So it is a thing. They're requesting security clearance for Kushner. After 8 years of such a clean White House, the next while is going to be a bit jarring.
While it's unclear when Kushner would receive security clearance, the legality of such a move is murky as well, as it raises questions about whether Trump is contravening the anti-nepotism law that bars presidents from appointing family members to cabinet positions or formal government jobs.
But Trump's advisers can argue that the transition team is temporary, and thus not covered by the law. And Trump's own children have indicated they'll continue to advise their father in unpaid, informal roles, which may be outside the purview of the law.
Still, experts note the purpose of the 1967 anti-nepotism statute is to prevent nepotistic favoritism in the wielding of federal power and benefits, so any notion of granting such an important federal power to a non-employee family member contradicts the purpose and spirit of that law, as well as standard practice.
It's unprecedented for a "child or family member" to receive security clearances, said Bradley Moss, a national security lawyer who has held that kind of security clearance and clerked for the National Security Archive.
He added, "You can't hold a security clearance as an informal advisor — there is no such concept."
Did I miss something? Has it become public why Christie is suddenly a pariah? What did he do to get excommunicated from the church of Trump? I know he was heading transition, and then suddenly not. What the heck happened?
Actually it might not be Bridgegate (lol what I was I thinking, if Bannon can get a sweet job no way Trump cares if Christie is toxic).
A former U.S. official with ties to the Trump team described the ousters of Rogers and others as a “bloodletting of anybody that associated in any way on the transition with Christie,” and said that the departures were engineered by two Trump loyalists who have taken control of who will get national security posts in the administration: retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn and Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner.
Rogers had no prior significant ties to Christie but had been recruited to join the Trump team as an adviser by the New Jersey governor. At least three other Christie associates were also pushed aside, former officials said, apparently in retaliation for Christie’s role as a U.S. prosecutor in sending Kushner’s father to prison.
So basically all our discussion about the economic climate, about coal mines closing down and manufacturing plants and panicking about the Regressive Left was pointless because when all's said and done, data shows that by and large Trump voters actually are racist and sexist? That the media blatantly misled American voters? That Comey was largely at fault for Trump's win?
That link just tells me we've all been giving Trump voters more credit than they deserve. Based on the information in that link, they didn't care about TPP/trade deals all that much, they were too busy being told that Hillary was a criminal and believing it because she's a woman and thus unfit to lead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
I absolutely agree that it is wrong for the President-elect to embrace those behaviors - and have said so.
I think Trump's campaign - and him, for that matter - was disgusting. The recent flair-up of violent and blatant racism has been disgusting and deeply concerning. There are some very serious underlying problems here.
That wasn't what was being discussed though. The discussion has been about dismissing all Trump voters as racist, or privileged or whatever. And that, IMO, is a big mistake. And only serves to fuel and escalate things.
And yet, based on the link Girlysports posted--a whole lot of Trump voters actually were racist, sexist, ticked off at the concept of white privilege, and would've voted for pro-Trade/pro-TPP Biden despite their economic standing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GirlySports
the schools should have never changed. When I was a kid and my brother who is a few years older went to elementary school we sang o canada and god save the queen every morning. Minorities had to adapt and value to Canadian life. I remember being 6 and having a fun part in a Christmas play.
And when I got to university it was survival... no safe-rooms or anything.
People who freak out about Christmas being marginalized annoy me beyond belief, because it's not just immigrants who don't celebrate Christmas. You have a huge number of Jewish people who don't celebrate Christmas--we need to be inclusive of them. There are people who celebrate any number of winter holidays, and people who don't celebrate any at all. We don't need to force people to celebrate Christmas. I grew up as a Jehovah's Witness who didn't celebrate Christmas, and the ability to easily opt out of Christmas events at school saved me a whole lot of stress and angst and bullying as a child. We have to support kids who don't celebrate Christmas as well.
