United Forum
Go Back   United Forum > Everything else > News, Current Affairs & Politics
Closed Thread
 
Unread 01-01-2019, 10:21 PM
Albert Tatlock
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harri Jaffa
Here is another review of it:

The book is a good example of what politics has become. It shows how ideas and language promoted by identity politics, victimhood culture and diversity have become so pervasive and accepted that a book reflecting these ideas is still seen as criticising them. This is NOT a critique of identity politics and diversity but a 'what about us' plea for an identity group that is seen as wrongly treated because they are not allowed the same claims, positive version of their identity and benefits other identities group apparently have.

The first thing this book does is to casually create an identity, the Liberal-Left identity. It seems supporting a common set of political opinions or principles is enough for an ’identity’ label, a fixed identity as all identities are essentially fixed. Also an easy label that reflects the current refusal, from both sides, to engage with ideas; from those who claim a particular identity for themselves with a ‘I don’t need to explain myself, my identity is such’ but also from those who simply put others in identity groups to dismiss them without engaging with particular ideas.

This casual creation of an identity also reflects the belief that politics has always been identity politics, showing an ahistorical understanding of the current trends today. Representational form of politics of the past was about convincing people that certain political ideas and policies supported their interests. Identity politics today is claiming that our identities, not our reason, determine our opinions, interests and the political platform we should be supporting.

System of diversity here. System of oppression in the other tribes. Both claim that a set of beliefs are embedded in the fabric of our society through the institutions (government, political parties, education...) and that we are acted upon by rules and regulations and manipulated by some hyperconscious individuals.

As I said, not a critique but a plea. The claim of systemic oppression, one of the main points argued by those who openly support identity politics is simply dismissed in the most ridiculous manner so that later in the book, we learn that actually, it is one of the unfavoured groups, the white British working class men, who are suffering the most. They suffer from existential threat while apparently the ‘positive version of group identity’ somehow protects women, black people and other minorities. This reminds me of the wrong claim, from the other side, that racism and white privilege protect and benefit white people.

Yes, there is denigration of the white working class by some of the political and cultural elites but this does not mean protection or benefits for members of other groups. The elites do benefit from the current trends as they can be seen to connect with people through identity gatekeepers who also benefit by gaining political and social power for themselves. The terrible consequences for most of us is what make me strongly oppose these current trends, not the demand to pity vulnerable white working class men the same way the Liberal-Left demand us to pity vulnerable women and minorities. Entering the competition for victimhood will result in nothing else than more divisions, hatred and resentment.

This existential threat is claimed to be due to the lack of support from the political elites but also the actions of some of the preferred groups: immigrants resulting from apparently mass immigration to the UK and more particularly Muslim immigrants. To make this argument, constant blurring of the lines between Muslims, Muslim identity, immigrants, Islam, Islamism and especially the divisive consequences of the multicultural policies promoted by the government for the last few decades is used in the book. Multicultural policies that demand that each culture be protected and kept alive ended up creating parallel communities. Now, the existence of these parallel communities is blamed on the supposedly natural tendencies of immigrants to separate from the native population.

Having already dismissed the claim of oppression and basically refusing to deal with what underlies identity politics and the belief in diversity as a value, the book can then organise identity groups into favoured and unfavoured or preferred and not preferred. The underlying rational behind the victimhood Olympics (claim of oppression) is simply dismissed and replaced by a belief that it is about preferring a group over another.

To push the plea, the author goes so far as to claim that the elites preferred migrants because of similarity between them: they apparently both travel the world and that leads to the absurd claim that public debates and those supporting identity politics and diversity are (quote) ‘dominated by a judgmental rationalism that takes little or no account of personal experience’! The problem of identity politics is actually that it is the opposite: personal experiences and emotionalism have primacy over reason. This leads to current cries to ‘stay in your lane’ and that only women can talk about women issues or only black people about racism. But to push the plea, the book is arguing that they do not consider personal experiences enough because the experiences of white British people suffering from existential threat is not considered by the elites who seem to support immigrants. The claims of being ‘citizen of the world’ from the cosmopolitan crowd that tries to bypass the will of British people is translated here, in this book, into a supposed preference for immigrants by some individuals with a certain identity.

This is not criticising the fact that diversity is now seen as value, as inherently good but a critique of diversity as a fact of life because of the concern for an existential threat. There is a difference between diversity as a fact of life that acknowledges that all kinds of people with different backgrounds, beliefs and opinions live together in one place and diversity promoted as a value that leads to seeing people as categories and demands that each categories be represented, accepted and protected.

