So why do so many people believe that "identity politics" is not a valid argument?

Can someone explain to me why identity politics should or should not be ignored as an argument?

Other urls found in this thread:

jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Identity politics is not the problem.
There are differences and in the interest of preserving those differences, people should keep to their in-groups.

It's mostly the way identity politics has been presented.
Through the Postmodern, neo-Marxist lens, identity politics devolves into oppressor/oppressed paradigms across racial, religious, and sexual lines.
This is where identity politics falters. When you frame everything in the neo-Marxist sense and not as separatist/preservationist ideals then you begin to create nonsense identities and social structures that have no basis in reality. For example, transgender advocates, BLM, White Privilege, etc


Sargon is a faggot.

I really wish Sargon and Jarrad Hu-white Taylor would debate I believe Sargon would cry

Politics is about people so there's no such thing as non-identity politics.

Basically.
Throughout all of history, groups of people seek to empower their in-group or tribe.
The idea that humanity has risen above these inherent natures is firmly rooted in 20th century Postmodern theory.
Postmodern theory seeks to deny truth, reality, and the nature of man.
Since there is no truth, it does not matter if what one says is false, there is no right or wrong, nothing is better or worse, and as a result everything is equivalent.

because its a mental disorder similar to schizo you just get rekt by life once you say that little truth it literally is a mental disorder and different from being gay

Because it isn't an argument. If you claim representation is important you need to justify why.

who do Sup Forumspedes hate Sargon all of a sudden? He is the leader of the altright, thus our leader.
I also noticed that you guys don't praise KEK anymore like we do on the_donald

Sargon is a flagrant Postmodernist.
He would deny truth and reality to maintain his utopian, egalitarian world views.
He's also not that clever because he seemingly has never examined his own convictions lately.

>Through the Postmodern, neo-Marxist lens, identity politics devolves into oppressor/oppressed paradigms across racial, religious, and sexual lines.

Yea, and now you're going to tell me about how the (((((((((jews))))))))))) are keeping the white man down.

We Wuz Aryans N Shieeet

No, the argument is: this is our land, occupied by our nation, therefor we do not want influence in our country by people who are not a part of the nation.

>egalitarian world views.
The constitution makes us all equal. Egalitarianism is the founding principle of our country

This is the most genuine kill yourself I have ever given on this board.

I wish that would happen. Too ad he's too much of a cuck to actually debate anyone smarter than him. He never pokes his head out from his liberal, egalitarian shell to actually test his beliefs. And he's too egotistic and smug to concede anything if he would debate a nationalist anyway.

>lately
Try never. I don't think I've ever seen him examine the fundamental problems of liberalism. He only ever debates people like Destiny or sjw's, never anyone smarter than him.

Except the founder explicitly specified "White Men of good character".
They did not allow Irish or Italians in either and considered Germans "boorish".
I'm not saying people are unequal here, I'm saying the founding Fathers understood the importance of a racially and culturally homogenous society.
There were Modernists, enlightenment thinkers and they were brilliant because, even before numerical evidence was presentable like it is today, that it would be important that America become a European ethnostate with the only allowances being African slaves and foreign workers.

>people should keep to their in-groups

Yes, but what happens to the people who are shunned from their group but can function in another group? I'm not saying people should mix or keep to their own kind, I'm just saying that people should just do what they want to do. I doubt you'd see many of them leave their in-group voluntarily without an serious economic reason to.

>muh constitution
>egalitarianism is a founding principle of the country
Humans are inherently inequal, and the founders knew this. Why else would they restrict voting to landowning males? Democracy doesn't work unless throw out egalitarianism, you must restrict the vote to those who know how to vote. The only people who should be able to vote are high iq, employed, landowners who have served in the military and have a family in the country. While the founders didn't have all these criteria, it's certainly better than any system today.

They restricted it to landowning males because this was a family society, not an individualist society.

You're right, but again that wasn't the whole reason.
The founding fathers were products of the enlightenment period and were firm modernists, they believed that through human cognition we could come to know the objective reality we live in better.
This perspective that shaped the US was even before the counter-enlightenment in Germany.

So with that in mind, when they see Africans, do you think they consider them equals?
These subsaharan Africans had achieved nothing in their entire existence and the writings of the founders reflect them putting 2+2 together, that these people were of inferior intellect.
Now this was before IQ testing and G(general intelligence) could be measured, but they understood this based on what they observed.

They denied these less intelligent peoples the right to vote because voting was a responsibility to one's countrymen and in order to avoid squandering or abusing it, they chose to only let people who were intelligent enought to amass capital(land), and through this capital these white men were designated as having a stake in the well being of the US.

Being a family based society is part of it. The real reason behind all the criteria I listed is so that the voter has a stake in the future of the nation. They own land, so if their vote crashes the real estate market they suffer for it. They are on the draft, so if they vote for a war they have to fight in it. They have a family, so if they fuck up the society in general their children have to suffer. They have high iq so that they can know the political structure and how it will affect their land, children, and wellbeing. Each criteria supports the next, and so long as the voters are prevented from voting away the criteria (which can be something as simple as a static constitution that the voters cannot change) then the democracy might be able to work.

truth and the greater good trumps selfishness

Because they want us to lose!

