You made it a yes answer which created this discussion. Perhaps it’s some kind of postmodern thing. It’s good to finally get a straightish answer.
Right, perhaps I need to find a better name to describe it, which is my fault for not being descriptive enough or precise enough. Some of the other words used to describe it are misleading too for similar reasons.
“far left identity politics”
Are you seriously not getting this, or having a laugh?
I’ll give you an example as a parting gift. As I said before, its an attempt to obtain an “equal” outcome (not to be confused with opportunity). There are even merits to the argument, so you can’t outright say this is completely wrong, it’s more nuanced. Plus the people that support it, I don’t think are bad people they honestly think they are doing the right thing. But haven’t thought about the full consequences, impacts and negative aspects to it.
So, for example, Affirmative action
Google gives this dictionary description.
(in the context of the allocation of resources or employment) the practice or policy of favouring individuals belonging to groups known to have been discriminated against previously; positive discrimination.
I’m not getting how I’ve quoted what you posted and now you’re saying I’m not getting this. I’m certainly not having a laugh. Bemusement, perhaps.
Of course, all interaction is nuanced. However, there comes a time when one has to back one’s words.
Well, if you are sincere, I will continue with the logical line of thought that comes from “positive” discrimination I brought up earlier. For someone to be a beneficiary from “positive” discrimination, they must have been discriminated against previously.
This creates the The Grievance Industry. Bill O’Reily makes an attempt to explain it here and it is most certainly intricately connected to identity politics. Step by step is the best way but let me know if you don’t see where this is going or disagree with what is being stated.
You’ll struggle to find anyone more opposed to identity politics than I am. You can post as many criticisms of identity politics as you wish - I’m almost certainly going to agree with all of them.
My single point remains that identity politics are not far left politics, as you stated earlier in the thread. My position is identity politics are centrist. It seems clear that you are unwilling for some reason to respond directly to this.
Not at all, but perhaps the issue is that identity politics can be used for reasonable centrist positions and it can be used for the most radical far left/right type of politics. Would you like me to give an example?
edit/ Have you heard of Alinsky Rules for Radicals?
Identity politics can be extended to all human interaction, but that makes the term pointless. This could well be a good thing.
However, if we take identity politics as it is currently defined then it is not far left. Why can’t you just back down and admit you got it wrong? I do it when I fuck up.
It’s not only far left, its far right. Think of the Nazi’s and the Jews.
1 Like
I’m only a Nazi about apostrophes.
We’re going nowhere here, which I feel is appropriate in any discussion about identity politics.
Good night, sir.
1 Like
Nazis were socialists. Don’t forget your horseshoe theory.
If you’re wondering why hard leftists look ever more like Nazis in practice, this is why. This is what they always were.
Oh pleeease! 
Can we keep that particular kind of nonsense in IP? This thread here is for neo-Jungian nonsense! 
I’m guessing you didn’t watch the video that Tempo posted (as usual).
It’s 57:56 long. When is the relevant part?
1 Like
Put it on in the background while you make diner or are folding clothes or something. There’s plenty of neo-Jungian nonsense to please even you.
Oh, that’s what I assumed. But you seemed to be suggesting it was going to explain where Bernie fits between the classical Marxists and the KR, which would be far more amusing. 
It’s got nothing to do with Bernie and economics. 
Why am I even responding when you haven’t watched the video being discussed and have no clue to the context with which the reference was used.
I listened to the whole thing this morning. The Boyce guy grates, but I came away really liking Pluckrose (fwiw).
I’d be interested to know if others here agree with Pluckrose when she said (paraphrasing) that postmodernist thought came about when the push for civil rights (after winning almost all legal battles) ran into diminishing returns in 1969, went mostly dark in the 1970s, and in the 1980s morphed into a new movement to change attitudes instead. Identity politics is the equivalent of the Kalashnikov rifle, an old but tried and true political weapon employed to that end - forcing societal attitudes to change - ever since (my metaphor, not Pluckrose’s).