The demand for the white British men to be allowed positive version of their identities, be allowed more identity representation and for the identity group be treated on an equal footing with other identity groups is certainly not challenging the extremely divisive identity politics. This is in fact accepting the current situation and accommodating to it. This acceptance of the situation is what the other ‘tribes’ do too. Anti-racist activists supporting identity politics and demanding diversity accept our racial divisions and are reviving racial thinking to claim benefits for their own individual positions. This needs to be strongly challenged, not imitated.
Excellent post Harri. Didn't actually read any of it, just wanted one of the swivel eyed mongs to bite
 
Unread 01-01-2019, 10:25 PM
Hands of Scone
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harri Jaffa
Here is another review of it:

The book is a good example of what politics has become. It shows how ideas and language promoted by identity politics, victimhood culture and diversity have become so pervasive and accepted that a book reflecting these ideas is still seen as criticising them. This is NOT a critique of identity politics and diversity but a 'what about us' plea for an identity group that is seen as wrongly treated because they are not allowed the same claims, positive version of their identity and benefits other identities group apparently have.

The first thing this book does is to casually create an identity, the Liberal-Left identity. It seems supporting a common set of political opinions or principles is enough for an ’identity’ label, a fixed identity as all identities are essentially fixed. Also an easy label that reflects the current refusal, from both sides, to engage with ideas; from those who claim a particular identity for themselves with a ‘I don’t need to explain myself, my identity is such’ but also from those who simply put others in identity groups to dismiss them without engaging with particular ideas.

This casual creation of an identity also reflects the belief that politics has always been identity politics, showing an ahistorical understanding of the current trends today. Representational form of politics of the past was about convincing people that certain political ideas and policies supported their interests. Identity politics today is claiming that our identities, not our reason, determine our opinions, interests and the political platform we should be supporting.

System of diversity here. System of oppression in the other tribes. Both claim that a set of beliefs are embedded in the fabric of our society through the institutions (government, political parties, education...) and that we are acted upon by rules and regulations and manipulated by some hyperconscious individuals.

As I said, not a critique but a plea. The claim of systemic oppression, one of the main points argued by those who openly support identity politics is simply dismissed in the most ridiculous manner so that later in the book, we learn that actually, it is one of the unfavoured groups, the white British working class men, who are suffering the most. They suffer from existential threat while apparently the ‘positive version of group identity’ somehow protects women, black people and other minorities. This reminds me of the wrong claim, from the other side, that racism and white privilege protect and benefit white people.

Yes, there is denigration of the white working class by some of the political and cultural elites but this does not mean protection or benefits for members of other groups. The elites do benefit from the current trends as they can be seen to connect with people through identity gatekeepers who also benefit by gaining political and social power for themselves. The terrible consequences for most of us is what make me strongly oppose these current trends, not the demand to pity vulnerable white working class men the same way the Liberal-Left demand us to pity vulnerable women and minorities. Entering the competition for victimhood will result in nothing else than more divisions, hatred and resentment.

This existential threat is claimed to be due to the lack of support from the political elites but also the actions of some of the preferred groups: immigrants resulting from apparently mass immigration to the UK and more particularly Muslim immigrants. To make this argument, constant blurring of the lines between Muslims, Muslim identity, immigrants, Islam, Islamism and especially the divisive consequences of the multicultural policies promoted by the government for the last few decades is used in the book. Multicultural policies that demand that each culture be protected and kept alive ended up creating parallel communities. Now, the existence of these parallel communities is blamed on the supposedly natural tendencies of immigrants to separate from the native population.

Having already dismissed the claim of oppression and basically refusing to deal with what underlies identity politics and the belief in diversity as a value, the book can then organise identity groups into favoured and unfavoured or preferred and not preferred. The underlying rational behind the victimhood Olympics (claim of oppression) is simply dismissed and replaced by a belief that it is about preferring a group over another.

To push the plea, the author goes so far as to claim that the elites preferred migrants because of similarity between them: they apparently both travel the world and that leads to the absurd claim that public debates and those supporting identity politics and diversity are (quote) ‘dominated by a judgmental rationalism that takes little or no account of personal experience’! The problem of identity politics is actually that it is the opposite: personal experiences and emotionalism have primacy over reason. This leads to current cries to ‘stay in your lane’ and that only women can talk about women issues or only black people about racism. But to push the plea, the book is arguing that they do not consider personal experiences enough because the experiences of white British people suffering from existential threat is not considered by the elites who seem to support immigrants. The claims of being ‘citizen of the world’ from the cosmopolitan crowd that tries to bypass the will of British people is translated here, in this book, into a supposed preference for immigrants by some individuals with a certain identity.