Source? Where is that graph from?

The Evolutionary Dominance of Ethnocentric Cooperation

>>jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html

its a computer simulation from a grid where each square has a particular "behavior"

I'm shocked to see this posted here.
When I first saw it, and read the speculation for why these were the results it completely shifted my understanding current race politics.

Because it works.

You can replace the 4 types with jews, whites, niggers and kebabs.

>Traitorous strategies fare even worse than selfish ones because traitors are exploited by ethnocentrics across group boundaries in the same manner as humanitarians are, via unreciprocated cooperation.
white liberals btfo

777

That's an excellent paper.
It's so basic too.
It uses clear language and observable scientific fact to back a theory.
Been reading a lot of nonsense social science journals recently, so it's refreshing.

In my opinion is not that is not a valid argument, it is just dangerous. Once we retrieve to the tribal form of organization, it is very dificult to go back to the national identity. Of course, if other people push me to a group to be oppressed, then I would have no choice but the defend my group.

this is a good point lad. idpol is as natural as anything else, however, its current manifestation is basically marxism

>egalitarian
isnt he a race realist?

The only thing that makes it dangerous today was the abandonment of reason and ethnic identities in order to pursue equality and egalitarian goals.
The products of this abandonment of reason is demonstrated in the form of identity-less mixed race peoples. The current system of identity politics does not offer them solace as they are of a completely different race than tooth of their parents and ancestors.

With the reawakening of the enlightenment idea of maintaining and preserving races(for the sake of true diversity on earth) we run into the not so humanitarian proposition of excluding people from the ingroups based on choices made a generation ago.

You had me until "the way they use it is bad. Ours is good." Fuck you.

Because there's literally no actual good argument for not treating people like individuals, based on their own individual actions.

People are individuals, not identities. You're fucking retarded.

No, if he is he doesn't care about it.
From what I understand he has bluntly ignored statistics regarding voting patterns based on Race, as well as General Intelligence and it's correlation to one's success in life.

When faced by a (((group))) you must deal with a (((group))).

But then who will be my scapegoat? I'm not going to focus on my own problems, asshole.

IDK why you're getting hate. This is by far the funniest post I've read all day

JUST TRAPPED ON EARTH CUNT

A more meta question might be: Why do we give a shit about this e-drama anyway? Sargon was unemployed, Kraut and Cuck was unemployed, but so was Woes. It's all a glorified talkshow to make some shekels for people who had nothing better to do and which leads nowhere, solves no problems. Might aswell rage about some shit you saw on Oprah.

>answering your own questions

You don't see the difference here?
One is creating an oppressor/oppressed paradigm in everything which is Kosher according to Marxism, while the other seeks to maintain genetic lineage.
One is based on the Postmodern perspective pioneered by the likes of Derrida, Hegel(unwittingly), Kant(unwittingly) etc
While the other perspective is based upon the Modernist perspective which believes that human cognition can reach an understanding of reality.
The reality we observe is one of Darwinism, but ascribed to more than the individual. We see its reach to tribal and ethnic groups because the success of many with similar genes ensures a better chance of survival should one fail.
The number one truth in life is that we must try to pass on our genes. Life desires life, we come out of the womb kicking, screaming, and gasping for air because we desire life.
No social engineering needed.

>dealing with large groups
>treating a large group like an individual

Ya dun goofed, user

>What is primate social ritualization realized within the medium of the internet

Every generation has this shit. At least we get it from our living room. You used to have to go to the shithouse walls for this kind of nonsense/entertainment.

This.

The entire "vlogging" industry is a waste of time, and shouldn't be encouraged by serious people. I don't care what side of the divide you're on, don't waste my time with your "thoughts".

A week spent listening to Bowden would teach you far more than any of these people could ever hope to.

Collectivism is a disease

Let's say a large collective attacks your neighbour, but says that if you leave them alone they will not attack anyone else.

Do you form a collective to fight them, or be individuals and let them do as they wish, and let the victim defend himself as best he can?

We democracy now

That's not what I'm talking about, bong, but since you brought it up, identity politics isn't even capable of dealing with outsiders as individuals, which makes it less flexible.

If a bunch of people actively doing something, you can reasonable treat those people as a group, because they've each individually made choices. That's not the same as stupid shit like "all men/white people/whatever are evil bigots who's eyes shoot rape lasers etc."

Have I seen you post this already? If it is a reflection of yourself: you are trapped here forever.

Defecator, may everything turn out okay, so that you can leave this place

You probably have. I've been trying to convince Sup Forums to stop wasting so much effort on these people but they always defend them.

I remember when everyone was downloading tons of videos from youtube, and no one thought to get any David Irving.