Supreme Court rejects affirmative action at colleges as unconstitutional

[tstorm823]

They just throw that term around, without defining it, so people can get away with being a bigot

Then I shall define it for you, since the way you are using it is way off. No policy is anyone's identity politics, cause that's not how identity politics works.

"Identity politics" is the idea of organizing based on personal identities rather than policy or belief system. No policy proposal is identity politics, as the nature of identity politics is asking people to vote irrespective of policy.

From the bottom up, there's a reasonable pragmatism to this. For example, if you are a black person in America in a place where there are only 15% black people, and you want to have more leverage in what a political party is doing, voting as a single voting block can give you the power to do so, even if the party you are supporting has completely different beliefs than you. There are, without a doubt, plenty of both left-leaning and right-leaning black people, but voting together can better advance black representation in government as a whole.

From the top down, this is terrible nonsense. It's succinctly demonstrated with the sentence: “If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.”

And yes.... as you have proven, this indicates that the Dems are the conservatives. Always have been, always will be

Both parties have conservative and progressive factions. Right now, the Democrats have chosen to pretend otherwise and deemed conservative a bad word (and I think it's basically lost them the working class), but absolutely, they do conservative things all the time.

 

[Ag3ma]

Then I shall define it for you, since the way you are using it is way off. No policy is anyone's identity politics, cause that's not how identity politics works.

"Identity politics" is the idea of organizing based on personal identities rather than policy or belief system. No policy proposal is identity politics, as the nature of identity politics is asking people to vote irrespective of policy.

I think it's hard to define what "identity politics" is, because so many people use slightly different ideas of what it is that the entire concept is vague.

I think for you to claim "voting irrespective of policy" is fundamentally wrong: I think policy is a fundamental intent of identity politics. Issues around personal identities very much contribute to ideas about policy and belief systems. You can argue that many identity groups get relatively little out of the parties that they support, but the counterpoint is that even if there's only an inch between parties, that inch is better than nothing.

 

[Silvanus]

Then I shall define it for you, since the way you are using it is way off. No policy is anyone's identity politics, cause that's not how identity politics works.

"Identity politics" is the idea of organizing based on personal identities rather than policy or belief system. No policy proposal is identity politics, as the nature of identity politics is asking people to vote irrespective of policy.

This is not how it's widely understood. What you're describing is demographic tribalism in voting patterns, which can develop as a result of "identity politics", but are hardly the entire story.

When someone claims that people from a certain group should vote for them, without appealing to policy-- as Biden did in that quote-- they are indeed engaging in identity politics. Nonetheless there is an underlying insinuation that Trump's prejudices and policies will adversely affect black people.

At the same time, when someone proposes a policy that aims to scapegoat certain groups of people, or to play off the prejudices of others-- as Trump did when he attempted to ban people from certain countries, and then exempted Christians from the ban-- that person is also engaging in identity politics. The policy is specified here, it's less vague than Biden's mere insinuation. But it is still playing politics by focusing on identities and divisions = 'identity politics'.

 

[Trunkage]

Then I shall define it for you, since the way you are using it is way off. No policy is anyone's identity politics, cause that's not how identity politics works.

"Identity politics" is the idea of organizing based on personal identities rather than policy or belief system. No policy proposal is identity politics, as the nature of identity politics is asking people to vote irrespective of policy.

From the bottom up, there's a reasonable pragmatism to this. For example, if you are a black person in America in a place where there are only 15% black people, and you want to have more leverage in what a political party is doing, voting as a single voting block can give you the power to do so, even if the party you are supporting has completely different beliefs than you. There are, without a doubt, plenty of both left-leaning and right-leaning black people, but voting together can better advance black representation in government as a whole.

From the top down, this is terrible nonsense. It's succinctly demonstrated with the sentence: “If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.”

Both parties have conservative and progressive factions. Right now, the Democrats have chosen to pretend otherwise and deemed conservative a bad word (and I think it's basically lost them the working class), but absolutely, they do conservative things all the time.

I mean, your definition of identity politics is exactly what US Christians do. It's never been about policy or belief systems. In fact, it generally flies in the face of the Constitution. It's been about segregating people, whether it was Native Americans, African Americans, Asian Americans, Irish, Italians, Jews, homosexuals, trans or non-binary, whether it is 200 years ago, 100 years ago, or now. The only difference over the years is the change in targets.

