Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The End of Identity Liberalism

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 73 posts

Re: The End of Identity Liberalism

#61

Post by m_mueller »

nickbauman wrote: post #60
m_mueller wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I truly think that if this thinking prevails, then liberalism in the US is doomed. Sorry to become preaching here, but for the love of science, stop caring about race, gender snd ethnicity so much, instead care about class . There are at least as many white folks with no means to get ahead than black folks - and we haven't yet considered the other major ethnic groups. What you should care about is the 'glass ceiling'…

I'm all for doing whatever works. But white people aren't getting arrested for being white. They aren't getting redlined for bad loans. They aren't having their schools having resources getting directed away from them because the student body us predominantly white. It doesn't just cleave along lines for some. It cleaves along matrices.

Tbh. it's hard for me to imagine how the government can fail so hard as to have racist resource allocation for education. How hard can it be? You have state level funds for public schools right? Divide by nunber of pupils, have some budget controlling, done. How can resources even be redirected, if not for everyone in the state? Who's deciding this? Are they relying on sponsorship? If that's the case then get rid of that and raise taxes and public funds accordingly. I firmly believe that schools need to be egalitarian, everyone deserves the same resources and care at the start of his/her life, with the only exception being special care students.

Re: The End of Identity Liberalism

#62

Post by throwanem »

grzm wrote: post #58
throwanem wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The moderators do sometimes unflag articles to foster discussion of controversial political topics, and they did so at least once in the immediate wake of the election. I don't think they have to do so every time, and in general, the quality of discourse here is sufficiently high that it's hard to make a strong case against the way they do their work. I agree that this article might have been worth letting spend long…

I agree with everything you say here, and you're well-spoken and civil, someone I would be happy to engage with. Right up until your last two sentences. Why are those necessary? What do you they add to your message? How welcome would you feel if you read something like this? When conservatives feel themselves open to genuine dialogue, we'll be here. In the meantime, they may render themselves as irrelevant as they pl…

This is an entirely reasonable and meritorious criticism. I appreciate it.

Having been on the receiving end of that kind of contempt for rather a long time, it is sometimes difficult to resist the temptation to give vent to the resulting resentment, especially at a time when those from whom such contempt has so often come are already reeling from a generally similar sort of backlash. One feels a certain urge to get one's own back while the getting is good.

But temptation is sent to be overcome, and there is no excuse for actually indulging in such unworthy behavior. I'm sorry for having done so. I'll try to do better next time.

Re: The End of Identity Liberalism

#63

Post by throwanem »

internaut wrote: post #59
jshevek wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I definitely shouldn't have said 'coined', since coining usually refers to the first time that the term is used in a particular way. I have no idea if white nationalists coined the term. I meant to say: 'brought the term to a level of prevalence such that their definition for the word is the most common usage', but even with that watered-down concept of "coining", I don't even know for certain that this is correct -…

Spencer is not a white supremacist (he says) but a white nationalist. He was the one who coined the term alt-right. I'm positive Milo is a patriotic Yiannopoulos Supremacist. I don't think either of the two would be eligible to join Aryan Brotherhood or any group of genuine article white supremacists. I think the distinction between 'nationalist' and 'supremacist' should be sharply defined. Mixing the terms is like u…

> I'm positive Milo is a patriotic Yiannopoulos Supremacist.

Oh, to be sure! All gay men are narcissistic to some degree, and Milo I think more than most. He uses the trait, though, rather than letting it use him, and he's been doing God's work since before it was cool.

> Note the paradox of nationalists working together across borders, classical nationalism is going meta.

Is that so paradoxical? History is replete with examples of nations allying for mutual benefit without dilution of anyone's sovereignty.

As far as in-group determination goes, I'm not sure I see why it can't be made to work on roughly the lines of the classical American model - that is, a privilege earned in exchange for bringing specific and substantial value. A lot of countries do this even today, usually under the rubric of some kind of points system. Such schemes have been slandered in the US under the name of "immigration quotas", but, again, this has occurred as a matter of political expediency - one cannot, after all, import captive voters by the million in the presence of such a system. It worked for us for many years - those of my ancestors who weren't transportees earned their citizenship that way. It works for many countries today. It could very easily be made to work for us again.

