PGT: President-Elect Donald J Trump

[Flash Walken]

Giving rick perry any credit is too much.

[ResAlien]

Just because he had no clue what the department he wanted to shut down actually did isn't a big deal. He admitted it so now he can move forward.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

Just because he had no clue what the department he wanted to shut down actually did isn't a big deal. He admitted it so now he can move forward.

uh, wut?

[Senator Clay Davis]

His stupidity doesn't change the fact he might actually be one of Trump's better nominees.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

His stupidity doesn't change the fact he might actually be one of Trump's better nominees.

At this point the standard appears to be "Not completely horrible and unqualified"

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

uh, wut?

What's it matter if he knows what a department does? Plus that whole NY Times story is fake news anyway. You gotta trim the fat, gotta get back to small government. Government works best when the states have rights to do what they want and the federal government isn't overreaching to regulate the free market. Read up on the 10th amendment and remember that income tax is a crime.

Or you could adjust your sarcasm detector. That works too.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

Or you could adjust your sarcasm detector. That works too.

Sorry, all this arguing over the semantics of womens rights vs. human rights has thrown me off.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

We've had this argument before, but the only basis for those civil rights advances was that they were demanding rights that should be afforded to everyone regardless of their identity and that they shouldn't be treated differently - the argument being that there was nothing different or special about being a woman or a black person that should result in you having different rights from men or whites. Again, at its core, human rights... Do you really want to have this whole debate all over again?

Yes, but what's inherent in any of those movements is that they were being treated differently based on their identities. How is that not identity politics? The crux of the issue is, "we're being treated differently because of x characteristic, and that's wrong." I get what you're saying if we're talking about preferential treatment and reparations but this isn't that.

This is the same argument we're making in the abortion debate. Everyone should have equal rights to bodily autonomy, but women currently don't and thus they are hit with unnecessary hardships as a result of this.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by nik-

I actually find it kind of scary that they fold nuclear weapons under the DoE. I understand why they do it, but it still just feels like something that should be handled by the military.

It's handled by the DOE at least somewhat because of historical reasons. They were the department responsible for developing the technology and as such they are the best prepared to handle it. They are also an organization that deals heavily with regulations for all forms of energy. The military/DOD is not set up to deal with the same sorts of challenges.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Giving rick perry any credit is too much.

Funny isn't it? Someone acts like how you would expect a rational person should act for once and it gets applauded. The bar is so low these days.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Yes, but what's inherent in any of those movements is that they were being treated differently based on their identities. How is that not identity politics?

Because it's the exact opposite. Identity politics is predicated on the notion that there's something about a group - blacks, women, whatever - that imbues its members with difference, often somewhat imprecisely justified on the basis of collective life experiences presumed to be shared by members of the group and that non-members are presumed not to have. The statement, "you can't understand what it's like to feel targeted by police because you're not black" is a statement predicated on identity politics. The statement, "you aren't sufficiently concerned about this new abortion restriction because you're not a woman" is a statement predicated on identity politics. It incorporates difference, and excludes people based on their non-belonging to the relevant identity.

What you're talking about is the precise inversion of identity politics. It says, "there's nothing different about me because I'm black, there's nothing different about me because I'm a woman, that's relevant to how society should treat me. Treat me the same way you'd treat me if I were white, treat me the same way as you would if I were a man. Judge me on my merits as an individual, not my racial or gender identity." That erases difference.

[PepsiFree]

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Kind of feels like we're about to be explained to why white privilege doesn't exist. Classic identity politics. Everyone is equal don't you get it? To say something silly like "you can't understand the stress and internal turmoil of coming out because you're not gay" doesn't matter because it's not a thing. We can all understand because we can imagine it. Stop trying to be all identity-tity about things.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Life experiences are clearly relevant to a person's perspective, to the extent that they are actually life experiences, and not presumed life experiences. They don't follow automatically from having a particular skin colour. There are lots of white people who enjoy structural advantages, and a whole bunch that don't. There are lots of black people who are burdened by structural disadvantages, and many who aren't. This is what Caramon meant by oversimplification - classifying people into groups and assuming they share certain characteristics and experiences simply by virtue of their inclusion in those groups is irrational. So if that qualifies as "explaining why white privilege doesn't exist", okay... the point is it exists for certain individuals, and not for all white people by virtue of their identity as white.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

What you're talking about is the precise inversion of identity politics. It says, "there's nothing different about me because I'm black, there's nothing different about me because I'm a woman, that's relevant to how society should treat me. Treat me the same way you'd treat me if I were white, treat me the same way as you would if I were a man. Judge me on my merits as an individual, not my racial or gender identity." That erases difference.

Okay, but society does treat them differently based on these characteristics and their experiences are different, so they should just shut up about it because that's not how it should be in your ideal world scenario?

If you've never been on an airplane, you're probably not going to know what flying on an airplane feels like or why someone might have a fear of it. You might have some semblance of an idea from listening to other people describe it to you, or from watching movies but it's preposterous to suggest you're actually going to know what it feels like to fly.

Do you think you get the same fear of immintent death, terror, and the resulting PTSD from watching war movies as soldiers do from actually being in a warzone? Do you honestly think the middle-age, male legislators, who are trying to outlaw abortions are going to experience the same level of fear of an illegal abortion as a 15 year-old pregnant girl?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Okay, but society does treat them differently based on these characteristics and their experiences are different, so they should just shut up about it because that's not how it should be in your ideal world scenario?

No. Where did I suggest this? If there is a difference in treatment between two people, there are two possibilities: there's either a good principled reason for it (for example, six year olds shouldn't be allowed to drive while thirty year olds should), or there isn't (for example, if male Safeway cashiers get paid X and female cashiers get paid Y). If there isn't, that's the basis for objecting to the difference in treatment: that there's no rationale or evidence to support it.

Do you think you get the same fear of immintent death, terror, and the resulting PTSD from watching war movies as soldiers do from actually being in a warzone? Do you honestly think the 50 year-old male legislators are going to experience the same level of fear of an illegal abortion as a 15 year-old pregnant girl?

No, I don't think that. Which is why I've just said that those experiences are relevant in individual cases. What's inaccurate is to ascribe them to people based on group identity, rather than individual experiences. It's also an error to assume that the relevant experience is being brought to bear on someone's opinion in a manner that's conducive to a more well-reasoned position, which might or might not be the case.

Seriously, I swear, we've talked about this several times. Why are we going over this ground again, except to further convince me of Haidt's hypotheses?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Seriously, I swear, we've talked about this several times. Why are we going over this ground again, except to further convince me of Haidt's hypotheses?

"Why are we going over this again?"

*writes 1000th anti-identity politics post*

[Fuzz]

We need Trump to tweet something ridiculous soon, this thread is getting unbearable.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

"Why are we going over this again?"
*writes 1000th anti-identity politics post*

Rubecube asked me a direct question. What do you want me to do? Ignore him?

Fine, sure, done.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

No, I don't think that. Which is why I've just said that those experiences are relevant in individual cases. What's inaccurate is to ascribe them to people based on group identity, rather than individual experiences.

Okay, so how many people in a group have to have similar experiences before we recognize that it's a shared experience within that group. If every woman doesn't have the right to vote, that's going to be a similar shared experience that only people within that group experience, correct?

It's also an error to assume that the relevant experience is being brought to bear on someone's opinion in a manner that's conducive to a more well-reasoned position, which might or might not be the case.

Somewhat ironically I think the white privilege argument lets certain people off the hook too easily. I know I'd rather someone assume that my opinion is ignorant and callous because I lack specific life experiences, rather than that I'm just a callous, inhumane, and self-centered person in general.