As I've said before, you could have a belief system that makes you despise homosexuals etc. That does not, and never has meant, they should be banned etc. That transforms a belief system into identity politics. It's no longer what the people want, it's what YOU want over everyone else

Edit: I should add that, no. This is not what most Christain think Identity Politics is. It's very specifically anything left-wing or liberal only. Hence me pointing this out all the time. If you want to use this definition you provided, I would suggest you start with the Catholic Church, because that's mostly just identity politics

 

[tstorm823]

I think it's hard to define what "identity politics" is, because so many people use slightly different ideas of what it is that the entire concept is vague.

I think for you to claim "voting irrespective of policy" is fundamentally wrong: I think policy is a fundamental intent of identity politics. Issues around personal identities very much contribute to ideas about policy and belief systems. You can argue that many identity groups get relatively little out of the parties that they support, but the counterpoint is that even if there's only an inch between parties, that inch is better than nothing.

You know me, I love digging into etymology and considering words by their original intentions. In this case, the phrase gets attributed to the Combahee River Collective, a group of "black feminist lesbian socialists", in particular the Combahee River Collective Statement. To read:

Above all else, Our politics initially sprang from the shared belief that Black women are inherently valuable, that our liberation is a necessity not as an adjunct to somebody else’s may because of our need as human persons for autonomy. This may seem so obvious as to sound simplistic, but it is apparent that no other ostensibly progressive movement has ever consIdered our specific oppression as a priority or worked seriously for the ending of that oppression. Merely naming the pejorative stereotypes attributed to Black women (e.g. mammy, matriarch, Sapphire, whore, bulldagger), let alone cataloguing the cruel, often murderous, treatment we receive, Indicates how little value has been placed upon our lives during four centuries of bondage in the Western hemisphere. We realize that the only people who care enough about us to work consistently for our liberation are us. Our politics evolve from a healthy love for ourselves, our sisters and our community which allows us to continue our struggle and work.

This focusing upon our own oppression is embodied in the concept of identity politics. We believe that the most profound and potentially most radical politics come directly out of our own identity, as opposed to working to end somebody else’s oppression. In the case of Black women this is a particularly repugnant, dangerous, threatening, and therefore revolutionary concept because it is obvious from looking at all the political movements that have preceded us that anyone is more worthy of liberation than ourselves. We reject pedestals, queenhood, and walking ten paces behind. To be recognized as human, levelly human, is enough.

I am not going for a conservative attack here. The historical foundation of the idea of identity politics is "we're done trying to make society work for us through some universal justice that solves all problems, we're going to advocate for ourselves specifically." If you'd like, I can soften the "irrespective of policy" to something more like "prioritizing identity over policy". The controversial idea here is to forego your general beliefs for the sake of advancing the needs of your specific group.

We are socialists because we believe that work must be organized for the collective benefit of those who do the work and create the products, and not for the profit of the bosses. Material resources must be equally distributed among those who create these resources. We are not convinced, however, that a socialist revolution that is not also a feminist and anti-racist revolution will guarantee our liberation.

To paraphrase: "We believe in socialism, but we will work against it if it doesn't work for us." To put it even more bluntly, it is "we've helped everyone else and its gotten us squat, so we're gonna get ours now." Which, ironically enough, is a compelling argument in that it speaks to exactly how capitalism has made the world better. People working (honestly and diligently) for their own personal benefit makes the whole of society better, and is tremendously more successful at it than any attempt in history to design an inherently fair society.

The corruption of this idea, as with many many things, is the "so now you all have to vote for Democrats" built out of decades of propaganda.

This is not how it's widely understood.

When have I ever cared about that? Lol.

At the same time, when someone proposes a policy that aims to scapegoat certain groups of people, or to play off the prejudices of others-- as Trump did when he attempted to ban people from certain countries, and then exempted Christians from the ban-- that person is also engaging in identity politics. The policy is specified here, it's less vague than Biden's mere insinuation. But it is still playing politics by focusing on identities and divisions = 'identity politics'.

If that bit about exempting Christians was true, I could probably just reply "sure, Trump has participated in identity politics". But I'm pretty sure that's fake. The only exemption I'm aware of being made to that travel ban was people who already had visas or green cards. I'm sure someone somewhere managed to morph that into "Christian exemption", but that person would be an idiot.

I mean, your definition of identity politics is exactly what US Christians do. It's never been about policy or belief systems. In fact, it generally flies in the face of the Constitution. It's been about segregating people, whether it was Native Americans, African Americans, Asian Americans, Irish, Italians, Jews, homosexuals, trans or non-binary, whether it is 200 years ago, 100 years ago, or now. The only difference over the years is the change in targets.

