“But it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear?…It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice and humanity.” Martin Luther King
@@altGoolam and how is quote from 1960s context relevant today (2018 context)? What "promises of freedom and justice" have not been met in 2018? How is "large segments of white society" equivalent to "white privilege", "straight white man"? hint ; one is very absolute (common enemy), while other is not (commonality).
I feel that even the commonality form of identity politics has it's problems (not that I'm saying it's _always_ bad, but it _usually_ is). One such problem is that it frequently leads to the belief that certain identities should be given special privileges to make up for the societal ills they suffer or have suffered in the past. This sows resentment because it's demonstrably unfair and rarely if ever fixes the problem, instead reinforcing it.
@@rabidpogoista4510 the main problem arises from the definition of privilege and dilema can you within society "fix" it. what is privilege? the basic definition says that privilege is "a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group". now, everybody can agree that large inheritance you haven't work for is privilege, but so is a genetic make-up of individual, such as being able to jump high and great motoric skills (a genetic lottery, a privilege that all the successful basketball players have). now, if you decide "punish" individual for one sort of privilege because society "deems" it unfair, isn't it unfair to tolerate other sort of privilege? in short, I do not see commonality of identity politics as a issue per se; actually humans have been forming groups on the principle of commonality since forever, and from political aspect it is perfectly legitimate otherwise you wouldn't have a left or right wing or central political options. the issue is what certain identity groups demand from other and whether their requests are legitimate.
@@mrdot1256 I think you and I agree more than disagree. Like I said, it's not _always_ bad. It's just when arguments of commonality are used to justify special privileges, or special treatment that it becomes a problem, which is most of the time these days.
Well the real loss is that these days you can't have an opinion without somebody trying to attack you. Think about that, you can't honestly say what you've found to be true without having your livelihood or else attacked. That's super dangerous and ridiculous.
That's not exactly unique to the internet age... people have always been persecuted by society for their views, we just don't use pitchforks and torches anymore, at least not in modern first world societies. Ruining someone's social standing and livelihood is a slight improvement over burning them at the stake, I guess. But I do agree that the internet mob justice gets way out of hand more often than not, and people suffer much more severe consequences than they deserve because word travels much further and faster. When a mob gets worked up like that, they're not just mad about what that one person said or did. That person becomes a target in a much larger war. Society mostly reacts that way toward prejudiced views these days, but it does go different ways sometimes. If you're afraid that expressing your views could ruin your life, that may be a good time to re-evaluate those views. Or it may not. I'm atheist so I know what it's like to hold a "shunned" minority opinion that's not likely to change. In some parts of the world I could be killed for that, but in the US it just shortened my "friends" list a bit... back when I still used facebook anyway. The whole thing is a question of how much can we tolerate views that are intolerant, without falling down some slippery slope? Is it hypocritical to be intolerant of them, or just a necessary duality? Nobody wants to be the Thought Police, but WWII hasn't left the collective unconscious and we don't want to see another Hitler. So any sign of intolerance is met with strong reactions. The mob justice isn't so much a threat to free speech as a byproduct of it. I would prefer people didn't have their lives ruined for dumb comments, but it's tough to draw a line between what people think and say, and how they may act on those views later. Society has basically drawn the line at your front door. You can think whatever you want, talk about it in private as much as you want. But if you put it in publc, it's subject to public opinion.
@-- Whats the content of what you're posting though, do you believe it to be of a hi moral standard? At the heart of what you posted, is it about lifting people up, or pointing a finger at injustice; oppressive towards a certain group. I don't need to know what you posted, I'm saying that whether you post something you feel helps society or is against society someone's going condemn your comments, you have to feel morally ok with the message and ideology behind the things you post, once you do that, it will justify to you posting something that may lose people off your friends list. If you truly believe those things and feel strongly about them, chances are you weren't going to be moving forward with those friendships anyway. If you're only worried about followers though and not friends lists, then it comes down to, are you posting content grow your page, dose losing followers affect you some way? I've never understood when people said things like "you can't say anything on the internet anymore" I realized though that meant, if you care what people think or have a large audience that your income depends on. Don't forget, there's a significant difference between morality and ethics. The latter is what the public or community you live feels is socially acceptable and generally right m wrong. Morality is personal, and doesn't always align with societal ethics. Torturing to death an enemy in town square was pretty accepted in 15th century, and ethically there wasn't much backlash, but I'm sure there were plenty of people that found it morally wrong. Regardless, that morality window, often called the Overton Window, on a long enough timeline is always moving left of political philosophy and towards what's fair and just. They're will always be those that have to be drug kicking and screaming to the next notch that window moves to, so are your posts pushing that window forward or are they among the kicking and screaming trying to keep it from moving.
Also, careful with relying on facts to heavily, they can be deceiving and manipulated. I'm not going as far as former press secretaries with alternative facts explanations to defend a president..lol. For example though, a teacher asks his science class why is there is an empty punctured Keurig cup in the trash and a delicious cup of French roast coffee on his desk. the students explain the physics behind Keurig machine and how hot water pores over coffee grounds dripping through filter, yadda yadda. They nailed every aspect of the process and quite factually. After lunch, same teacher taught a philosophy class, asked students same exact question word for word, the majority of students shouted out, because you wanted a cup of French roast coffee. Now, is either class wrong? Did both classes state facts? I know that's a little obvious and on the nose, but idea behind that analogy holds firm, facts can be deceiving, even manipulated. That's why in science a theory is not the word used socially meaning a possibility or hunch. A theory is the most sure science can be about something besides a law of nature. Theory starts as a hypothesis, and is made up of hundreds of facts from running tests over n over again until a certain world wide acceptance of that hypothesis, making it a theory. So don't be afraid to use some passion and empathy when debating an issue you feel strongly about. ✌🏼
What I see as a problem with Identity Politics is for one, that it nowadays often results in grouping people together in groups of "having that problem" and "needing that solution to fix it".If you as a "disadvantaged individual" disagree with the solution, prefer another type of solution, do not think that you have this problem needed to be solved or think that other problems in your life are more important than the problems emphasized by identity politics, you are deemed the enemy, too. This is a form of mainstreaming complex individuals into simple "these group has these problems. thus need that solution" schemes. And this also gets pretty ridiculous if the demands of one minority are compared to another minority. I think today, identity politics established a bizarre kind of hierarchy. One example of that chain I think is true: Apparently, in modern western societies, disability rights are deemed important. If disability rights sometimes clash with interests of feminism, the concerns of feminists are always given preferential treatment. But when there is a clash between the demands of feminists and muslim immigrants, then the demands of muslim immigrant apparently outweight the demands of the feminists. This creates an implicit hierarchy, everyone apparently follows, but people cant explain at all. For example, nobody can really explain why often, the concerns of muslim migrants apparently outweight the concerns of feminists. And a lot of people definitely use identity politics as an excuse for being asholes. Mostly in forms of "I am allowed to hurt you because I am member of a terribly oppressed minority" or in forms "your problems do not matter because you are priviledged and thus evil".
