Stay off the internet and you'll be fine.

I'm not entirely sure what identity politics is so I've probably been running into it but unaware. Ignorance is bliss as they say.

Well, that's the stupidest piece I've yet read today (and I read a lot of stupid shit). But you have to look at who the NYT's readership is (ultra-liberal Manhattan and surrounding area types) and how they think of themselves as "thought leaders," which is a phrase that should earn one an ass kicking every time one utters it. So pardon me while I go kick my ass.

See; today we get all the "intellectualism" from the internet without any of the actual "intellectual" stuff. Always remember that and you'll do just fine, little buckaroo.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

I'm with her. I mean him.

I'm also not sure when these halcyon days when people didn't engage in identity politics were.

A short definition on the Googles says, "a tendency for people of a particular religion, race, social background, etc., to form exclusive political alliances, moving away from traditional broad-based party politics."

That is always how people group off in politics. How else do they do it? What are these supposed "traditional broad-based party politics"? People of like groups have like interests. That ain't rocket surgery.

Now if the lamentation is that people voted for a woman because she was a woman or Obama because he was black, well, we haven't really had a time when that was possible before. For a very long time it was a choice among white men. You didn't break 10% women in Congress until the 1990's. Between 1881 and 1993 there was exactly one African American in the Senate.

So sure, more people are probably doing that in the last 20 - 30 years than before, but I would posit that is only because it wasn't possible before.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Okay, the article is stupid, but I don't care about it. Should any random article change my political views? Identity politics has always existed, and can obscure actual policy debate, especially given our present split media. It's fine to call out the really stupid stuff, but that can create identity politics out of opposition to the other sides' identity politics (which is really stupid). Stick to policy, that's my approach.

Of course, I'm just an elitist, latino, Californian liberal ....

This is a reply to both you and JPO. Maybe "identity politics" is just the most apropos term we have at the moment to describe this phenomenon, but it's still not exact enough. I'm talking about gender and racial groups getting together and building complaint lists about how bad society is to them, how much they are victimized, and how it's all due to somebody else's malice. And now "society" has decided it's not worth it to push back. That's way different than just voting for Obama because he's black or Trump because he's white.



Agreed. But it's not identity politics to point out the stupidity of many of the arguments found in identity politics.



This is pie in the sky. When you get to the table to talk policy and people stuck in identity group think don't even have the same facts and world view as you do, you're not going to get anywhere. One key characteristic of these types of articles is that they endlessly reference each other so as to give the impression they are building a wall stone by stone, instead of a building a lie by just repeating it so many times.

Got you covered. https://thehill.com/...f-personal-grievance

Instead we live in a time of “grievance politics,” where you succeed by framing other parties as those responsible for your personal travails. This politics of personal victimization was arguably invented by the Clintons but its power now permeates our politics like a team of Russian Olympians on steroids — a parody of itself, obvious to all in its phoniness yet persistent in its existence in a world that stopped taking it seriously some time ago.


And while it is different than "identity politics", I think you are right that it gets lumped under that.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

She's an assistant professor with a PhD and the title the NYT gave her is Ms. Kind of funny given the context.

I would argue that "outrage" or "grievance" is just as corrosive, and affects more people. I read that some crazy lecturer in a community college says something crazy ... invariably from conservative sources, seeking to elicit outrage from their audience (which is considerable). I would never hear these stories, if it wasn't for the grievance politics. ("building a lie by just repeating it so many times" is particularly appropriate)

Policy debate isn't "pie in the sky". Pseudo-policy is alive and well, and is interspersed with propaganda attacks all the time. Lots of talking points are policy debates. For instance, "Repeal Obamacare" is a negation of policy masquerading as policy. "Build a Wall" is a policy slogan. Coherent, rational, mature debate based on agreed-upon facts ... well, maybe that is pie in the sky ;).

Pointing out the crazies is going to happen. I think most people agree that it should be done in a proportionate manner. It's important to be honest about the size and power of whatever threat is being pointed out. If Nazis (thank you Mr Godwin) or KKK members or other crazy right wing groups were teaching in our Universities, and setting the climate for NYT articles, it seems to be an appropriate thing to point out and wonder. If the Nazis criticized American celebrities and the celebrities felt obligated to prostrate themselves in front of the Nazis for fear of their power then, yes, I would have a problem with that, and I would understand the concern from those that mention it.