As I've said before, you could have a belief system that makes you despise homosexuals etc. That does not, and never has meant, they should be banned etc. That transforms a belief system into identity politics. It's no longer what the people want, it's what YOU want over everyone else

Edit: I should add that, no. This is not what most Christain think Identity Politics is. It's very specifically anything left-wing or liberal only. Hence me pointing this out all the time. If you want to use this definition you provided, I would suggest you start with the Catholic Church, because that's mostly just identity politics

You're not entirely off. There are undoubtedly Christians who violate their personal beliefs to pursue more political power for Christian demographics. But I'm still pretty sure you don't understand what the phrase means in the slightest.

 

[Ag3ma]

You know me, I love digging into etymology and considering words by their original intentions.

Yes, but I'm not sure what the value of that is in this case. They have political positions, which are informed by their sense of identity. Isn't that what I said?

To paraphrase: "We believe in socialism, but we will work against it if it doesn't work for us."

That is manifestly not what they said. Their statement that socialism needs to be feminist and antiracist to liberate them does not indicate that they would support contemporary capitalism were socialism to challenge it in a form that were just as racist and sexist.

Which, ironically enough, is a compelling argument in that it speaks to exactly how capitalism has made the world better. People working (honestly and diligently) for their own personal benefit makes the whole of society better

No - this group represents a collective, just one that is a subset of the entire country. This cannot be directly equated with the capitalist idea of individual benefit, because in numerous situations its members may have to suppress their personal interest for the wider interest of the group.

Secondly, you're talking about a relatively narrow economic concept that production efficiency is driven by competing economic actors with the motive of maximising profits. This is not, however, society as a whole. Society as a whole has never operated on that basis: charity, social programs, and all manner of other things.

 

[Silvanus]

When have I ever cared about that? Lol.

You should, if you wish to converse with people and for the words you say to carry meaning accurately to them.

If that bit about exempting Christians was true, I could probably just reply "sure, Trump has participated in identity politics". But I'm pretty sure that's fake. The only exemption I'm aware of being made to that travel ban was people who already had visas or green cards. I'm sure someone somewhere managed to morph that into "Christian exemption", but that person would be an idiot.

The original order (from Jan 2017) included an exemption for "minority religious" groups on the basis of persecution. A legal challenge was threatened on the basis that this amounted to religious discrimination and it was dropped in the second order, but was in place for ~90 days between January and March.

But really, the notion that Trump did not engage in identity politics would be complete absurdity. It was essentially his entire pitch: demonising people from certain countries, certain groups etc.

 

[tstorm823]

You should, if you wish to converse with people and for the words you say to carry meaning accurately to them.

If you allow words and phrases to have their definitions morphed to stupidity by common usage, you have resigned yourself to having only stupid thoughts.

The original order (from Jan 2017) included an exemption for "minority religious" groups on the basis of persecution. A legal challenge was threatened on the basis that this amounted to religious discrimination and it was dropped in the second order, but was in place for ~90 days between January and March.

Now that I understand where you got that from, I can research it, and you are wrong.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/Executive_Order_13769.pdf

" (a) The Secretary of State shall suspend the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days.... (b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality. "

The executive order was set to restrict travel for 90 days, as well as halt the refugee program for 120 days. After those 120 days, there was instruction to prioritize religious minorities within the refugee program upon resuming. There wasn't anyone exempt from the rules based on religion at any point, and the prioritization was only for the refugee program, which would be after general travel restrictions were already gone, and the legal challenge happened before that could even happen.

But really, the notion that Trump did not engage in identity politics would be complete absurdity. It was essentially his entire pitch: demonising people from certain countries, certain groups etc.

Well, good thing nobody said that about Trump, but you're also still not getting the idea of identity politics right.

Yes, but I'm not sure what the value of that is in this case. They have political positions, which are informed by their sense of identity. Isn't that what I said?

No, that isn't what they said. Read this part again:

In the case of Black women this is a particularly repugnant, dangerous, threatening, and therefore revolutionary concept because it is obvious from looking at all the political movements that have preceded us that anyone is more worthy of liberation than ourselves. We reject pedestals, queenhood, and walking ten paces behind. To be recognized as human, levelly human, is enough.

They are saying that the idea of politicking for themselves specifically is "repugnant" to them. It goes against their genuine political inclinations. They are against putting themselves on a pedestal, but they must do so, in opposition to their deeply held beliefs and their actual sense of identity, in order to ever reap the benefits of their own political efforts.

 

[Ag3ma]

They are saying that the idea of politicking for themselves specifically is "repugnant" to them. It goes against their genuine political inclinations. They are against putting themselves on a pedestal, but they must do so, in opposition to their deeply held beliefs and their actual sense of identity, in order to ever reap the benefits of their own political efforts.

You have completely misunderstood this.