I would have loved to hear far more from Hillary about her actual policies and less about how she is a woman. Obama had decent policies at first but those faded away real quick. I am a straight white man who would vote for a lesbian native trans person if she had a good platform that I agreed with. I care about the actual policies, not the identity of the person who sold out to Wall Street or Lockheed Martin
Well, take that up with the media and the opponents of Clinton because it wasn't the liberals supporting her or Clinton herself who was making a big deal about it. Clinton herself, I have been told, was very detailed in her policy proposals. But it was tough to hear that over the roar of "EMAILS!!!"
She did talk extensively about her policies. She even wrote a book on her economic policies. If people claim she was only running on being a woman, that says more about them than her.
To be honest, the highest ideal of the American republic was ever to transcend everyone's outer differences and backgrounds towards common timeless values and principles. Those which seek to unite people is positive. That which seeks to divide people is extremely negative.
As far as I'm concerned, if someone wants to call themselves any label that they want then they are entitled to do so, but don't scream and shout if I happen to get that label wrong on first meeting (this has happened). Now, let me be clear - I don't in any way think this is the norm, and I think there is far too much snide and snipe from the right and far too much lashing out from the far left.
I think he makes very cogent points. It's all very depressing . A friend recently had 'unconscious bias' training - basically it doesn't matter what you do or don't do - it's how the offended person feels . Now that it's a 'thing' , it's only a matter of [a short] time before it has to have it's existence justified - and that means finding 'offenders' (no pun intended) . You can't avoid being an offender because of the very nature this proposition , there is nothing you can do . Absolute madness.
The thing that is the most important in this to me was 'in good faith'. There are too many people who say things to sew doubt, to get under people's skin, and they don't actually believe that idea. They are not arguing in good faith, and yet we're supposed to give them the benefit of the doubt? No. Not all opinions are weighed equally, and your opinion doesn't outweigh my lived experience. If we have a legit conversation that is in depth and we disagree but come out better people, okay. But that isn't what always happens. Universities/age group are always the forefront of societal change, and because they are young they are the ones who get shut down because people automatically assume they're dumb. The pendulum has swung too far in one direction, but for a majority of our society if you stuck out you got knocked down and ostracized. Now if you're conservative you're feeling what the more liberal of us have felt for generations. It sucks, but how you feel isn't unique. Think of how you feel, and know others have felt the same way. Maybe that will help bring the sides together, as soon as we get rid of pundits and the 24/7 news cycle feeding negativity and culture war bs.
I'm for free speech, but against hate speech. And hate speech encompasses every idea I disagree with. Also hate speech should be punished by death. -- America's University System
Free speech is paramount, it is the core of a thriving civilisation. Of course, If I disagree with it, then it is hate speech and must be banned. I then feel vindicated for using my free speech to ban someone for using theirs. I love free speech, it is the core of a thriving civilisation...
The issue boils over on my campus because once something is deemed offensive, which it very well could be, the conversation stops and the offensive material is thrown aside. Imagine if we stopped talking about Galeo's offensive ideas...
@@rebecca8525 where is all this racism and bigotry? I see it a lot online but its not white people doing it. Black people seem to think they can't be racist and thats given them carte blanche to be openly racist without repercussion.
@@rebecca8525 Yeah, where is all that collective opression the white men force upon every one? Real life's made of individuals and their choices not of groups that are guilty or holy. You can't criticize aspects of black culture without beeing called a racist these days. The term is absolutely overused even though not every criticism is collective or dehumanizing which is important for it beeing racism. I see people labeling everything as racism or sexism they don't agree with. Real racism is not that common. The real problem is the concept of shaming which is basically a devaluation of everything one doesn't want to hear. It's a taboo. For example: when someone thinks that fat people are disgusting he or she has absolutely the right to do so. It doesn't mean that this person wants fat person to feel ashamed of themselves. This whole shaming-culture is so insecure, so narcissistic. All that counts are the own feelings and standards.
@@keithhunt5328 Can white skin afford a person to take advantage of affirmative action, Title IX, quotas or diversity hiring? If we try to feed off that, we'll starve to death...now return to your eternal oppression woke little world, no one takes your ilk seriously anymore.
@@hellogoodbye4061 What the hell does Title IX have to do with racial politics. It's about Feminism, of which needless to say white women are the primary beneficiaries.
@@hellogoodbye4061 Outside of academia, in the real world, in which company is diversity hiring mandated by law?? If there is diversity hiring, then it's the employer's own, personal choice to do so.
@@keithhunt5328 The "employer's own, personal choice" my ass....your ilk have invaded just about every nook and cranny of businesses today, guilt shaming companies to hire more blacks and women based solely on the color of their skin or their gender. They force feed the infamous "diversity departments" to be formed and whites and men all know what comes next. You can sprinkle your "diversity is our strength" sugar on this nonsense but it will still smell rotten.
Identity politics is not 'perfectly legitimate' unless everyone is allowed to do so on equal terms. That is not the case, especially on campuses like Evergreen and the more elite campuses.
you realise there's a difference between gay pride and white pride, right? forming groups around identity as a means of support is very different from forming groups around identity as a means of reaffirming or consolidating domination. was kind of the point of the video. Like, you know, sure, make a cis-white-male group by all means ...oh wait, it already exists and is the dominant culture, thereby making the need for a support/interest group somewhat redundant.
@Alvar Dämmerung in the video Haidt starts by pointing out that there is good identity politics (like a group getting together around a cause of liberation, like gay pride, which is about everyone being able to love who they want to) Vs bad identity politics that separates us by highlighting our differences (like white pride, which is generally associated with neo-nazis). In reference to this concept, the OP says "political correctness is not "perfectly legitimate" unless everyone can do it equally". I am highlighting a problem with this. A weakness in liberal society is tolerating intolerance and so when you allow everyone equal platform time you have to listen to Nazis do their bit (lame). All im really saying is some people shouldn't get to hold the mic as long as others. Not everyone can sing, you know what I'm saying :P? It's easy, you just have to be able to distinguish arseholes and then like, not invite them to the party. Like, yes let the previously badly treated people have their rights and be happy about it and have a day of it (gay pride, wahey-hey), but no, don't let the Nazis have their white pride event at the city hall coz dude, standards, lol. Other than that, it's all fair game. Just highlighting the extreme case. Not that what Haidt mentions about getting snitched on in the toilets for saying anything offensive isn't extreme as well. Like wtf? That is some mf STASI shit. Bun that as well. I have only experienced the UK education system and must admit I've heard that American unis are pretty crazy for censorship etc Anyway, keep your fucking hair on mate, the world is overwhelmingly becoming more cohesive than it's ever been, the plan is working, so long as we keep the Nazis down and don't try to spy on each other while we're trying to take a leak we'll be ok my friend. god bless the United Nations, god bless the internet ❤️🧡💛💚💙💜 and so on and so forth. Look at this, brotherly love on the YT comment section. And now let's all hold hands and sing the international together Jokingnotjoking
On the less extreme end of things, you're free to set up a cis white male pride group but it would be a bit weird. would quickly attract a right bunch of nutters if advertised as such, lol. Doesn't seem like what Haidt was thinking of when he was talking about the good type of identity politics. But also like, let's have some more intra-political BBQs or something you know. Like hang out with a conservative for a bit, get to know them, share a burger with them over a light discussion of the bioethics of stem cell research
for clarification: "make a cis-white-male group by all means ...oh wait, it already exists and is the dominant culture, thereby making the need for a support/interest group somewhat redundant." --> You are putting a whole bunch of humanity on the "bad folk" group that must be taken down by the "good folk" group there was no suggestion here that cis white men are bad or that they need taking down and i don't know where you got that from. i'm not saying they need to be taken down, i'm saying they probably don't need support/interest groups setting up around their identity. I'm simply saying the intersection of those three traits broadly represent (fuck it, lets add "rich" into the mix) one of the more dominant groups in the world, hence what would be the point of starting a support group based around that identity? hence, no, not all identities need equal representation in identity politics of the "good" variety that Haidt describes, as the OP suggested. i can't see much good coming out of an identity politics consciousness raising group set up around the identity of being white cis and male (one example). can you? i mean, that's pretty much what the proud boys are, and i bet Haidt LOVES them
If you’re not with us you’re against us. This closes down all debate. Statements close debates questions open them. A university is a place where questions and debates should be at the heart of things.