This is not criticising the fact that diversity is now seen as value, as inherently good but a critique of diversity as a fact of life because of the concern for an existential threat. There is a difference between diversity as a fact of life that acknowledges that all kinds of people with different backgrounds, beliefs and opinions live together in one place and diversity promoted as a value that leads to seeing people as categories and demands that each categories be represented, accepted and protected.

The demand for the white British men to be allowed positive version of their identities, be allowed more identity representation and for the identity group be treated on an equal footing with other identity groups is certainly not challenging the extremely divisive identity politics. This is in fact accepting the current situation and accommodating to it. This acceptance of the situation is what the other ‘tribes’ do too. Anti-racist activists supporting identity politics and demanding diversity accept our racial divisions and are reviving racial thinking to claim benefits for their own individual positions. This needs to be strongly challenged, not imitated.
That’s a fairly long winded way of denouncing the author as a racist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Albert Tatlock
Excellent post Harri. Didn't actually read any of it, just wanted one of the swivel eyed mongs to bite
Why are you even in this thread if you’re not reading it? Tedious waffle munching old prick.
 
Unread 01-01-2019, 10:40 PM
Harri Jaffa
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands of Scone
That’s a fairly long winded way of denouncing the author as a racist.
Are you suggesting that the book review I posted has flaws based on the writers personal perspective? Are you also considering that the review you posted has flaws based on their personal perspective, or have you not managed to get that far yet...
 
Unread 01-01-2019, 10:56 PM
saffers
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by armchair
mate, you've posted think progress unironically in the past.
Because thinkprogress and breitbart are equivalent?

Breitbart is a full on white supremacist website. Thinkprogress is at worst democratic party propaganda.
 
Unread 01-01-2019, 11:16 PM
red in cumbria
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by saffers
Such a cliche he's become.

How long till he sincerely uses Breitbart as a source.
Within weeks I would think, they are becoming crankier (in every sense) by the day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harri Jaffa
Here is another review of it:

The book is a good example of what politics has become. It shows how ideas and language promoted by identity politics, victimhood culture and diversity have become so pervasive and accepted that a book reflecting these ideas is still seen as criticising them. This is NOT a critique of identity politics and diversity but a 'what about us' plea for an identity group that is seen as wrongly treated because they are not allowed the same claims, positive version of their identity and benefits other identities group apparently have.

The first thing this book does is to casually create an identity, the Liberal-Left identity. It seems supporting a common set of political opinions or principles is enough for an ’identity’ label, a fixed identity as all identities are essentially fixed. Also an easy label that reflects the current refusal, from both sides, to engage with ideas; from those who claim a particular identity for themselves with a ‘I don’t need to explain myself, my identity is such’ but also from those who simply put others in identity groups to dismiss them without engaging with particular ideas.

This casual creation of an identity also reflects the belief that politics has always been identity politics, showing an ahistorical understanding of the current trends today. Representational form of politics of the past was about convincing people that certain political ideas and policies supported their interests. Identity politics today is claiming that our identities, not our reason, determine our opinions, interests and the political platform we should be supporting.

System of diversity here. System of oppression in the other tribes. Both claim that a set of beliefs are embedded in the fabric of our society through the institutions (government, political parties, education...) and that we are acted upon by rules and regulations and manipulated by some hyperconscious individuals.

As I said, not a critique but a plea. The claim of systemic oppression, one of the main points argued by those who openly support identity politics is simply dismissed in the most ridiculous manner so that later in the book, we learn that actually, it is one of the unfavoured groups, the white British working class men, who are suffering the most. They suffer from existential threat while apparently the ‘positive version of group identity’ somehow protects women, black people and other minorities. This reminds me of the wrong claim, from the other side, that racism and white privilege protect and benefit white people.

Yes, there is denigration of the white working class by some of the political and cultural elites but this does not mean protection or benefits for members of other groups. The elites do benefit from the current trends as they can be seen to connect with people through identity gatekeepers who also benefit by gaining political and social power for themselves. The terrible consequences for most of us is what make me strongly oppose these current trends, not the demand to pity vulnerable white working class men the same way the Liberal-Left demand us to pity vulnerable women and minorities. Entering the competition for victimhood will result in nothing else than more divisions, hatred and resentment.

This existential threat is claimed to be due to the lack of support from the political elites but also the actions of some of the preferred groups: immigrants resulting from apparently mass immigration to the UK and more particularly Muslim immigrants. To make this argument, constant blurring of the lines between Muslims, Muslim identity, immigrants, Islam, Islamism and especially the divisive consequences of the multicultural policies promoted by the government for the last few decades is used in the book. Multicultural policies that demand that each culture be protected and kept alive ended up creating parallel communities. Now, the existence of these parallel communities is blamed on the supposedly natural tendencies of immigrants to separate from the native population.

