but it used to be common for the forces of a Conservative state to do the bidding of the churches in banning Sunday sales of liquor in some places, liquor and automobiles in other places, and just about anything a person would want to buy in still other places (as in Bergen County, NJ, to this day). While all out Prohibition itself was a Progressive cause, continuing efforts to keep the citizenry sober on a certain religious day of observance have come mainly from the Conservative camp, particularly its rural contingents.

Censoring the content of motion pictures has obsessed social Conservatives since the days of the penny arcade. In the '40s and '50s, many focused on the content of comic books. Since then, television and the music industry have felt their efforts to control what the American people were watching and listening to...and, of course, reading.

You could be jailed as recently as 1972 for sending or receiving contraceptives through the mail, although that applied only to receipt by unmarried persons; married couples could receive contraceptives by mail a whole seven years earlier. Liberals were not responsible for the laws under which Americans were prosecuted for that "crime" for almost a century.

That's not even touching upon the existence and enforcement of laws that mandated prison time for private, consensual sexual contact between two men...or jail sentences for simply dancing together in public.

[Peter1469]

Granted, taking your previous statement and if blacks were only 2% of the population, are you implying they should not have the same rights and privileges afforded to the majority? Or as another member suggested, people cannot advocate for their equal treatment because they aren't black?

No. I am saying that society shouldn't do back flips for 2% of the population. That is very different from them not having rights.

[Dr. Who]

Baloney, and no one is arguing that analogy. Christians are being discriminated against by laws that specially favor protected classes. See, when the government protects one class specially, it mistreats another with reverse discrimination. If the government follows rule of law whereby all are treated equally then these problems don't arise.
I don't see how Christians are being discriminated against at all. It's discriminatory to have laws that make discrimination unlawful if you serve the public? Given the opportunity, the discriminatory types would simply bring back the equivalent of Jim Crow laws on the state level and make life hell for every minority group of whom they disapprove. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prevents that as do comparable State legislations.

If certain classes can be said to be protected, it's because other classes were bigoted, discriminatory and persecutory - the class version of bullies.

[Peter1469]

Confederacy, black codes law, woman's suffrage, Jim Crow, abortion, SSM.

That is all democratic party stuff.

[Safety]

That is all democratic party stuff.


......

[Peter1469]

It is. History. Check it out.

[del]

lol

[Peter1469]

Yes del, laugh

[del]

Yes del, laugh

carry on, punch line

[William]

I don't have an informed opinion on this (like most things party political) but I would like to thank the OP, and the people who contributed, for teaching me a new word 'identity politics'. :smiley:

Of course, I had to Google it, but it seems an unnecessary word to me.


identity politics

n. (used with a sing. or pl. verb) Political attitudes or positions that focus on the concerns of social groups identified mainly on the basis of gender, race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/identity+politics

Like all personal and political attitudes come originally from your background - what your mum and dad, aunties and uncles, friends, etc. say - what your position in society is - what your nationality is - whether you are a boy or girl - even whether you are gay or not - don't they?

We develop any views from that starting point. Like I come from a middle class professional family, and have never had to do without something really important, so I start with different views of society from my friend in Yorkshire who had to leave school early so he could work and bring in money to the household. Of course if I have any brains, I realise that there are people not as lucky as me, and that society must take care of them, or fail as a society.

So in that way, all political attitudes are identity politics - formed by our situations and our experiences.