Current Affairs The New Middle

[Prevenger17]

Regressive identity politics would be the game being played by the far right

It's a game played by the far both imo

 

[dholliday]

Discrimination, while not always easy to identify, has markers in the use of certain words, the employment of certain actions or patterns.

Aye, it's all in the intent. When I don't use "zhee" to refer to a woman with a penis, I'm not intending to discriminate against that person, I'm just choosing not to use scene-language (as I'm not part of/interested in that scene). If she wants to be referred to as a he, then I don't see an issue there. If you respect that person then why not? We do it with Bradley/Chelsea Manning now. And even for those who don't, it's not necessarily discrimination. Alleged employment-bullying or hate-crimes would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, but people casually calling Chelsea Manning or Caitlin Jenner a he may still do so if they want. There's something to be said for a thick skin protecting against the more harmless elements life throws at you.

For the more harmful elements, there is the law. But once we use the law to also protect against innocuous elements, then we're on our way to what we often refer to as a Nanny-State. I don't think this is desirable. I hope not, anyway.

 

[verreauxi]

It might not be, but it could be. It's a unique movement that comes with prescribed speech, and we haven't really seen that before in equality movements. I feel like we're both repeating ourselves a lot here, but I can't stress enough how important it is to note he is an academic. He gets barracked by very extreme left wing people regularly, often shouted down to the point of silence, so he bears witness the potential results of this far more often than you or I. There's one video where he's speaking to small group outside a university and he gets harassed by a woman with a video camera asking him repeatedly why he won't use her pronoun. It really is that unhinged.

Discrimination, while not always easy to identify, has markers in the use of certain words, the employment of certain actions or patterns. With Gender-fluid movements, there is a vague new form of discrimination which can be rooted in not using certain words, not employing certain actions or patterns. It's hard to foresee how that might manifest itself in future and, hopefully, it will be as small and localised as you're saying. But it's not nothing and, if I was in his shoes, I would want to see that potential addressed in any legislation.

I agree, he gets attacked by people a lot, and these attacks are due to him simply voicing an opinion (ham-fistedly IMO) which is not civil discourse.

 

[verreauxi]

Aye, it's all in the intent. When I don't use "zhee" to refer to a woman with a penis, I'm not intending to discriminate against that person, I'm just choosing not to use scene-language (as I'm not part of/interested in that scene).

Law or no law, I personally have no problem in referring to anyone by what they want to be referred to. God knows, I've partied with enough fry-head hippies at Dead concerts and outdoor music festivals who wanted me to call them "Crystal Fairy" or "Moonbeam", and spent summers in Alaska with "Mariposa" and "Gaelen" (not their real names). If that's what they wanted to be at that time, I'm happy to contribute to that identity for them. Never bothered me.

But I don't think zhee is a "scene" to them, it's just what they prefer to hear.

 

[dholliday]

But I don't think zhee is a "scene" to them, it's just what they prefer to hear.

That's the same thing. Like Moonbeam & Crystal Fairy. And it's all fine for those who want to use those terms, it can be a fun thing to do. But once it's quasi-enforced, it becomes less of a fun thing to contemplate.

Saying that, a nickname is a different concept altogether to a gendered pronoun.

 

[ilikecheese]

I don't have time to give a rebuttal to each of you @dholliday, @tsubaki, and @Prevenger17.

Based on a quick read I though I will say thay the words regressive is being twisted to fit an agenda. I think those from marginalized communities would wholeheartedly disagree with you. Whether it be women, minorities, LGBTQ, or any other group of people who are treated differently BECAUSE of the group they belong to, it is not regressive to fight for their equal rights.

It would be like saying women's suffrage is a regressive idea or the Civil Rights Act a regressive policy.

I am more than willing to discuss the merits of whether or not progressive ideas are good or bad or whatever but calling them regressive is twisting the word.

 

[dholliday]

Based on a quick read I though I will say thay the words regressive is being twisted to fit an agenda. I think those from marginalized communities would wholeheartedly disagree with you. Whether it be women, minorities, LGBTQ, or any other group of people who are treated differently BECAUSE of the group they belong to, it is not regressive to fight for their equal rights.

It would be like saying women's suffrage is a regressive idea or the Civil Rights Act a regressive policy.

I am more than willing to discuss the merits of whether or not progressive ideas are good or bad or whatever but calling them regressive is twisting the word.

Wrong.

Women didn't have equal rights back then, and neither did black people. Hence the fight for them was morally (and legally) justified.

Women, minorities and whatever LGBTQ are now have equal rights. Hence 'fighting' for them is a regressive idea. That fight has long been won.

What you are referring to is the fight for mainstream acceptance. That's an altogether different fight and has no clear moral argument, because it depends on how far acceptance goes. When the fight for acceptance is framed as being a fight for equal rights, then it becomes a regressive fight, for we are going back in time. Except the equal rights are already here, so what are they fighting for? More rights than equal?

Four legs good, two legs better.

 

[ilikecheese]

Wrong.

Women didn't have equal rights back then, and neither did black people. Hence the fight for them was morally (and legally) justified.

Women, minorities and whatever LGBTQ are now have equal rights. Hence 'fighting' for them is a regressive idea. That fight has long been won.

What you are referring to is the fight for mainstream acceptance. That's an altogether different fight and has no clear moral argument, because it depends on how far acceptance goes. When the fight for acceptance is framed as being a fight for equal rights, then it becomes a regressive fight, for we are going back in time. Except the equal rights are already here, so what are they fighting for?

So gay marriage is regressive?

 

[dholliday]

So gay marriage is regressive?