The problem that I see, from the outside, is that identity politics in the US is not explored within a larger framework of class struggle and intersectionality. It’s mostly a tribal expression of us vs them, without proper theoretical foundation or commitment to long term goals.
John Shannon yes! Stereotyping->scapegoating->demonizing->threats of violence is the path: growing on the extremes (eg, Antifa on the left, supremacist movements inclusive of some alt-right elements).
@@MicahMicahel Wow! They're really doing that? That is so wrong!. I am a 90's/2000s leftist and these days I keep finding myself getting more and more alienated as the younger crowd gets sunk into identity politics. Pretty soon we're going to need Freemason like places to even discuss ideas and theories etc because the old thinking will be illegal in the future.
@@WeatherMondacicci Is that why the Mason's were around? I have so many even more shocking stories of identity politics in the Trudeau era. Trudeau is just a puppet that spouts leftist dogma in a way that seems attractive to people. Canada has changed so much. I remember my Dad was so mad when Free trade was passed. He nailed it. A global ideology has taken over the west. It's like invasion of the Body Snatchers.
What is this revisionism? The Civil Rights movement was identity politics! Johnathan Haidt even gave you the (widely accepted) definition at the beginning: identity politics is when a certain identity group (racial, sexual, religious, etc.) organize around the common interests of people with that identity and work to make gains. That’s what the civil rights movement was!
@@Mockduck2020 I don't know what you mean by "the other guys" but I care about how all people feel. I didn't realize things had degenerated so far in American society. But it doesn't come as a complete surprise to me. Loving and respecting people has never been a strong point of America, or humanity as a whole for that matter.
@@d1ndark25 Well my beliefs would be categorized as far left. Much more left than Bernie Sanders. And yet I believe that everyone's opinion and point of view should be respected. So if what you say is true then that is a shame.
@@brianlittrell797 I can only speak for my geographical location. One of my relatives is a political science professor at our local college and I have a brother and co worker getting a masters degree in social work this spring. They actually filmed some incredibly bias and sketchy class material that they were forced to take. Like I said, I can only speak for what my wife and I have personally witnessed over the course of the past decade and I live in an extremely conservative region of the US. But like you, I sincerely hope this is an isolated issue. However, I am highly doubtful..
I understand what he's trying to explain, but humans tend to be tribal. Then you have those who are open and look at the individual. Those people often get shunned and put in a group whether they fit it or not. As a white man married to a black woman for over 24 years, we both get put in to groups that don't fit us. And when we don't say or do things that fits in that group, we are quickly shoved in another group. This is why we keep are friends limited. If we can stop trying to place everyone in a category, and look at them as individuals, you will be amazed how quickly racism, sexism, bigotry, etc.... Will start to fade.
"When we don't say or do things that fits into that group, we are quickly shoved into another group" *That's not tribalism, that's just lazy thinking.* People want you in a box so they don't have to get to know you better. They already know everything, the box has a label that tells them what's inside. This kind of thinking is necessary, and even useful to an extent. When I'm purchasing some petrol or gasoline, I don't need your life story so I can build a nuanced, empathetic understanding of why you want me to pay what you want me to pay. I just need to know the total. And that's fine (as long as I'm not a dick about it). But once we start engaging in any meaningful interaction, the box becomes a hindrance rather than a helper. Putting you into a different box than my first guess doesn't solve the problem, it's just easy. Hence, lazy thinking.
That is cultural. Nordic cultures is individualistic, it is why you rarely see huge protests for example. Similarly religion is regarded as a private matter rather than a public one. I think humans are farbless tribalistic than we like to think or are used to thinking of. It does exist, sure, but what I am not so convinced of is how common that is.
@@StrategicWealthLLC Somewhat yes, I know as my family is organism scientists, sister a Medical Scientist, father a Biologist and myself a Neuropsychologist. By that extension I am full aware of neural wiring that draws human bwhavior to comfort-zone, to that which is familiar. But I also know its influence and function is overexaggerated as modern 21st century science has revealed. What we now know is there is a form of genes known as Epigenetics, a type of recessive genes that activate to produce protein chains and deactivate based on environmental factors. So lets say a person is diagnosed with a chronic disease, it does not only change their physiology in one way but often there is a group of variables, side symptoms and other physiological and psychological changes to the body functionality. Things like puberty, menopause and its functional male equivalent midlife-crisis (male menopause) are also somewhat influenced by this functionality. Similarly to Epigenetics there is a function within human brains known as Neuroplacticity. Neuroplacticity means that while our brains does form static neural pathing, in function it is not static. In other words our brains have this amazing ability of rewiring itself according to the stimulus it receives after prolonged exposure. Now what Social Constructivists misunderstand from this is that our brains is a fully empty blanket which then is only oriented trough culture but both Biological Determinists concept of brains as static and Social Constructivists concept of brains as plastic is incorrect. Brains are more like rubber, they do adapt to various of things similarly to Epigenetics, but its functional range is limited. Meaning you can increase your intelligence and decrease it during a lifetime based on your chosen lifestyle, whether your brains get activated for stimuli and at what frequency. For example this is how Sociopathy is possible, as unlike Psychopathy which is what you are (born into genetically), Sociopathy is what you become (socially and behaviorally learnt). It is how and why any person can become mentally ill and in most instances they can heal as well. It is why in popular discourse it is widely understood but not for its anatomical and scientific reason that the brains of children are developing and young children are more vulnerable to harm in their early childhood. When scientists observe children of biracial parents like my brothers, they do not observe alienation of one or more parental figures. A baby or a young child does not understand social or cultural biases, what they understand is how they feel and who (parental figures) can provide after their needs. If you introduce a new adult to the child, they will be visibly distressed because the baby recognizes that person is unfamiliar and the baby does not know if that 3rd adult will provide love, care, nurture and security, things a baby needs for healthy physiological and cognitive development. In its most simplest and shallowest description it is a trust issue for a good reason too.