Literally go to any store, any mall, any restaurant, turn on any TV or radio and you'll notice that Christmas has vomited all over everything. Christmas takes over literally 2 full months of the calendar year. Christmas is fine, no one is trying to stop Christmas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
It would be bad enough if social media were not intentionally programatic, but by its very design all of our online social interaction tends to be overseen by our own web-browsing activities. My Youtube feed is a mix of hockey highlights, political commentary (primarily from the left), religious debates, Christian apologetics, and historical documentaries. Recommendations for me on Netflix tend to follow the same pattern. The bubble of our own thinking is prone to becoming more and more insular without our even realising that it is occurring.
This is a big part of why I tend to comment so much in this thread, because for as much as many people are insulated in their little bubbles of like-minded people, I'm the polar opposite. I'm a liberal feminist who lives in a relatively liberal, mid-sized American city. Yet the county I work in is overwhelmingly white, overwhelmingly Christian, overwhelmingly heavily pro-2nd Amendment. The county went 70% for Trump. I am surrounded by Trump voters. So while the people I choose to associate with are generally more liberal like myself, I deal with heavy conservatives on a daily basis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
I hope you realise how insultingly wrong it is for you to tell me that my desire to have the same freedom and respect as anyone else is akin to trying to shut people up because I'm a special snowflake.
I cannot possibly give this statement enough thanks. The unending condescension about "identity politics" is infuriating, when coming from people whose identities will never result in any discrimination/loss of rights/fear of safety.
Yes identity politics exist, because my existence as a woman makes me uniquely affected by men like Mike Pence and their anti-choice policies. Myself and many other women I know are making appointments for procedures such as obtaining IUDs and other forms of long term birth control, because we aren't sure how our access to those things will be affected by a GOP run White House/Congress/House/SCOTUS.
Gay people are uniquely affected by Pence's support of conversion therapy. Muslims are uniquely affected by Trump saying he's going to ban anyone of their faith from entering the country.
Yes, these are identity politics. But that is because our identities leave us vulnerable to the policies that the people in power are espousing.
Is there more emotion? Absolutely. Does it make us wrong? Not even a little bit. It's really easy to dismiss "identity politics" when your identity is not under fire.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
I think Corsi covered this. It's hard to discuss these things without associating the ideas you're opposed to with people. For instance, the roots of much of the ideology I'm opposed to are the anti-capitalist, anti-Western academic left. But I'll try harder to frame these things in terms of ideas instead of people.
In general, the leftist parts of the Democratic party aren't anti-capitalist or anti-western. As a liberal myself, capitalism is fine--but not unfettered capitalism. There need to be regulations. There need to be checks and balances, because without them, corporations and the wealthy and the powerful crush the average worker. If you're comparing extreme, fringe leftists with people who are fighting for equal rights for the LGBT community, fighting against police brutality, and protecting a woman's right to choose, you're way off base.
Quote:
Identity issues have only become the main ideological battle-ground in our society in the last 7 or 8 years, and yet I've been a liberal all my adult life. Moreover, it's possible to be liberal without feeling transgendered bathrooms are a vital cause that separates all decent people from the enemies of progress.
Really? Just now identity issues are brand new? What about suffrage? What about the civil rights era? What about the politics of the AIDS epidemic among the gay community in the 80s?
Identity politics have always been there, and until we actually obtain equality, they will continue to be part of the picture.
Quote:
I call out illiberal sentiments wherever I see them being made unchallenged. I've been flamed countless times on the Globe and Mail forums for supporting immigration and defending Muslims from ugly bigotry. But the fact is in my world - the world of educated, liberal, urban Canada - I rarely come across racism and bigotry.
And yet you're more than happy to disregard my views on these issues, despite the fact that on a literal daily basis, I am dealing with the uneducated, racist, bigoted types who are a huge part of the population of suburban Pennsylvania. You don't see these people, but I do.
These are people I know, these are people I work with, these are clients who come into my salon. These are people I am related to. My experience with these people is valid and important, but all too often I'm told that these are "caricatures" and that it's "more complex" than what I'm saying. Yet those of us who live in the US and actually see these people are treated as if we don't know what we're talking about.