> I think the distinction between 'nationalist' and 'supremacist' should be sharply defined.

It is sharply defined. But in a political environment where nuance is anathema, no one pays the distinction much heed. Progressives equate the concepts for reasons of political utility, and their narrative has such hegemonic power that even rejecting this bogus prior for what it is takes some effort of reason and will. To try to convince anyone else on the matter is much harder still. (And ethnic nationalism, or supremacism, or whatever you want to call it, complicates the issue still further by being for the most part a lot of damnfoolishness. What matters is culture, not race. Regarding the latter as metonymous of the former indicates a failure to have fully thought the matter through.)

Well. Their narrative had such hegemonic power, anyway. That's taken quite a blow in the last couple of weeks, and whatever else comes of a Trump presidency, that by itself strikes me as worthwhile. It won't be easy, I think, for anyone to unring that bell. My immediate concern is that we start working to reduce the breaches their quest for power has driven into our polity, rather than crowbarring them still wider. Notwithstanding Schumeresque tantrums about Toronto, we all still have to live with one another. That progressives have so forgotten this is all the more reason for us to bear it firmly in mind. Let us comport ourselves so as to earn the favorable judgment of history, and the rest will attend to itself. Let us do otherwise, and a generation from now our kids will be fighting the same damn war in the same damn trenches.

Re: The End of Identity Liberalism

#64

Post by mercer »

throwanem wrote: post #63
internaut wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spencer is not a white supremacist (he says) but a white nationalist. He was the one who coined the term alt-right. I'm positive Milo is a patriotic Yiannopoulos Supremacist. I don't think either of the two would be eligible to join Aryan Brotherhood or any group of genuine article white supremacists. I think the distinction between 'nationalist' and 'supremacist' should be sharply defined. Mixing the terms is like u…

> I'm positive Milo is a patriotic Yiannopoulos Supremacist. Oh, to be sure! All gay men are narcissistic to some degree, and Milo I think more than most. He uses the trait, though, rather than letting it use him, and he's been doing God's work since before it was cool. > Note the paradox of nationalists working together across borders, classical nationalism is going meta. Is that so paradoxical? History is replete w…

> Oh, to be sure! All gay men are narcissistic to some degree, and Milo I think more than most.

That's quite a bold statement. Can you elaborate more on this or provide some evidence (honest question, I'm not trying to get into an argument)?

Re: The End of Identity Liberalism

#65

Post by mercer »

kazagistar wrote: post #42
rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #4

To paraphrase a commenter on the Times, identities aren't a problem, liberalism isn't a problem, but combined they can mutate into a regressive form of political correctness, where the inability to move on from or ignore the identity politics (on either side!) grinds any form of debate or disagreement to a halt. Kinda like when that college professor (I forget the name) published a paper a while back showing a link b…

I'm just curious, how would you expect the warning to have been "heeded"? I think the problems surrounding single parents are pretty well accepted, but it is just difficult to find morally acceptable solutions for.

If it's more generally accepted that single-parenthood can cause problems for children, that general knowledge in itself might make couples more cautious about having children, or be more wary of separating if things don't work out.

Emphasis on might! I'm not saying there's an easy solution; I'm not even 100% sure that I agree with the assumptions.

What I do feel is that it's not a good idea to avoid discussing things because they're uncomfortable. At least not as much as we often seem to be doing. To some extent we have to be able to discuss sensitive things if we want to evolve/develop/progress as humanity.

Re: The End of Identity Liberalism

#66

Post by throwanem »

mercer wrote: post #64
throwanem wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm positive Milo is a patriotic Yiannopoulos Supremacist. Oh, to be sure! All gay men are narcissistic to some degree, and Milo I think more than most. He uses the trait, though, rather than letting it use him, and he's been doing God's work since before it was cool. > Note the paradox of nationalists working together across borders, classical nationalism is going meta. Is that so paradoxical? History is replete w…

> Oh, to be sure! All gay men are narcissistic to some degree, and Milo I think more than most. That's quite a bold statement. Can you elaborate more on this or provide some evidence (honest question, I'm not trying to get into an argument)?

