[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Whoa, I didn't accuse you of that, it's just an assessment of your reasoning and the flaws I see in it. All I did was disagree with you. I'm sorry my use of language triggered you.

Didn't I just quote you saying exactly that, though? Were you not accusing me of making "a really academic defence of (or outright ignorance regarding) the racism, sexism, and homophobia"? Because I wasn't, and suggesting that I was is basically just you unfairly casting aspersions on my character. Suggesting that I'm defending racism and sexism and homophobia is basically calling me tacitly racist and sexist and homophobic. Can you see why that might upset someone?

In the end, you need to understand why identity politics exist, I don't think you do. You're looking at a problem and pointing to the result and confusing it with the cause. Identity politics are not a mode of looking at the world that any minority chose. It was formed by discrimination, and it will die out as soon as that discrimination ceases to exist. As I said earlier, tribalism exists only as long as it has to, the end goal is not an end to that human instinct, but making the tribe so big that the lines don't exist within the group (or do, but in harmless ways like being a fan of opposing teams).

I don't think you're right that identity politics are some necessary and automatic result of discrimination. I do agree with you that the tribe we should all belong to is "homo sapiens", but I really think that that's a choice that anyone can make at any time.

You will never get to where you want to be with people you disagree with if you expect much more of them than you do of yourself. If you continue to call those people you disagree with (or whose method you disagree with) elitist, annoying, emotional, indignant

You're right that I probably shouldn't have called Resalien elitist, I was just annoyed by his drive by. But noting someone's emotional, indignant response to an honest expression of political disagreement, which I in no way worded in an insulting or incendiary fashion, isn't unreasonable. You came back at me guns blazing, and you're still doing it. If we were having this conversation in person, and you stood up and started raising your voice, it'd be reasonable to tell you to calm down and let's talk in a measured way about where you think I've gone wrong here.

As Cliff just mentioned, I'm pro-gun-control, pro-science, pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-women's rights, pro-secular, in favour of progressive taxation and social safety nets, against punitive sentencing and for health care as a universal right. If you and I can't have a conversation about our methods for getting to those goals without acrimony and taking offense or personal insult, we've got a huge problem.

The best way to the solution you're after is to be part of it. Start with that, then tackle the big stuff like changing a whole political trend.

You've presumed that "being a part of the solution" is agreeing with you on how to solve the problem. You can't say, "if you agree with me on the goal we're after, then in order to be a part of the solution, you have to accept that I'm right that this is how we fix things". That's not a reasonable request. If we're driving to Banff and I see you start heading East, I'm going to try to get you to turn the car around.