Me sitting here on this forum and saying racist police in Missouri are a bad thing achieves nothing other than let people know I'm a decent person. The people I know in real life already know I'm a decent person. I don't especially care what people on the internet think of me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
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.
No one is saying it's wrong because they're straight. They don't have experience with the situation. A straight person doesn't have to worry about having an alliance with others to give them a place to feel supported, because straight people are inherently supported because it's the "norm." So this hypothetical guy still doesn't have the same view of the topic, because he has no grasp of the effect that something like a GSA can have, thus yes, his opinions are lacking a huge part of the equation. Without knowledge of the consequences, without experience being discriminated against, this person cannot get a full, 360 degree view of whether or not that GSA is valuable.
What comes across from in all this complaining about "identity politics" is a condescending subplot that because we're directly affected by certain policies, we cannot clearly think about or discuss said policies, because we're too emotionally involved.
Last edited by wittynickname; 11-15-2016 at 09:30 PM.
The Following 17 Users Say Thank You to wittynickname For This Useful Post:
EDIT: Lol, Trump tweets about his transition appearing disorganized:
Very organized process taking place as I decide on Cabinet and many other positions. I am the only one who knows who the finalists are!
Meanwhile he ditched his press pool again to go out for a steak dinner. Rumour has it he has is steaks well done, if they'd have revealed that little tidbit a month ago I'm sure he would have lost. Spokeswoman Hope Hicks says that they'll setup a protective pool eventually.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The other weird thing was the stories about they might be asking for security access for his kids. That doesn't make much sense, security access is for those that need to know something to do their job, and Trump's kids can't have a job. Being part of the transition team is bad enough, but they can't be high level in government and run Trump's companies. Trump gets a special exemption for conflict of interest with regards to his presidential actions, but his kids don't. EDIT: Not to mention giving tasty jobs to family isn't just a sign of corruption, it's actual corruption.
I thought Bobby Kennedy was US attorney general under JFK. Did they change the rules?
I was at work all day and a loooot happened in this thread in the meantime, so I'm going to try to hit a few points.
So basically all our discussion about the economic climate, about coal mines closing down and manufacturing plants and panicking about the Regressive Left was pointless because when all's said and done, data shows that by and large Trump voters actually are racist and sexist? That the media blatantly misled American voters? That Comey was largely at fault for Trump's win?
That link just tells me we've all been giving Trump voters more credit than they deserve. Based on the information in that link, they didn't care about TPP/trade deals all that much, they were too busy being told that Hillary was a criminal and believing it because she's a woman and thus unfit to lead.
And yet, based on the link Girlysports posted--a whole lot of Trump voters actually were racist, sexist, ticked off at the concept of white privilege, and would've voted for pro-Trade/pro-TPP Biden despite their economic standing.
People who freak out about Christmas being marginalized annoy me beyond belief, because it's not just immigrants who don't celebrate Christmas. You have a huge number of Jewish people who don't celebrate Christmas--we need to be inclusive of them. There are people who celebrate any number of winter holidays, and people who don't celebrate any at all. We don't need to force people to celebrate Christmas. I grew up as a Jehovah's Witness who didn't celebrate Christmas, and the ability to easily opt out of Christmas events at school saved me a whole lot of stress and angst and bullying as a child. We have to support kids who don't celebrate Christmas as well.
Literally go to any store, any mall, any restaurant, turn on any TV or radio and you'll notice that Christmas has vomited all over everything. Christmas takes over literally 2 full months of the calendar year. Christmas is fine, no one is trying to stop Christmas.
This is a big part of why I tend to comment so much in this thread, because for as much as many people are insulated in their little bubbles of like-minded people, I'm the polar opposite. I'm a liberal feminist who lives in a relatively liberal, mid-sized American city. Yet the county I work in is overwhelmingly white, overwhelmingly Christian, overwhelmingly heavily pro-2nd Amendment. The county went 70% for Trump. I am surrounded by Trump voters. So while the people I choose to associate with are generally more liberal like myself, I deal with heavy conservatives on a daily basis.