Jenkkimie - Well said. I am familiar with epigenetic as well and agree that my short-hand version of things was, in the context of your explanation, far too short. Still, I think it true that intelligent people sometimes apply logic too much and deny the weakness of human behavior due to biology. That “tension” probably needs to be appreciated more as we progress.
Probably one of the most rational things I have seen from this channel in quite a while. It has moved from the scientific to a much broader subjective format as of late.
I mean, this was the biggest reason why I dropped out of college after 1 semester, because I was stuck in so many classes where my ideas that didn't conform to what was politically correct got me laughed out of the room, and I was basically left with 2 options. Shut up and be defensive, or keep my integrity, but also have to leave, and I chose the latter. Thankfully I made this decision before I accumulated a crazy amount of debt.
Can I ask which college it was or at least if it was on one of the coasts or Chicago? Because I saw the guy in vid on Joe Rogan and I really liked that he admitted it is an issue at colleges in this country, but easily not the norm at every single college. My daughter goes to a Southwest MO college and watched same Rogan podcast, and said at her school there's a few that are way too sensitive, but overall nothing extreme. Now she has been to other colleges for sports events where she said the social tension could be felt when you got off the bus..lol
Long story short, i'd say the 2 main problems with identity politics are the fact that they reinforce our tribal mindset (which is something that we should have ditched long ago, so we should fight to think in a LESS tribal way instead of more) and the reinforcement of generalizations, which usally hold truth to some degree but that are always exception, and the combination of these 2 factors create resentment in those who feel left out. Yes, even the "good" identity politics; for exemple, if the gov starts to prioratize a certain group of people (tribal mindset) by assuming they're poor because of their skin colour (generalization) it will create resentment in the poor people who are not part of that group. And this has alot to do with (along with other reasons) why Trump is president and being supported by one of the worst kind of identity group there is: the KKK.
I agree with Dr. Haidt. I wish the academy were more open to differences in opinions, especially opinions based on life experiences. I wish the academy would revert to the commonality politics in favor of the division politics. But mostly he speaks to the social environment on campus, at least in this talk. He does not speak to the academic environment. In my experience, the academic environment is just as preservative and conformist. How so? It's a human enterprise, and it cannot be completely divorced from its human factor. I witnessed how some professors truly regarded differences from the norm. If one did not agree and accept the prevailing theory of the day, one was to be ridiculed and teased about it. It was this behavior that ran me out of my doctoral program, and in the months leading up to my fleeing, I mirandized myself on the way to school. "I have the right to remain silent. "Everything I say can and will be used against me. "I do not have a right to an attorney, and the state will provide one for me if I cannot afford one." If the academy is going to clean up the environment, it has to clean up both the social environment and the academic one. Otherwise, it will be a worthless effort.
I just LOVE how this entire school of thought is based on the unquestioning assumption that “I can’t speak up or I’ll offend someone” and “our unity is based entirely on a common enemy” is entirely a recent phenomenon. The cardinal sign of a social discourse manipulator is how they *love* to use the sanitized-for-the-masses MLK (or Mandela, coz you know, global appeal) to drive their point home
This is precisely the reason I’ve always been against identity politics. It is divisive. It pushes people away from each other. I would rather work to unite by looking at what we have in common: our basic humanity and the universal values we all share.
Once again he raises good points. I wish he had addressed the fear factor more. Our current president leads by fear and anger. That is the easy path. The alternative, as pointed out by Michelle Obama, is to lead by hope and example. She refers to an FDR quote: _"Governments can err, Presidents do make mistakes, but the immortal Dante tells us .... It (the office of the President) is pre-eminently a place of moral leadership. "_ Getting that back is the way to make America great again.
I agree with you, Brenda. Trump's rhetoric is bad. I'm on the Right and will absolutely admit it. My sincere request is that you try to look at how another political party spoke of all Republicans. I remember hearing one person say that a Republican candidate would put them in chains. I heard another say that Republicans want people to die in the streets. My point is that members of both parties use fear in their messaging. And both probably take the use of fear in their messaging too far. The advantage Democrats have is the number of media outlets that lean in your ideological direction... particularly print media. You can get a lot of support for your message that way. The disadvantage is that Democrats have to herd cats and some of those cats may "say" something really stupid on occasion. And over the last few years, a lot of those cats have talked an awful lot about white privilege. Sometimes, that message went way over the top. More than anything, I believe it was that kind of thing, generally supported by Democrat candidates, that drove Trump into office.
@@StrategicWealthLLC Thank you for the thoughtful reply. You are right that the dems play the fear card at times too. Perhaps herding cats will lead to that via frustration. I think part of the problem is that the full spectrum of political positions is not represented currently. The Tea Party et. al dragged the GOP center far to the right and Trump stomped them into the ground there. The Dems lost backbone and allowed themselves to be shifted as well. They are to the right of the GOP from the late 60 in many respects. This in turn drew so called progressives to the position the Dems held. Bernie i more conservative than much of Europe for example, and the far left is voiceless. So the Dems have to wear ffar too manyh hats. Maybe we need a major reorganization? Let the alt right and Tea Party have their party so traditional conservatives can get the GOP back. Let the left and progressives form a new left. Then the dems can focus on traditional liberal members. This kind of fracturing might need a change to a parliamentary system. Now _that_ is a progressive idea! lol
Brenda Rua - Democrats have been pulled very much to the left. Republicans have been pulled very much to the right. We can argue about who moved first, but it really doesn’t matter. What IS interesting to see is how we have a feedback loop in action. Whichever way one party moves, the other party moves in the opposite direction harder. It’s the American political equivalent of how the assassination of a minor diplomat quickly escalated into World War 1. As a people, we have blown through the structural operation of our government. The Constitution - and constitution more or less means “structure” - clearly establishes a limited federal role for the federal government. The 10th amendment makes that point crystal clear. Yet, the Left does not appreciate the idea of federalism. To steel man the Left’s position, they don’t value it because they believe their ideas are best for the citizens of the country and the Left wants all citizens to enjoy those benefits. They Right has a point too, however. If the Left would embrace federalism, these contentious policy discussions would be more local issues and not the national issues that drive so much of our polarizing debate. There is no reason citizens in ideologically progressive states could not implement their policy prescriptions locally. And if they work, just like with capitalism, other less adventurous states might then adopt them too. If they don’t work, then the pain is felt at a smaller sphere, and that is a good thing. That is a dynamic government structure that is brilliant in theory. Of course, the Right does not appreciate that states’ rights ideology is complicated to manage for things like a national highway system. And it is very difficult to put the genie back in the bottle. Overlay the above with a news media that is generally national....where readers view issues at the national level vs the local level....and now we have a structural problem to our viewpoint. Add social media, algorithms that create ideological news bubbles, and now we are playing with fire. Yet life goes on.
