[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I'm calm, you're confusing my bewilderment with anger and emotion. I noticed you accuse others of giving you uncharitable interpretations. Just do better. You're asking for a charitable interpretation but your interpretation of my post was that I'm reacting "extreme"? and you had to rephrase it in all caps to make that point? and "we're done talking" did I say that? You very often ask for something (whether it be charitable interpretations, avoidance of "tribalism," not escalating something with insults) but you don't offer the same. You're here doing all of the things you don't want others to do... people see that. Posters see you getting insulted because you have uncharitable interpretations of others posts, or calling others elitist and annoying because you don't like how they're saying something, or dividing people into groups and saying "that group, they're wrong, they matter less".

You seem really worked up and defensive, like you're armed for internet battle. All I did was disagree with you, your reaction was that my disagreement was insulting, and proved I didn't know anything about the subject and that I needed to be "called out". That's what I meant by an extreme reaction. How can we have a conversation about the topic when that's your response? I'm trying not to reciprocate that tone and just explain my position.

Being insulted by your view of identity politics isn't to say you're horrible and you should feel bad. It's truly just insulting. I can be told the "politics" that help me be seen as more equal and respected as a basic human are poisonous and divisive and just created so I can be "different" and not get emotional. Don't just assume I'm triggered and can't take it. I've heard worse.

I'm not assuming anything - your reaction was very obviously indignant; as you say, you're "insulted". Again, all I did was disagree with you. My view isn't an insult to you personally, it's an assessment of your politics and the flaws I see in it. I think you're wrong about this, I don't think the consequences of your viewpoint are ultimately good. In the end, we want the same thing, and I don't agree that your way of looking at the world is the best way to get there. I also think it makes assumptions that aren't necessarily true, and as a result can potentially lead to discrediting useful contributions from people on the basis of inherent characteristics, while elevating positions that don't make much sense on the same basis. In short, I don't think it's a good methodology for analyzing and responding to political problems.

If you take that as a personal affront because of who you are and your personal experience and subjective viewpoint, and get all worked up and confrontational, then you're sort of proving the part of my point about how we can't have reasonable conversations about these topics.

I respect that you don't like being told your opinion matters a little less because you don't have experience. Don't you believe experiences add validity... or a lack thereof take it away?

See, this is a reasonable request for clarification of my view. Yes, I think experiences can add value to a position. What I disagree with is the notion that a person inherently has had valuable experience simply because of the fact of their race, for example - that shouldn't be assumed. But that's far less important than the fact that even if that experience could influence a person's views and provide them with greater insight, it doesn't necessarily mean that it does so.

I'll give you an example, and this is not meant as a comparison so don't get upset by it, it's meant to illustrate the point that experience doesn't necessarily provide some inherent additional validity. I have never had a person close to me murdered. The experience of having someone close to me murdered might alter my views on the appropriate punishment for murder. But it wouldn't necessarily improve those views, from a public policy perspective. Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't. But my views are either valid and reasonable or they aren't - they're independent from my character, background and personal experience, even if they may have been influenced by those factors.

If I say a GSA is an important thing that every school should have and a straight person says "No it's not, we don't need those," do you REALLY object to my belief that it's easier for someone who doesn't need it to take a position against it?

Yes, because it de-legitimizes the person's position for the wrong reason. You're essentially saying they're wrong because they're straight. Being straight makes them inherently less able to understand why a GSA is a good thing. It might be true that a person's experience as a gay man helps them develop a cogent, reasonable position about GSA's, but that position isn't valid because the person holding it is gay. More importantly, if you think GSAs are valuable, and I do, then this hypothetical guy is wrong. He's not wrong because he's straight, he's wrong for many other, objectively true reasons.

The problem is that the modern right is triggered by the idea that they might not know something or that they might be even a tiny bit responsible for the oppression of a group THEY created, that they labelled as different or lesser. Groups that are suddenly saying "you know what, we're the same as you, and until you acknowledge that and treat us that way, we're going to fight for that recognition."

I think there are a lot of people who would say, "we have no problem with the proposition that you're the same as us and deserve to be treated the same; what we object to is your presumption that we're biased or that our opinions matter less than yours because of the colour of our skin or who we sleep with".

It just seems like a really academic defence of (or outright ignorance regarding) the racism, sexism, and homophobia that actually caused the division. To blame that division on the fight for equal rights brings me back to my original feeling... bewilderment.

No, see, this is where I should be insulted, because you've just accused me of defending racism and sexism or being ignorant of it. I'm none of those things. What I'm positing is that identity politics, as a mode of looking at the world, is a bad way to solve these problems.