I cannot possibly give this statement enough thanks. The unending condescension about "identity politics" is infuriating, when coming from people whose identities will never result in any discrimination/loss of rights/fear of safety.
Yes identity politics exist, because my existence as a woman makes me uniquely affected by men like Mike Pence and their anti-choice policies. Myself and many other women I know are making appointments for procedures such as obtaining IUDs and other forms of long term birth control, because we aren't sure how our access to those things will be affected by a GOP run White House/Congress/House/SCOTUS.
Gay people are uniquely affected by Pence's support of conversion therapy. Muslims are uniquely affected by Trump saying he's going to ban anyone of their faith from entering the country.
Yes, these are identity politics. But that is because our identities leave us vulnerable to the policies that the people in power are espousing.
Is there more emotion? Absolutely. Does it make us wrong? Not even a little bit. It's really easy to dismiss "identity politics" when your identity is not under fire.
In general, the leftist parts of the Democratic party aren't anti-capitalist or anti-western. As a liberal myself, capitalism is fine--but not unfettered capitalism. There need to be regulations. There need to be checks and balances, because without them, corporations and the wealthy and the powerful crush the average worker. If you're comparing extreme, fringe leftists with people who are fighting for equal rights for the LGBT community, fighting against police brutality, and protecting a woman's right to choose, you're way off base.
Really? Just now identity issues are brand new? What about suffrage? What about the civil rights era? What about the politics of the AIDS epidemic among the gay community in the 80s?
Identity politics have always been there, and until we actually obtain equality, they will continue to be part of the picture.
And yet you're more than happy to disregard my views on these issues, despite the fact that on a literal daily basis, I am dealing with the uneducated, racist, bigoted types who are a huge part of the population of suburban Pennsylvania. You don't see these people, but I do.
These are people I know, these are people I work with, these are clients who come into my salon. These are people I am related to. My experience with these people is valid and important, but all too often I'm told that these are "caricatures" and that it's "more complex" than what I'm saying. Yet those of us who live in the US and actually see these people are treated as if we don't know what we're talking about.
Me sitting here on this forum and saying racist police in Missouri are a bad thing achieves nothing other than let people know I'm a decent person. The people I know in real life already know I'm a decent person. I don't especially care what people on the internet think of me.
No one is saying it's wrong because they're straight. They don't have experience with the situation. A straight person doesn't have to worry about having an alliance with others to give them a place to feel supported, because straight people are inherently supported because it's the "norm." So this hypothetical guy still doesn't have the same view of the topic, because he has no grasp of the effect that something like a GSA can have, thus yes, his opinions are lacking a huge part of the equation. Without knowledge of the consequences, without experience being discriminated against, this person cannot get a full, 360 degree view of whether or not that GSA is valuable.
What comes across from in all this complaining about "identity politics" is a condescending subplot that because we're directly affected by certain policies, we cannot clearly think about or discuss said policies, because we're too emotionally involved.
Alright, I definitely had some fun with this whole pro wrestlingesque election sham, of what apparently qualifies as a modern day expression of democracy. If I offended anybody....... well I guess I'm sorry, but there's a conscious choice being made there by the person taking offence. What we saw play out was intentional classic division by polarization, it's A or it's B paradigm. This works effectively because humans have a natural want to identify with some construct, it's our tribal nature. Just look at sports fandom.
I'm not sure if you are aware of how much you are demonizing your perceived political opponents. Saying that Trump won because of bigotry and uneducated voters is ridiculous. A large number of people that voted for Trump this go round, were likely the same ones that voted for Obama twice. They both ran on the promise of some form of change. I understand you are upset that your candidate lost, but try to keep a bit of reasonable perspective. Hillary was wildly unpopular for obvious reasons, people don't trust her. It's hard to imagine her beating anybody in a democratic election, especially given the result. She was being investigated by the FBI for actions that could be perceived as treason, while being able to run for president. You can't get around the optics of that, that's why she lost, not because she's a woman, that's a complete cop out on your part and anybody else trying to make that argument. Yes the media and celebrities definitely helped Trumps bid, inadvertently.