Random Pickle - True, but look more broadly. Canada did the same thing to the Japanese in its country. It also had camps for Germans and Italians. The USSR systemically slaughtered many of its ethnic minorities during the war. Austria-Hungary did similar things to its Serbs during WW1. The Australians interned its Germans and Austrians during WW1.There is a lot of history to support FDR’s action/concern... not to mention hatred after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Think about 9/11 and the anger towards Muslims as an example. Anger wins over ethics and law a lot of the time.... particularly when humans do tend to group together by race/ethnicity (most countries around the world). America and a few others are mixing things up and I like it. At the same time, we should be hyper-aware of history, the downsides of multi-culturalism, and any form of identity-politics that pit races against one another in our multi-racial/multi-ethnic society. It is very, very easy to create us vs. them scenarios. “We” is what is needed.
@Random Pickle I agree with you about the internment. It does not change the point about the quote though. Do you know that Wilson interned a lot of Germans in WW I? I guess in some ways this was worse on the populous because they didn't stand out racially and that raised suspicion more generally.
Common enemy identity politics is the one that actually makes sense. If someone wants to stop conflict you really have to ask yourself if it isn't just to perpetuate the status quo and who this really benefits.
I started my adulthood as a member of the US military, and I started at an unfortunate time for that (2000). I gained a lot of life experience quick. I had a theory that the root cause of all wars was totalitarian ideologies, which are like a psychological contagion. I've had to update that lately, that all wars are actually caused by identity politics. I can think of (few) wars in which neither side has a totalitarian ideology, but the remaining ones have gobs of identity politics. Furthermore, totalitarian ideologies feed and grow off identity politics like maggots feed off a dead animal.
I've often said this using Lenin's definitions of nationalism against imperialism. Nationalistic chauvinism is bad but for colonized peoples it's right and necessary to throw of colonization. After they gain freedom and independence, however, in part because privilege is invisible to the bearer of it, they may easily slide into a chauvinism of their own without even noticing the change.
One of the irritating things I see around identity politics is this assertion that they are not saying having privilege is bad, just be aware. Practicing this would be great but it’s like poor people saying they experience no bitterness towards people with more money. Many do, understandably so given what being poor is like and how many rich people try to write it off as their fault. Even the responsible good rich people are hated however. This bitterness is not something you get to be in denial about. Telling someone they have privilege brings up defensiveness in the individual because they know they have now been identified as an ass. Being privileged does make you ignorant or blind to certain issues. However so does being oppressed. Then there’s also individual differences in empathy exposure and things learned through study, which being wealthy can give you more access to, as well as much less. Just like being poor can give you a deeper understanding of the world around you and how to manage emotions and understand other people on levels those with more privilege might not be able to. But the idea that stoking those flames with no purpose, no humbling of the justified angry and guilty privileged group. No focus on similarities. Is a problem We actually do have more in common than not. Creating coalition and unity that isn’t begrudged and angry is important. We don’t have to all be friends but I bet we’d see less turmoil and hate if we were put in situations that create empathy.
Perhaps someone can explain to me how we divorce identity from politics in a representative system. What precisely would our representatives have to tether themselves to if not for broad or local identifiers (Woman/Man, Black/White, Rural/Urban, Middle Class/Working Class, Enterprise/Labor, etc.)? Surely, they cannot speak to each and every person and hope to have any success representing the whims and wishes of each individual, that is foolish. But that seems to be the fate of legislatures were the folks who decry this contemporary pejorative, but ultimately unavoidable, term and its broader implications. What is politics without identity, plain and simple? Let's be thoughtful and distinguish ideology from policy from politics in answering please. I am not saying there is no answer to this, I simply cannot work out logistically how this is not an assured circumstance of our basic civic constitution. To his credit, Mr. Haidt concedes as much in the video, but I see plenty of people refuting this in the comments. I am open to the idea that perhaps they know something he and I do not.
It's how you position the argument, David. It is one thing to say something like "White privilege has been keeping blacks down for hundreds of years. Whites have always held positions of power. This needs to stop! Other races need their turn!" That is the kind of thing that is said by the more extreme Left. Of course, most liberals don't feel that way. They might say something like, "American society had a pretty negative start. We had slavery and then we had Jim Crow. While those are gone, we still don't like that blacks are not represented in society as well as we think they should be. Blacks aren't represented as pro-rata members in the positive aspects of American society at nearly any level. And they are vastly over-represented at the negative end of the spectrum. I think that is clear evidence of the legacy of racism in action, even if we cannot directly see it in law or policy. We need to do better, and that's why we support the continuation of affirmative action." The conservative would say something like, "America did have a bad start with slavery in American society. Let's remember that many of the founders wanted to eliminate slavery though. Let's also correct the record and understand that the 3/5ths compromise was there to limit the power of the Southern states, not to define blacks as something less than human. And yes, we also had Jim Crow, but let's remember that the vision of people like Martin Luther King, Jr., helped the broader white society to do see that we were not living up to our nation's creed.... and then to call on all of us (blacks, whites, Democrats, Republicans) to implement the Civil Rights Act. In our attempt to help however, it's clear we implemented policies that ended up hurting black communities. In our effort to reduce poverty, we made too many dependent on government and created incentives that have resulted in massive increases in black out-of-wedlock births. In an effort to disincent people from using drugs, we created overly harsh drug laws that have made felons out of people that were largely kids or young men at the time. When you're a convicted felon, your future as a contributing member of society is largely over... even when you're out of prison. And we have millions of American citizens that are in that position...and that has happened for a few generations. That situation has doubtlessly led to the creation of a difficult culture in the black community. I'm sure that helps explain why black crime statistics are so much higher than other racial groups. I don't doubt that there still are acts of individual racism in America, but I don't believe that we have institutionalized or systemic racism towards blacks anymore. I do believe we have systems that have inadvertently hurt blacks, but that is not racism and it should not be conflated as such. We can and should do some things around the edges regarding our criminal justice system that can help, but frankly, I think that is a minor issue. The problem is that we've created a culture of dependency and I believe too many blacks have a perception that racism is everywhere. Outcomes in life are largely a function of behaviors. Behaviors are a function of cultures. In America, people often look at white Americans as being the most successful. That's not actually true anymore. It's Americans of Asian heritage that are the most successful. Why? Well, they have the lowest out of wedlock birth rate, the highest levels of educational attainment, and the lowest criminal rate of any racial group in America. That behavior is what we need out of every person in society, irrespective of an individual's race. Until we acknowledge the importance of creating a common American culture across all races that fosters those kind of behaviors, I don't know why we would expect to have races proportionally represented up and down the income distribution or wealth ladder. Multi-culturalism has its limits." Thoughts?
Haidt’s outline was pretty good I thought. Good kind of identity politics: Imagine an individual inside a Group, inside a group overlapping with some other groups inside the biggest set group of humans. We identify as an individual within groups. We can look at other groups within the set of humans and say this or that group is not getting what they need in terms of access, opportunity, or whatever. Now the bad kind: This group is oppressing that group. “Me against my brother; me and my brother against my cousin; me, my brother and cousin against my enemy”. This gets you nowhere towards solving the problem because it’s all groups against all groups all the time.