1) They are saying that black women treating themselves as a priority is repugnant to and revolutionary for wider society, as demonstrated by history that they have always been the last ones for consideration whilst also expected to strive for other people's progress.

2) Their aims are clear that they want full equality and fairness, which they do not currently have: "To be recognized as human, levelly human, is enough".

When they talk about being "on a pedestal", this is a reference to how they have been treated by others, referring back to "the pejorative stereotypes attributed to Black women (e.g. mammy, matriarch, Sapphire, whore, bulldagger)". The implication of the term 'being put on a pedestal' is that one is a statue: passive, lacking agency, and a vessel for other people's idealised notions (albeit also usually with connotations of admiration). What they are saying is that they reject objectification and stereotyping that facilitates society continuing to discriminate against and ignore them.

 

[Silvanus]

If you allow words and phrases to have their definitions morphed to stupidity by common usage, you have resigned yourself to having only stupid thoughts.

If your definition for "identity politics" is one that doesn't even approach or concern itself with anything related to policy, then it's already functionally useless.

Now that I understand where you got that from, I can research it, and you are wrong.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/Executive_Order_13769.pdf

" (a) The Secretary of State shall suspend the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days.... (b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality. "

The executive order was set to restrict travel for 90 days, as well as halt the refugee program for 120 days. After those 120 days, there was instruction to prioritize religious minorities within the refugee program upon resuming. There wasn't anyone exempt from the rules based on religion at any point, and the prioritization was only for the refugee program, which would be after general travel restrictions were already gone, and the legal challenge happened before that could even happen.

Ah, you're right. Made a mistake and missed the bit about it only coming into place upon resumption of the USRAP.

Of course, the travel ban to begin with was classic dog-whistle identity politics-- Trump invoked the 9/11 attacks to justify it, and then banned admission from 7 (then 6) countries... from none of which any of the 9/11 attackers had come. It was very clearly an attempt to target certain demographics. Demonise by (falsely) tying certain groups to a terrorist attack, then use that as justification to target those groups.

 

[tstorm823]

You have completely misunderstood this.

1) They are saying that black women treating themselves as a priority is repugnant to and revolutionary for wider society, as demonstrated by history that they have always been the last ones for consideration whilst also expected to strive for other people's progress.

2) Their aims are clear that they want full equality and fairness, which they do not currently have: "To be recognized as human, levelly human, is enough".

When they talk about being "on a pedestal", this is a reference to how they have been treated by others, referring back to "the pejorative stereotypes attributed to Black women (e.g. mammy, matriarch, Sapphire, whore, bulldagger)". The implication of the term 'being put on a pedestal' is that one is a statue: passive, lacking agency, and a vessel for other people's idealised notions (albeit also usually with connotations of admiration). What they are saying is that they reject objectification and stereotyping that facilitates society continuing to discriminate against and ignore them.

I must insist, you are the one misunderstanding them. Section 1 of their manifesto is all about the role of black women in feminist or anti-racist movements they feel left them behind, and in that section 2 they talk of working for themselves not as "an adjunct to somebody else", "as opposed to working to end someone else's oppression". It is clearly the authors position that their community has been working for broader social justice for decades if not centuries. Furthermore, they discuss not wanting to fractionalize, wanting to maintain solidarity with other groups. Section 3 goes onto discuss impediments to organizing black feminists, a major one of which is that black feminism is a threat to stability in the lives of black women. The whole piece from start to finish bleeds "we don't want to make this about us, we'd rather lift up everyone, but we have to make it about us."

My reading of those words matches all that quite cleanly. You are, for some reason, reading sarcasm into that one sentence.

Of course, the travel ban to begin with was classic dog-whistle identity politics-- Trump invoked the 9/11 attacks to justify it, and then banned admission from 7 (then 6) countries... from none of which any of the 9/11 attackers had come. It was very clearly an attempt to target certain demographics. Demonise by (falsely) tying certain groups to a terrorist attack, then use that as justification to target those groups.

Those 7 countries weren't chosen specifically for this, they already had specific restrictions applied to them in US immigration policy. It would be greater evidence of malfeasance if Trump had targeted nations associated with 9/11, rather than places like Iraq and Syria at the height of ISIS. I'm sure you are aware that there were terror attacks in Europe by ISIS, and the UK was removing citizenship from people who had left to join ISIS, before Trump suggested this policy.

 

[Silvanus]

Those 7 countries weren't chosen specifically for this, they already had specific restrictions applied to them in US immigration policy. It would be greater evidence of malfeasance if Trump had targeted nations associated with 9/11, rather than places like Iraq and Syria at the height of ISIS.