The issue people have with identity politics, is when it is being used as crutch to dismiss anybody's arguments against said (insert issue). It's very telling that the same people preaching tolerance and inclusiveness, are the same ones yelling white privilege when it suits them. It's identity politics that are part of the problem of creating division, and silencing the discussion that needs to take place for people to get to a place of universal tolerance in society. If the cause you are championing can only resort to identity politics to legitimize itself, maybe it isn't a worthwhile cause to be championing then.
Your whole post is one big appeal to identity politics and moral superiority. You clearly define what you are and what you are about, and act like how could anybody hold a different opinion. That's what I get out of it anyway. These are complex issues with nuance, not just it's black or it's white, or wrong or right.
You claim you wan't inclusiveness and equality for all, but how do you hope to accomplish that? Just calling somebody with a different opinion or vote, an uneducated bigot won't work to achieve this goal. You need well thought out arguments, not just tactics of division and dismissal.
The Following User Says Thank You to Illuminaughty For This Useful Post:
Alright, I definitely had some fun with this whole pro wrestlingesque election sham, of what apparently qualifies as a modern day expression of democracy. If I offended anybody....... well I guess I'm sorry, but there's a conscious choice being made there by the person taking offence. What we saw play out was intentional classic division by polarization, it's A or it's B paradigm. This works effectively because humans have a natural want to identify with some construct, it's our tribal nature. Just look at sports fandom.
I'm not sure if you are aware of how much you are demonizing your perceived political opponents. Saying that Trump won because of bigotry and uneducated voters is ridiculous. A large number of people that voted for Trump this go round, were likely the same ones that voted for Obama twice. They both ran on the promise of some form of change. I understand you are upset that your candidate lost, but try to keep a bit of reasonable perspective. Hillary was wildly unpopular for obvious reasons, people don't trust her. It's hard to imagine her beating anybody in a democratic election, especially given the result. She was being investigated by the FBI for actions that could be perceived as treason, while being able to run for president. You can't get around the optics of that, that's why she lost, not because she's a woman, that's a complete cop out on your part and anybody else trying to make that argument. Yes the media and celebrities definitely helped Trumps bid, inadvertently.
The issue people have with identity politics, is when it is being used as crutch to dismiss anybody's arguments against said (insert issue). It's very telling that the same people preaching tolerance and inclusiveness, are the same ones yelling white privilege when it suits them. It's identity politics that are part of the problem of creating division, and silencing the discussion that needs to take place for people to get to a place of universal tolerance in society. If the cause you are championing can only resort to identity politics to legitimize itself, maybe it isn't a worthwhile cause to be championing then.
Your whole post is one big appeal to identity politics and moral superiority. You clearly define what you are and what you are about, and act like how could anybody hold a different opinion. That's what I get out of it anyway. These are complex issues with nuance, not just it's black or it's white, or wrong or right.
You claim you wan't inclusiveness and equality for all, but how do you hope to accomplish that? Just calling somebody with a different opinion or vote, an uneducated bigot won't work to achieve this goal. You need well thought out arguments, not just tactics of division and dismissal.
In many ways this election year was a banner year for identity politics; Identity politics by white working class voters appears to be a big part of why Trump won. In particular, I think there's a group of people that identified with being called racist and sexist for speaking plainly, and voted for trump based on that identity. These are the people that voted for trump because he "says what he thinks". Too often the reaction to identity politics is more identity politics.
Identity has it's uses; in particular for grouping common traits among groups of people so you know where to go to study the problems and test the solutions to the problem that some people face. It becomes harmful when availability of the solutions is determined by the identity itself, and not affliction that underlies the problem, it becomes harmful when people vote or support a person based on a common identity instead of their character and policy proposals, and it becomes harmful when individuals are condemned based on their irrelevant traits like skin color instead of their character and the things they claim to support.