@@brettjohnson6374 - Great summary. As an add, just think about solutions depending on the frames. - If you're applying policy solutions/penalties to groups, then you're sometimes helping individuals that weren't hurt or hurting individuals that need to be helped. - If you apply policy solutions/penalties to individuals, then the immutable characteristics of the individual (race, sex, etc.) don't matter and you're applying remedies only to the individuals that are hurt and you're applying penalties only to the people that did something wrong. It's a much more "just" way of managing societal problems.
David Fisher - I re read your comment and realized I missed the part at the end. I agree, I don’t know how you have politics separate from group identities. More or less, a single individual internalizes the the things that make them like some groups of people and different from others.
Safe spaces and political correctness were brought on to counteract the slippery slope of false equivalence. If you want to speak freely but it’s really hate speech or sexual harassment but you categorize it as controversial opinion and flirting you are the problem. If people could discern the difference we wouldn’t have such outlandish backlash.
Im not sure the argument supporting positive identity politics is very strong. Im not sure its genuine to suggest Martin Luther King practiced Identity politics as his message was that we needed to look past our identities. Anyway. nice vid.
Exactly! MLK's ultimate goal was for all people to get along together. It wasn’t called Civil Rights movement for nothing. Wanting all to be civil and accepted towards one another.
if i were in a college campus id still speak my mind and say what i want cause its my rights and if they dont like it they can just go whine in a corner cause im blunt about how i feel about certain people
You say it's 'perfectly legitimate for women to organize based on their sex and for black students" to organize based on their skin color. But then you HAVE to add "white students" to that mix too Jonathan. If you say "This has historically worked", you are overlooking the hugely important fact that women now have the same rights as everyone else plus *additional rights* (longer exam times in some cases, in an attempt to reach equal outcome). Blacks again have the same rights in western societies as whites PLUS more rights (affirmative action). That means at the very least you should add "White students" to that mix when you talk about legitimacy of identity politics, or "white males" for that matter, and on top it would be the only group getting discriminated against systemically via quotas, mainstream media rhetoric, affirmative action and so on. And obviously, even you, are far too politically correct to utter those words, which is why you happened to leave that group out. it would likely send a shiver down your spine if you attempted to include it, even though intellectually and objectively that sentence should absolutely be included for you to stay intellectually honest. So that at the least should make you stop for a second, and realize that no, identity politics based on arbitrary tribal characteristics is NEVER a 'good thing' in a society that treats people the same under the law, especially not by groups that currently have full rights in society plus more. Because then it inevitably becomes a hate movement, it *inevitably* ends up in your second category of 'identity politics', the bad kind, where you have BLM, using a video to stir up emotion and division and hatred against whites instead of looking at the relevant actual numbers detailing what is actually going on. The point is, in a society that does not discriminate via laws / rights, there IS no good identity politics, there is no 'first category', which is why your argument for good identity politics is very flawed.
just because there are legal or official advantages for some groups, doesn't mean white men on the whole don't still massively hold the power and advantage in the world.
Here I propose that we ditch the "identity politics" name for the first type and call it "connection politics", emphasis on the connectedness that we all have. Just saying.
I don’t think slapping a new label on it is going to do much, unless there is more to your idea that you may have forgotten to leave out. Don’t get me wrong, what you are saying here sounds nice, but I think there needs to be a more “extensive” effort to deal with this problem.
@@ineffablebeing4276 A philosophy teacher of mine told us this one time that us, human beings, learn to know and comprehend the world with the words we invented. My thesis here is that "identity" is an unfortunate choice of wording, because it calls forth the psychological ego; the construct of individuality, which is nowadays maybe too overly prized. An ideally healthy (psychologically speaking) individual is theorically capable of reflection, which is the ability to put yourself in the other's shoes. But even then this reflection is imperfect since it's made by our own psyche, as we interpret the others through ourselves, it's rather the mirage of projecting yourself onto others. So, if your philosophical policy-making core is identifying yourself in others, it's like choosing to be near-sighted (or even blind if your psyche is egocentric!). It will affect you no matter what your political orientation is. So I am very sure that by naming things appropriately a lot of confusion can be dispelled. "Connectedness" is a word and concept that hopefully, probably, we can all aggree upon unlike the highly unstable and ever changing concept of someone's identity. Probably because of that I often see people from any side of a table, regarding to the discussion of Id pols, talking about very different things. How can it be that policies that couldn't be more opposite get the same name? You can't even make useful discussions like that
- Agree with your point, as well. It becomes more challenging on the Islam side because we have such a clear connection between Islamic fascism (in the form of ISIS, etc.) and terrorism in the name of Allah (which is materially different than crimes being committed by people that are Christians, but that don't claim to commit crimes in the name of Christ). Nevertheless, we need to find a balance between understanding the nuances that exist.
Except identity politics has nothing to do with judging people. The modern popularity of the term identity politics is solely to discredit movements (and their supporters) that campaign against discrimination. To be against identity politics, despite what the RU-vid "skeptics" tell us, is to either believe there is no such thing as discrimination by identity, or to believe it exists but it's ok. The trick they are playing is to label the activists as playing identity politics, so that people engage with the term identity politics, and not the specific case of discrimination. You just said people who fight against racism are like racists. You called Martin Luther King, the Dalai Llama and Jesus Christ racists without even realising it. And that is the real point of "Identity Politics"
Catharsis Fog - I did no such thing. Christopher Hitchens made a very insightful point when he said American politicians made a very strategic mistake when they refused to call out Islamic fascists as distinct from Islam in general. Muslims don’t like the fascists members in their religion either. After all, it’s other Muslims that those Islamic fascists mostly kill. What is difficult is that the Islamic fascists engage in their murderous behavior in the name of Allah. In the same breathe however, while the above is a tiny fraction of Muslims, a significant percentage of Muslims hold opinions that are at odds with western civilization’s ideals. I’m speaking of things like church and state separation, women’s rights, individual right’s...that leads to not persecuting homosexuals, religious plurality, etc. Pew has multiple studies on this point. The results are worrisome, even when looking at the responses of Muslims in western countries like the UK. American Muslims don’t appear to hold those views. It is true that a tiny fraction of Christians hold views that are abhorrent. It is also true that a much larger percentage of Muslims hold views that are antithetical to western values. The west values treating people as individuals and so we need to evaluate people as individuals. At the same time, the west values truth, so we should not pretend that some groups hold bad ideas in greater volume than others. This is the tension we are trying to manage...and our ideology makes it difficult to do so.
I think university students have always been naive and passionate. They are young and inexperienced. Instead of letting right wing demagogues blow their bad behaviour up into a "culture war" we should simply be educating them. This is hard to do though, when our highest exemplars of social discourse are themselves behaving like children.
As a college employee I could not agree more. It’s only the liberal left kids who tattle though. The few conservative students never tell for anything I say or do.