Gay marriage itself isn't regressive, as we haven't had that before. The arguments pro/contra are done now as that fight has been won. Civil Partnership/Union is also still in place, so now we have a situation where a gay couple have more partnership options than a straight couple.

As I asked earlier, what are women, minorities and gay/trans now fighting for? More rights or more acceptance?

 

[Tubey]

Centrism has always and will always be a device where those on the right seek to split up everyone else.

Or maybe, just maybe, it describes people who find reasonable points of view from multiple sources, regardless of who they are or what party they're from?

Instead of happy clapping along with whatever tripe pours out of May's or Corbyn's mouth on any given day.

 

[tsubaki]

Or maybe, just maybe, it describes people who find reasonable points of view from multiple sources, regardless of who they are or what party they're from?

Instead of happy clapping along with whatever tripe pours out of May's or Corbyn's mouth on any given day.

I think that is what they tell themselves at night, certainly.

 

[ilikecheese]

Gay marriage itself isn't regressive, as we haven't had that before. The arguments pro/contra are done now as that fight has been won. Civil Partnership/Union is also still in place, so now we have a situation where a gay couple have more partnership options than a straight couple.

As I asked earlier, what are women, minorities and gay/trans now fighting for? More rights or more acceptance?

So some identity politics are progressive.

I would say equal application of the law, equal treatment in the workplace, and probably other things.

Super busy today so I don't have time to really respond.

 

[dholliday]

So some identity politics are progressive.

If something isn't regressive, it doesn't automatically make it progressive. Unless one is an either/or-thinker, then it probably is.

I would say equal application of the law, equal treatment in the workplace, and probably other things.

The first is a morally-correct fight as it's about equal rights. There's much debate if this is still an issue today.

But "equal treatment in the workplace" is a relative thing. If it means to not illegally discriminate, then of course it's fighting the good fight. If it means equal pay/opportunites then that's a grey area as it depends on the individual's performance and the requirements of the company.

For example: I earn more than a female colleague although she's been with the firm longer and we do the same job to the same quality. Is that fair or not? It doesn't sound fair, although maybe I negotiated a better deal. That's sometimes the way it is. The female colleague doesn't have a legal right to bump my pay down or bump hers up. That's not how a free-market society functions.

I think we should stop 'fighting' for things, and start working for things. We fought the big fights, and won. Now we work to improve the rest. The words we choose are important when considering such things, for it frames the emotional attitude. I think "fight" was right in the 60's and before, but "work" is better now.

Super busy today so I don't have time to really respond.

Whenever you have time, mate. Always enjoy your replies even if we rarely agree

 

[Prevenger17]

I don't have time to give a rebuttal to each of you @dholliday, @tsubaki, and @Prevenger17.

Based on a quick read I though I will say thay the words regressive is being twisted to fit an agenda. I think those from marginalized communities would wholeheartedly disagree with you. Whether it be women, minorities, LGBTQ, or any other group of people who are treated differently BECAUSE of the group they belong to, it is not regressive to fight for their equal rights.

It would be like saying women's suffrage is a regressive idea or the Civil Rights Act a regressive policy.

I am more than willing to discuss the merits of whether or not progressive ideas are good or bad or whatever but calling them regressive is twisting the word.

Tbf Cheese, I haven't mentioned the word regressive, and am generally big on progressive ideas, whatever that even means. Myself and @verreauxi were just having a pretty specific debate amongst all the broad stroke stuff here.

Tbh, I'm happy for anyone to be or do whatever they want, provided there's no collateral harm to other living beings. I cringe when I hear or have to frame things as left or right, because I think they're utterly redundant terms that only serve to divide people into teams. I suspect our way of conceptualising sides means people, more often than not, form their opinions first and collect their arguments after.

 

[ilikecheese]

If something isn't regressive, it doesn't automatically make it progressive. Unless one is an either/or-thinker, then it probably is.




The first is a morally-correct fight as it's about equal rights. There's much debate if this is still an issue today.

But "equal treatment in the workplace" is a relative thing. If it means to not illegally discriminate, then of course it's fighting the good fight. If it means equal pay/opportunites then that's a grey area as it depends on the individual's performance and the requirements of the company.

For example: I earn more than a female colleague although she's been with the firm longer and we do the same job to the same quality. Is that fair or not? It doesn't sound fair, although maybe I negotiated a better deal. That's sometimes the way it is. The female colleague doesn't have a legal right to bump my pay down or bump hers up. That's not how a free-market society functions.

I think we should stop 'fighting' for things, and start working for things. We fought the big fights, and won. Now we work to improve the rest. The words we choose are important when considering such things, for it frames the emotional attitude. I think "fight" was right in the 60's and before, but "work" is better now.



Whenever you have time, mate. Always enjoy your replies even if we rarely agree

I think you object to the term progressive because you feel it has a positive connotation. Progressive and liberal are synonyms. For me regressive politics would be overturning something that has been given. Examples like trying to overturn Roe v Wade would be incredibly regressive. Trump has had very regressive policies on the environment as another example. His decision to end DACA was also regressive along with the entire repeal and replace rhetoric regarding healthcare. All examples of actual regressive politics.

Regarding equal pay. No problem with you or any person negotiating a better deal. However if those decisions are based on gender or race then yeah that's a problem. I can't speak for your country but there is systemic racism in my country.

So back to the point of equality. If you think by simply passing laws that make equality legal is the end all to be all of a fight, you are mistaken. You basically shrugged off gay marriage as a battle won. In America it was a 43 year legal fight starting in 1972 and ending in 2015.

Is a gay couple treated with the same equality in society? You want to make things about acceptance...tolerance because you have to, rather than societal equality.

Common law marriage is legal under the law for straight folks too btw.