> That's quite a bold statement.

Oh, I don't think so.

I don't have any n=20 psych undergrad studies to cite on the subject, but I do have a reasonable degree of firsthand experience with gay men, in bed and out, and it's that experience which gives me to espouse the conclusion you quoted. That conclusion is also not unique to me, or for that matter even original; the man from whom I first heard it, quite a few years ago now, is not only himself gay and much more widely experienced than I am, he's also a great deal more intelligent and insightful, possessing a widely accomplished intellect and the postnominal letters to prove it. He and I have disagreed, whether seriously or for fun, on almost everything - but nothing I've seen gives me reason to doubt this claim in particular.

I get the impression that "narcissistic" in this usage might be read as some kind of denigration, as though I'm alleging that all gay men have a personality disorder. This is not the case. If anything, I think it's just that the focus of our sexual interest, specifically on people who much more closely resemble us than is true for straight men, tends to intensify what I might describe as the narcissistic aspect of male sexuality in general - and, again, the word "narcissistic" doesn't imply a disorder. You don't need to fall in love with your reflection to find worthwhile looking in a mirror every now and again.

Re: The End of Identity Liberalism

#67

Post by mercer »

throwanem wrote: post #66
mercer wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Oh, to be sure! All gay men are narcissistic to some degree, and Milo I think more than most. That's quite a bold statement. Can you elaborate more on this or provide some evidence (honest question, I'm not trying to get into an argument)?

> That's quite a bold statement. Oh, I don't think so. I don't have any n=20 psych undergrad studies to cite on the subject, but I do have a reasonable degree of firsthand experience with gay men, in bed and out, and it's that experience which gives me to espouse the conclusion you quoted. That conclusion is also not unique to me, or for that matter even original; the man from whom I first heard it, quite a few years…

Thanks for the answer. FWIW I appreciate your contributions and even though we probably disagree on many things, I really like the way you're going about things in here.

Re: The End of Identity Liberalism

#68

Post by throwanem »

mercer wrote: post #67
throwanem wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's quite a bold statement. Oh, I don't think so. I don't have any n=20 psych undergrad studies to cite on the subject, but I do have a reasonable degree of firsthand experience with gay men, in bed and out, and it's that experience which gives me to espouse the conclusion you quoted. That conclusion is also not unique to me, or for that matter even original; the man from whom I first heard it, quite a few years…

Thanks for the answer. FWIW I appreciate your contributions and even though we probably disagree on many things, I really like the way you're going about things in here.

You are most welcome, and thank you very much for your kind words!

Re: The End of Identity Liberalism

#69

Post by Kalium »

throwanem wrote: post #57
jshevek wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can tell people that they're an enfranchised in-group... This is not (and should not be) very meaningful for the individual.

Many disagree. Consider the possibility that they might not be wrong in so doing.

You're right! Many people rightly consider this very relevant to the lives of individuals. This is something that should always be considered.

Yet, the issue remains - if you tell someone that they are an enfranchised member of an in-group and their lived experience seems to contradict that, two things are likely to happen. First, they will tend to favor their lived experience over your carefully considered claims. Second, they will tend to discount and disregard anything further you might say, as you have damaged your credibility by invalidating their lived experiences.

So, please, consider the possibility that what one expects to be meaningful to a person's life and what that person considers meaningful to a person's life may differ in potentially significant ways.

Re: The End of Identity Liberalism

#70

Post by throwanem »

Kalium wrote: post #69
throwanem wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many disagree. Consider the possibility that they might not be wrong in so doing.

You're right! Many people rightly consider this very relevant to the lives of individuals. This is something that should always be considered. Yet, the issue remains - if you tell someone that they are an enfranchised member of an in-group and their lived experience seems to contradict that, two things are likely to happen. First, they will tend to favor their lived experience over your carefully considered claims. S…

Sorry, I wasn't clear. My intent was precisely in accord with what you say, and I appreciate you clarifying the point in the way which I should have but did not.
Post reply on HN