Totally agreed. When I went to college (mid-1980s), I learned skills which enabled my successful career. Politics didn't factor in at all. Today? Between partying and protesting, WHEN ARE YOU ACTUALLY STUDYING?? You know, to be a DOCTOR or an ACCOUNTANT or a LAWYER? You're not going to be 20 and on campus forever.
@@Mockduck2020 To be fair, they would sort of have a point in that. If a society allows large swathes of young people to fall into a trap like this because it allowed highly ideological & indoctrinative 'teachers' / 'professors' into places of learning, I would say it has failed somewhere at some point. Of course, that probably wouldn't be the angle those students would view it from.
There is a ruling elite in modern society comprised of an alliance between politicians, the wealthy and the media, and life is easy for them if identity groups all think the same thing and behave the same way. All three groups would then know exactly how to appeal to every identity group in order to get votes, sell their products, or get viewers. That was fine, when it was simply reactive, but then the three groups began to try and get the identity groups to behave the same way proactively. So, for example, politicians started to tell black people in America, you know, there is institutionalized racism. You need to be upset about it. or white people, you have privilege, you need to be worried that you are not a white supremacist. Or women, you have been oppressed for centuries, you need to be free from the yoke of men. So now they use propaganda to try and manipulate the identity groups to vote for them, to buy their products, or to consume their media. The real problem being that they don't care about the consequences of those identity groups thinking the specific thing, all that is important to them is that the identity group all think it, making them easier to manipulate. Of course the truth is that we are all individuals, and fit into many identity groups. There are women that quite like men, want to be wives and don't want to work 60 hour weeks, to make someone else rich, be they a man or a woman. And there are black people that are quite successful and don't feel that racism has impacted their life any more than the Asian guy next to them. And there are plenty of white people opposed to immigration that are self-confident enough to know that they are not white-supremacists. Hopefully the younger generations are more media savvy and can reject this rather blatant and cynical manipulation by the rich, the media and the politicians. If they can, then there is some hope for us all. This video is a rather pathetic attempt by one of the elite to cling to power. I dislike the video.
I don't see how you can split the early stage of Identity Politics with the later stage . It ALWAYS morphs into "us vs. them" after the groups are identified . Should have figured you were selling a book .
My interest in identity politics has grown recently which has me watching and reading a great deal about it. A common theme is to equate Martin L. King Jr. with the 'right' way of conducting identity politics. But didn't he get assassinated for such conduct? What does that mean? It's been 60 years since his death. If it's so successful then why are talking about this today? What fueled the BLM movement if the 'right' way of politicking was effective. Do these experts not take his demise into account as they seek to understand and explain why identity politics is practiced the way it is today? Lastly, why is it identity politics when minority groups engage in it but it's just politics when the majority operates the same manner? Simply, identity politics that begets identity politics. If one group didn't see themselves as different, more deserving of life, liberty and property than another group, and didn't act and build institutions based on said belief, then would there even be a need for minority groups to stand up and demand a fair deal? Identity politics is a symptom not the cause of divisiveness.
Ah, I'm loving your comment. It's very absurd to pretend people can actually squint their eyes and separate their personal experience to take decisions when the very origin of the word POLITICS actually refers to the subjects of importance to the people. These folks operate on the illusion that they are the only ones that can be objective as if their privilege turned them into machines. Somehow these people think problems are going to be solved by not being specific about them especially when they are controversial (aka when certain minorities are the subject of it).
You know, there's a 19 year old here on RU-vid that sounds just like you. Fawning Girl! She's so young, and sounds amazing when she talks about Identity Politics and all the different types. She even mentioned why the "victim" mentality is so popular! Maybe she should be on Big Think, cause she SURE thinks big for a teenager!
Our news media fractured along partisan political lines. Now you have different groups getting information from different (sometimes biased) sources. It's hard to have a functional marketplace of ideas, when you can't even agree on the facts.
@@Canukles Very few object to what people do as long as they are the only ones affected. Forcing their POV on others is the most objectionable thing about identity politics. Using the state to force acceptance is immoral.
@@bhfourtwoeight7343 I think there's a fair bit more than very few, but I of course agree with not forcing a point of view. Keep in mind, however, that there's a difference between "forcing acceptance" and not allowing blatant discrimination, otherwise we're going back to Jim Crow-esque laws.
What you mean is it's perfectly legitimate to organise politically based on race unless you're white. There are two answers; either it becomes unacceptable for everyone, or acceptable for everyone. Which do you prefer?
Professor Haidt is right, but will people listen? The problem is too many people find the second, malevolent form of identity politics empowering, but it's empowering the way that the Dark Side of the Force is empowering in STAR WARS movies. What price power?
@@havardmj Tribalism is simply the human tendency to form in-groups, and is based in psychology. It doesn't necessarily have any relationship to politics directly.
It's very easy to take offense rather than listen to a viewpoint opposed to a personal belief. God forbid you are persuaded and have to admit you previously held a flawed belief. Ego is the most destructive and self-defeating human factor in existence and we are bringing up people to worship only their opinions.
*_Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason toward my country._* ~ Patrick Henry *_Justice will only exist where those not effected by injustice are filled with the same amount of indignation as those offended._* ~ Plato *_In a free society, standards of public morality can be measured only by whether physical coercion ~ violence against persons or property ~ occurs. There is no right not to be offended by words, actions or symbols._* ~ Richard E. Sincere, Jr. *_Nobody has the right to not be offended._* ~ Salman Rushdie *_I'm as against restricting access to drugs as I am to burning books. It offends me in the same way._* ~ Terence McKenna *_If ever a man is to achieve anything like dignity, it can happen only if superior men are given absolute freedom to think what they want to think and say what they want to say._* ~ H.L. Mencken *_We always plan too much and always think too little. We resent a call to thinking and hate unfamiliar argument that does not tally with what we already believe or would like to believe._* ~ Joseph A. Schumpeter *_People don't have ideas. Ideas have people._* ~ Carl Jung _We cannot change _*_anything_*_ until we _*_accept_*_ it. Condemnation does not liberate, it _*_oppresses._* ~ Carl Jung *_Thinking_*_ is difficult,.. that's why most people _*_judge._* ~ Carl Jung _Where _*_love rules,_*_ there is no will to power, and where _*_power_*_ predominates, love is lacking. The one is the _*_shadow_*_ of the other._ ~ Carl Jung *_[W]hen a group of people make something sacred, the members of the cult lose the ability to think clearly about it. Morality binds and blinds._* ~ Jonathan Haidt, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion *_When you hear someone criticize a policy on the other side, that's fine. But when you start hearing motive-mongering and demonization, stand up to it just as you would if it were something that was racist or sexist. If we avoid the demonization, disagreements can be positive._* ~ Jonathan Haidt Whenever someone believes they have nothing to learn from the other,.. they must necessarily regard the other as less than fully human. *Who is going to be scapegoated next?* _Anyone who dares to suppose they may think for themselves,.. _*_and to then be allowed to share their thoughts with others._* Either the *Heckler's Veto* can stand,.. or *Civilization* can stand,.. *_but not both at the same time._* *Libertarians:* _Diligently plotting to take over the World and leave you alone._ _While Liberty is never _*_Utopian,_*_ it is always _*_Melioristic,_* but that can *Never* be good enough for the _Woke Left,_ and so the world *_Burns!!?_* *_Defending my liberal values has become a conservative position._* ~ Dave Rubin
Identity politics is individualisim circa 1100 ad. Eventually they will figure it out again. Hopfully it wont take another 500 years. Judging by the rate of advance I'd say we are 1000 years out at the least. Progressives regressing human advancement since the 1890s.