Having already dismissed the claim of oppression and basically refusing to deal with what underlies identity politics and the belief in diversity as a value, the book can then organise identity groups into favoured and unfavoured or preferred and not preferred. The underlying rational behind the victimhood Olympics (claim of oppression) is simply dismissed and replaced by a belief that it is about preferring a group over another.

To push the plea, the author goes so far as to claim that the elites preferred migrants because of similarity between them: they apparently both travel the world and that leads to the absurd claim that public debates and those supporting identity politics and diversity are (quote) ‘dominated by a judgmental rationalism that takes little or no account of personal experience’! The problem of identity politics is actually that it is the opposite: personal experiences and emotionalism have primacy over reason. This leads to current cries to ‘stay in your lane’ and that only women can talk about women issues or only black people about racism. But to push the plea, the book is arguing that they do not consider personal experiences enough because the experiences of white British people suffering from existential threat is not considered by the elites who seem to support immigrants. The claims of being ‘citizen of the world’ from the cosmopolitan crowd that tries to bypass the will of British people is translated here, in this book, into a supposed preference for immigrants by some individuals with a certain identity.

This is not criticising the fact that diversity is now seen as value, as inherently good but a critique of diversity as a fact of life because of the concern for an existential threat. There is a difference between diversity as a fact of life that acknowledges that all kinds of people with different backgrounds, beliefs and opinions live together in one place and diversity promoted as a value that leads to seeing people as categories and demands that each categories be represented, accepted and protected.

The demand for the white British men to be allowed positive version of their identities, be allowed more identity representation and for the identity group be treated on an equal footing with other identity groups is certainly not challenging the extremely divisive identity politics. This is in fact accepting the current situation and accommodating to it. This acceptance of the situation is what the other ‘tribes’ do too. Anti-racist activists supporting identity politics and demanding diversity accept our racial divisions and are reviving racial thinking to claim benefits for their own individual positions. This needs to be strongly challenged, not imitated.
Truly superb, and pretty unarguable IMO - who wrote that?
 
Unread 02-01-2019, 12:14 AM
Hands of Scone
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harri Jaffa
Are you suggesting that the book review I posted has flaws based on the writers personal perspective? Are you also considering that the review you posted has flaws based on their personal perspective, or have you not managed to get that far yet...
You mean to suggest that writers... have... opinions? I had just not considered that. Woooaaah, dude.

You really do think you’re blowing minds with knowledge bombs dont you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by red in cumbria
Within weeks I would think, they are becoming crankier (in every sense) by the day.

Truly superb, and pretty unarguable IMO - who wrote that?
A one star amazon review

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/customer... 6048BTABY5X0

Left by a woman who has debated with the author over the issue of identity politics

https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/ses...ing-the-tribe/

Who describes herself thusly “She has decided to leave laboratory bench work behind to focus on her second interest: engaging in debates about science and society....her research is currently focussed on the issues of race, identity, social justice and the demand for Safe Spaces in US and UK universities.”

She probably came off second best judging by the snide review.

To be fair to her, she is actually against the type of identity politics the book in question suggests Labour has fallen victim to. Her bone of contention is that she claims the author is in fact seeking to play the same game with the white identity rather than challenging the notion of identity politics itself. I don’t get that impression from the other review which mainly deals with the various results of left identity politics, but having not read the book she may have a point on that score. You’ll note she doesnt actually challenge the argument that labour has fallen victim to identity politics in the first place or claimed pernicious effects of the same regarding sex crimes, hate crimes etc.

Anything to say about the source Riccers? Bona fides enough for you?

I’m still not sure if harri has a point at all or is still just reflexively objecting to anything I post. If, as I suspect, he buys into this identity politics bollocks the review he posted doesn’t actually endorse his position.

Last edited by Hands of Scone; 02-01-2019 at 12:50 AM.
Closed Thread
Thread Tools
Similar Threads for: Diversity Politics and the Labour Party
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Labour Party Conference 2018 Cream News, Current Affairs & Politics 344 11-10-2018 01:15 PM
This Zionist campaign against JC and the Labour party TripDownMiseryLane News, Current Affairs & Politics 96 13-04-2018 05:11 PM
Labour party policy Tumescent Throb News, Current Affairs & Politics 508 12-04-2017 07:48 PM
Battle for the Labour Party part 1456325 My Name is Keith News, Current Affairs & Politics 93 04-01-2017 08:49 PM
The Labour Party, ladies and gentlemen irk News, Current Affairs & Politics 62 13-11-2014 07:34 PM
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:53 PM.

Copyright ©2006 - 2019 utdforum.com. This site is in no way affiliated to Manchester United Football Club.