I'm not sure I'm a huge fan of being told identity politics are the cause of division.
Correct me if I'm wrong, anybody, but I'm pretty sure discrimination did that.
It's going to blow people's minds when identity politics disappear and there is zero impact on the issues they're blaming it for. Don't worry though, we can focus more on class warfare!
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
I don't think this has been mentioned, or if it has I apologize, as this is the apocalypse thread of CP; but here it goes:
Trump can't continue to tweet and it should be cut off now as it's an external server and people outside the presidency control the account.
They could potentially tweet stuff from the president elect or the president and cause very bad things to happen on a hack. Trump needs to delete his account.
Yet in the interview he talks about how great it is. Don't understand that.
I don't think this has been mentioned, or if it has I apologize, as this is the apocalypse thread of CP; but here it goes:
Trump can't continue to tweet and it should be cut off now as it's an external server and people outside the presidency control the account.
They could potentially tweet stuff from the president elect or the president and cause very bad things to happen on a hack. Trump needs to delete his account.
Yet in the interview he talks about how great it is. Don't understand that.
He's a moron, what more is there to understand?
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
I cannot possibly give this statement enough thanks. The unending condescension about "identity politics" is infuriating, when coming from people whose identities will never result in any discrimination/loss of rights/fear of safety.
Classical liberals believe people should not be discriminated against. Classical liberals believe identity should play no role in how people are treated by the law or by our institutions. It's the color-blind approach to society, the one championed by Martin Luther King. It was the foundation of the Rights Revolution in the 60s and 70s, when Western legislatures and courts greatly expanded civil rights and civil liberties.
This approach was rejected by academics in the 80s, who wanted to use the Marxist approach to class struggle and apply it to race, gender, and sexual identity. They rejected color-blindness, and the core liberal principles of individual freedom and tolerance. It's an authoritarian credo, which hopes to use the power of the state to impose radical egalitarianism on society, in contrast to the classical liberal approach of leaving people alone to live as they please.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wittynickname
Gay people are uniquely affected by Pence's support of conversion therapy. Muslims are uniquely affected by Trump saying he's going to ban anyone of their faith from entering the country.
Classical liberalism covers all those things: Leave people alone to do as they please. Do not treat people differently because of their race or gender.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wittynickname
In general, the leftist parts of the Democratic party aren't anti-capitalist or anti-western.
What's going on at college campuses is inspired by a anti-capitalism and anti-western ideology. Individual rights and individual freedoms are subordinated to the group struggle, where class has been replaced with race and gender. Freedom of expression is suppressed. All political and social struggles are seen through lens of race and gender, and the moral and political high-ground are inversions of the existing patriarchal power struggle formulated by radical leftists. In recent years that has spread out of campuses and into mainstream media and politics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wittynickname
Really? Just now identity issues are brand new? What about suffrage? What about the civil rights era? What about the politics of the AIDS epidemic among the gay community in the 80s?
All driven by classical liberalism, not identity politics. Again, if you think people should not be treated differently owing to their race or gender or sexuality, then you're defending classical liberal principles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wittynickname
Identity politics have always been there, and until we actually obtain equality, they will continue to be part of the picture.
Identity politics have been around for about 30 years. Before that, all those causes were championed on the basis of classical liberalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wittynickname
No one is saying it's wrong because they're straight. They don't have experience with the situation. A straight person doesn't have to worry about having an alliance with others to give them a place to feel supported, because straight people are inherently supported because it's the "norm." So this hypothetical guy still doesn't have the same view of the topic, because he has no grasp of the effect that something like a GSA can have, thus yes, his opinions are lacking a huge part of the equation. Without knowledge of the consequences, without experience being discriminated against, this person cannot get a full, 360 degree view of whether or not that GSA is valuable.
Now THAT'S identity politics. It says the validity of someone's opinions derives from their race or gender. It's the same arguments that were once used by conservatives to keep women out of professions like law. It's poisoning the well - a way to delegitimize someone else's opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
I'm not sure I'm a huge fan of being told identity politics are the cause of division.