But that's what I'm pointing out. The KKK is not ascendant. The Nazis are not ascendant. They are not a tier one power in the United States (thank goodness). However, these grievance politics people on the left are ascendant. They are a tier one power. They inhabit key positions within the United States institutions of gov't and higher learning. They teach our kids. They write in the NY times. They're all over the place (well except for FOX, but that's another issue) Just try and cross them and there's a fair chance your position in American culture will be successfully destroyed or drastically diminished (versus about a 0% chance if the KKK doesn't like you). If they find out you are against them while you are young, there's a good chance your career will never get started.

TLDR: Outrage is a false equivalence here. It really is.

Pure Godwin's Law. You are trying to say that a community college professor teaching feminist studies is a tier 1 power? Look at "grievance", how about the POTUS for power? How about the four highest rated radio talk shows, which spew 24/7 directed propaganda to 10's of millions of folks? You steadfastly ignore that, refusing to see both sides, and then bringing up Nazi's. You no doubt feel that you are being specifically oppressed by a given story, but you are just being triggered. You are right, they are somewhat different and both are problems, but it's time to acknowledge committed propaganda creates a similar result, rather than pretend there is only one side.

We'll just agree to disagree. Rather than complain about the other sides (which can crate an endless vortex of recrimination), I suggest a focus on policy, as way out of continual blame. You reject that ("pie in sky"). If so, it then falls to you to put forth an actual solution, without falling back on a predictable one-sided blame-fest.

Please stay with me here. I know it's easier to go with false equivalences as a cop out. Just listen.

I'm not saying there's nothing to be alarmed about on the right. I'm pointing out something alarming and odd on the left. Just deal with it without the wudaboutisms that supposedly aren't welcome here anyway.

Trump definitely has political power -- and he's a train wreck -- but he has no cultural power. The guy almost has negative cultural power. No serious person believes even half of the stuff he says. No celebrities have prostrated themselves and fawningly begged for forgiveness because Trump criticized them. Heck, they wear his scorn like a badge of honor. Their livelihood is not threatened. All kinds of people openly laugh at Trump. The grievance warriors speak and people keep their heads down if they know what's good for them.

I would venture to say Trump has his current position precisely because of the overweening cultural power of the grievance warriors. And I'm not the only one on here to make this type of claim. And it's definitely not only made by people considered right wing.

Today I read this...



It's from a press release from Binghamton University touting the work of one of its Professors.


Here's the whole release... https://www.newswise.com/...view/706540/?sc=dwhp

This is not from any "outrage" center. I get a physical, medical, and social sciences news feed publication everyday, and it came from there.

My question would be is there data showing that "cop voice" is a real thing (despite the overblown language used) or is this just someone's assertion?

The message can be real even if the messenger is obnoxious.

Edit: A quick google search doesn't bring up anything other than that article.

And what's the difference between "authority" and "racial authority"?
And in what way is a police officer's authority "unearned"?

Meh, whatever, it's all part of the science now. This paper -- like so many other papers -- can now be referenced by other scientists and journalists as they build their facts list and their world view.

The person is an English professor, so I don't know what part of science this would fall under. It seems like nothing more than someone's assertions.

I tried to go look at the article but can't get past the abstract without paying.

From the news feed...

The paper was published in the Journal of Interdisciplinary Voice Studies.

Yeah I saw but I can't get to it so still have no idea if cop voice is a real thing or not.

Sounds like a music theory journal.

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

I seem to recall watching one of the Police Academy comedies years ago and there was a bit about trying to get one of the female trainees to use a more authoritative voice, so I'm sure there's a kernel of something there.

I mean, I would imagine that "getting the public to comply with simple requests" would be pretty much complaint #1 for most police officers. It seems reasonable that they all try to sound authoritative. Think of parents trying to get their kids to go to bed -- they don't squeak the request.

I don't doubt that but the author appears to be suggesting there's a racial component to it? Or maybe I'm just not getting her arguments.

You're definitely getting her arguments. I'm just saying that "cop voice" is probably real, but that doesn't mean it's racial or white supremacist.