It's not "the people" who are causing this division. It's divide and conquer. Special interests want a 50/50 split in political parties, because it maximizes their political influence.
Have I ever heard good identity politics? Must be a loooooooooong time ago. 2 nd wave feminism and desegregation. That was the sixties. Gay mariagge later. Atlfter that it turned to shit.
No, identity politics is bad. End of the story. We humans discovered over the last 2000 years - after many experiments, especially in Europe - that the INDIVIDUAL should be the CORE of our value and legal systems, the BUILDING BLOCK of our hierarchies, the only entity that can be responsable for any actions and the only entity that has rights, which the state is obliged to guarantee. "Judge a man not by XXX, but by the content of his character." is a brief summary of individualism, which is inspired by MLK.
I'm a JP fan myself, but I do think he's missing something there. He is most prone to slipping up when people ask him about the Civil Rights movement. What made that righteous and what we have now insidious? I think it's exactly what this person is talking about. The social justice movement is about dividing people into their small groups and using the fissures that creates to gain power. The Civil Rights Movement did the opposite. Instead of dividing us into the narrowest possible groups with the intent of causing division, people like Martin Luther King took people that had divided themselves by their group identity and grouped them into the vast shared identity we have as Americans and beyond that human beings. I believe that form of identity politics is safe because it leaves no one out to blame or persecute. Without that to drive the politics of resentment it ceses to be a tool useable by those who might use identity politics to gain power.
@@Mouse2379 I'm not a JP fan, but I have realized the value of the enlightenment and ideas of classical liberals. The ideas of Karl Popper, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Immanuel Kant, Thomas Jefferson and Co. in my opinion do actually make sense. I mention Karl Popper because of his crucial falsifiability criterium for hypotheses: Marx and Engels sound good, they're appealing, as race-biology (eugenics) was appealing back then to the germans, but all these hypotheses are worthless since they fail the falsifiability-test. And yes, we can go semantic: I think there is only one identity with which we can play identity politics, and this group / identity is called _the individual_
Ideally it wouldn't be, because everyone has an motivating identity but we still need to act supporting towards each other in order to reduce conflict.
@@DMOTAMNB I need no nation state I need to be taken care of until I can return the favour on as large a scale as possible. Nation states are a good system to facilitate this and others have been worse.
What is it called when you speak up about police brutality which targets particular classes of people more than others? What if class is put upon you externally by the way you're treated? People that want to silence "identity politics" are also censors. If speaking up about the actions of others is "identity politics" in some situations but not others, then using it is a kind of survival for some.
I miss 2 years ago when a video like this could be made. All the comments are 2 years old too. I'm scared. I'm mad. I hope not everyone here suddenly worships anyone who is obsessed with identity politics.
Hmm... Something is wrong here. The first sentence in the description box: "Why free thought has died on university campuses" - lack of specificity and, to support itself, buries the conclusion as a hidden unstated major premise. If you said this: "Why free thought has died on *some* university campuses" - you might have a point. You're right about identity politics / one being healthy and one not. Well put. The "common identity/enemy" problem is right wing in origin. The extremes from the left are a response to that. The extremes of the left are demonstrably as bad, I grant that. Bottom line is: you can't fix the problem by treating the symptoms, and two wrongs don't make a right. There is a preponderance of evidence that trying to navigate a dominance hierarchy using reason fails to solve these kinds of problems because dominance hierarchies are not based in rational discourse/reason. They're based in a limbic-based, naturalistic fallacy and *argumentum ad baculum* So what else are people supposed to do? When talking to you about your abusive tendencies results in more abuse, do you think taking it up with you as if your'e somehow reasonable is on the table anymore? What would you have someone do? Respond with *stronger* force? It has happened, and it will probably happen again. This won't be good for any of us. The problem of self-editing speech is not exclusive to university campuses. The political right is crying about people standing up to them and calling them out for their bigoted, hateful speech, in an effort to educate them about how to cooperate. That's almost all this is, and all it has ever been.
Speaking up for the marginalized and being inclusive, are good standards. However, you can take a good thing to an extreme. Being so inclusive, that you can make up any number of marginalized groups and set them against each other, in the name of punching up, pits people against each other. It's a great diversion, using the language of progressive politics in a divide and conquer strategy.
Identity politics is the most basic visceral type of bias. As such it breeds mob mentality, which quickly leads to hysteria and witch hunt type behaviour. (As seen time after time over the last few years.) Group identity based on skin colour, religion, sexuality or nationality should not be primary factor or focus. They need to be considered, sure, but individuals rights and shared cultural values come first. Shared group identity does not equate to shared values. This is where intersectionality is massively flawed. Treat individuals as individuals. Freedom of speech trumps hurt feelings every time. To conflate words with actions is the beginning of the end when it comes to individual human rights. If commonly held perceptions move too far to the left. Then tyranny and thought police follow soon after. The right isn’t your enemy, the right brings order, prosperous societies and personal freedom and equality of opportunity. The left brings big government, less freedom and the massively flawed ideology of equality of outcome.
i have a left hand, and i have a right hand. I am neither left nor right. A pity that some people think that there are only two choices - you are either my friend or my enemy. So stupid.
I love Jonathan Hait, but the mistake both him and Jordan Peterson make is that their ideas are predicated on the notion that we start with a multi-ethic nation platform. That may be the case in America but Europe and elsewhere is much more ethno-centric. And we are still very much homogenous ethnic states. Japan being the most obvious example but still to a degree the ancient European states like Britain, France and Italy. The intelligent and reasonable argument made in this video does not work for us when we want to maintain our heritage, culture, birthright and identity.
James Wilkerson we’re told that that automation will kill of most mundane jobs. And I think we’re probably capable of having more kids if the environment and incentive is there. It’s hardly something that’s immutable.
If you remove the ability to report anonymously that's taking free speech too far. A university campus isn't the outside world this is a place with rules you just need to be sensible and not punish for silly things which has happened in some cases. How much of that though is the media making things up or exaggerating to try to hack away at progress with equal opportunities and rights I'm not sure, probably a significant amount is about that.
No. Only division that should exist is we->humans and i->a person. Organisations based on anything else are the root of most conflicts. People when they spend time in a group, that contains only people that agree with them, start to consider everyone else an aggressor. Also when people have a group of others, with the same worldview, around they are less likely to find flaws in their ideas. (So much people agree, I must be right then) Group believes that they are more right than anyone outside. This kind of groups can force upon others illogical changes that benefit no one in the long term.