Yet he invoked 9/11 to justify the ban. Why? Demonisation, identity politics.

I'm sure you are aware that there were terror attacks in Europe by ISIS, and the UK was removing citizenship from people who had left to join ISIS, before Trump suggested this policy.

Yes, and policies which focus on the actions a person has taken are a far cry from policies based on their characteristics (nationality).

 

[Ag3ma]

I must insist, you are the one misunderstanding them.

We'll get to that.

Section 1 of their manifesto is all about the role of black women in feminist or anti-racist movements they feel left them behind, and in that section 2 they talk of working for themselves not as "an adjunct to somebody else", "as opposed to working to end someone else's oppression". It is clearly the authors position that their community has been working for broader social justice for decades if not centuries.

Yes.

Furthermore, they discuss not wanting to fractionalize, wanting to maintain solidarity with other groups.

Basically yes, although there's some nuance in there. They want their own direction, but they want to retain links, co-operation and so on with similar movements and not be separatists.

Section 3 goes onto discuss impediments to organizing black feminists, a major one of which is that black feminism is a threat to stability in the lives of black women. The whole piece from start to finish bleeds "we don't want to make this about us, we'd rather lift up everyone, but we have to make it about us."

My reading of those words matches all that quite cleanly. You are, for some reason, reading sarcasm into that one sentence.

"In the case of Black women this is a particularly repugnant, dangerous, threatening, and therefore revolutionary concept because it is obvious from looking at all the political movements that have preceded us that anyone is more worthy of liberation than ourselves."

If this statement is not in any way ironic, then these signatories are genuinely opining that everyone other than black women really is more deserving of liberation than black women, with the political movements that preceded them being evidence of that fact. Does your literal truth interpretation of that sentence make any sense in the context of the rest of the declaration? Obviously not. (If they genuinely thought that, the declaration wouldn't even need to exist!)

Therefore, that sentence is a criticism of prior political movements. These prior political movements also creates the context of who will find their ideology "repugnant", "threatening", "revolutionary": other people. In the course of the wider text they even explain precisely who some of these people are and why (e.g. some black women, as you note) at length.

Therefore this is not some weird form of self-flagellating acknowledgement that they are working against their own beliefs as you seem to think.

 

[Gergar12]

BTW most Americans supported the Iraq War too. In most Americans' opinions on a policy does not make it a good thing.

 

[Silvanus]

BTW most Americans supported the Iraq War too. In most Americans' opinions on a policy does not make it a good thing.

I agree with that sentiment in the most basic sense, but in fairness, the American (and British) public were systematically lied to in order to manufacture that support.

 

[Trunkage]

You're not entirely off. There are undoubtedly Christians who violate their personal beliefs to pursue more political power for Christian demographics. But I'm still pretty sure you don't understand what the phrase means in the slightest.

Well, here - If someone is talking about sin, it's likely they are doing identity politics. And political correctness. Some of it comes from the Bible. But most of it comes from the church (like all of them) as they try enforce their own ideology onto others (and each church has its own ideology that can be mutually exclusive to other churches). And some of it just personal bias. And some is the government trying to use religion to enforce their ideology

Like the Pharisees and Sadducees, this stuff will just reiterate itself over the centuries

 

[tstorm823]

Well, here - If someone is talking about sin, it's likely they are doing identity politics.

Well now you're not even trying to understand what words mean.

 

[tstorm823]

"In the case of Black women this is a particularly repugnant, dangerous, threatening, and therefore revolutionary concept because it is obvious from looking at all the political movements that have preceded us that anyone is more worthy of liberation than ourselves."

Does your literal truth interpretation of that sentence make any sense in the context of the rest of the declaration?

Yes. The first quarter of the piece is all about how they or others like them participated in all of those political movements. To then, for one sentence, imply themselves removed from those movements would contradict everything else they say.

 

[Ag3ma]

Yes. The first quarter of the piece is all about how they or others like them participated in all of those political movements. To then, for one sentence, imply themselves removed from those movements would contradict everything else they say.

I don't really understand what point you're trying to make here. They were part of those movements and found those movements did not serve their cause, so they set out on a new direction, and this is their mission statement. There is not a problem or contradiction there.

 

[tstorm823]

I don't really understand what point you're trying to make here. They were part of those movements and found those movements did not serve their cause, so they set out on a new direction, and this is their mission statement. There is not a problem or contradiction there.

You're excluding the part that's relevant. They were part of those movements which aligned with their beliefs and values and found they did not serve their cause, so they set out to push the cause defined by their identity rather than necessarily the beliefs or values they had been acting on previously.