When you go from the classically liberal position that nobody should be discriminated against, and that we should treat everyone as unique individuals - principals on which there is broad agreement if not consensus in Western society today - to the identity politics credo that all politics are a struggle between groups and we should regard people first and foremost as members of their group, then yeah, you're going to cause division. And not just the kind of division you want to imagine, between righteous people and evil oppressors. You're going to get - you are getting - a division among liberals between the classical liberals who believe in treating everyone as individuals and putting the highest premium on freedom of expression and open debate, and the regressive political left, who believe in using group identity to impose a new political model on society, and in silencing any speech that questions or challengers that new model.
The upshot is that if women and minorities and people of non-CIS orientation mobilize as political groups fighting for their collective interests*, you're going to get males, whites, and straights mobilizing as political groups to fight for their collective interests. Which is fundamentally illiberal, and a very bad thing - especially for minorities.
...But if adherents of colorblindness are vulnerable to ignoring or underestimating race as a factor, the academic left is vulnerable to fetishizing it and missing some of the ways in which race is a pernicious construct that robs people of their individuality. Ensconced in campus bubbles, the academic left also underestimates how divisive it can be to put anything other than individualism at the center of identity. A decade ago, when I lived at a liberal arts college, I’d have said that the worst flaw of the academic left’s approach to race was its tendency to mistreat blacks, Hispanics, and Asians who didn’t fit leftist stereotypes of “person of color.”
Today I’m more concerned by the conceit, popularized on campus and spreading among activists, journalists, and diversity professionals, that racial justice is best pursued by encouraging white people to reflect on, interrogate, and identify more fully with their whiteness. This approach strikes me as naive and dangerous. If pressed to focus on and interrogate their whiteness, some white people will conclude, like Peggy McIntosh, that white privilege is one of the major factors in their lives.
But I worry that the overall effect of encouraging white people to put whiteness rather than color-blindness or individualism at the center of their identity will be to swell and empower a faction in U.S. politics that Trump’s rise has helped to highlight. As the billionaire candidate climbed in the polls, Evan Osnos happened to be reporting on white nationalists, a tiny but nevertheless alarming portion of Trump’s base...
- The Atlantic
* We should recognize that most of the people who belong to the gender and minority groups do not subscribe to the credos of identity politics. Most want to be treated as individuals like everybody else. There's a reason only a quarter of Canadian women self-identity as feminists.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 11-16-2016 at 07:00 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
It's too bad the media and everyone else focused on what a horrible person Trump was instead of actually taking a closer look at his proposed policies. There should have been headlines for days that he promised to get rid of the head of household status which would substantially raise the taxes on single parent households.
Luckily, it doesn't sound like that has any chance of getting through the house. But, I wonder how many people knew he planned to raise taxes for 10 million single mothers and if that would have changed their vote.
I appreciate that this election win is now being framed as the 15 year old kid who goes out and gets his dick pierced and comes home and is all "#### YOU Mom and Dad!" and the parents going out and voting for Trump and being all "NO #### YOU son!"
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm
Settle down there, Temple Grandin.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to PsYcNeT For This Useful Post:
It's too bad the media and everyone else focused on what a horrible person Trump was instead of actually taking a closer look at his proposed policies.
One would have hoped that the dish being made of poop would have been disqualifying before considering if the poop was fried or baked.
But the lack of policy talk cuts both ways too. Here's what people heard or read about either candidate, you can see lots of Trump's policies, not so much for Clinton, so the media was doing a better job of communicating Trump's policies and a better job of communicating Clinton's emails and foundation.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following User Says Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
So Chris Christie prosecuted Ivanka Trumps husband, Jared Kushners father years ago for illegal campaign contributions, tax evasion and witness tampering. He spent a year in prison.
Jared is a very influential part of Donnys team.
that's what happened to Chris Christie.
__________________
Pass the bacon.
Last edited by DuffMan; 11-16-2016 at 08:26 AM.
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to DuffMan For This Useful Post:
