On Identity Politics and Intersectionality (And why they should be regarded as a fallacy)
The one big mistake that Identity Politics (short: ID politics) and the principle of Intersectionality are based upon is: Them assume a group identity of people according to a certain body feature (e. g. skin color, sex, physical disability) or personality feature (e. g. religion, sexual orientation, nationality, cultural origin, political stance, mental handicaps), but which don’t exist in this collective manner as the two want to make believe. Even lesser if it comes to the judgment of moral and humanly virtuous behavior, for which the different valuations of identities of ID politics want to lay down the foundation of how somebody and his deeds should be rated.
Pick an example: Is it universally morally so okay to call out all white people as morally rotten, bad and potential evil-doers in areas where 99% of the whole population is just white-skinned? Isn’t that a big risky and morally-questionable supposition? If not to speak: Insulting?
Doing the same with another skin color easily “earns” you the attribute “racism” - because it simply is such. Judgment of people by their skin color (“giving names” is judging) and what myths your brain carries inside of it regarding that particular body feature.
Go on with the tightly-intertwined topics sexism/born sex/reassigned sex.
It’s a popular fashion these days to apply guilt for anything that goes wrong in this world to born males - because there is a small section of males who have significant political power and links to powerful political and economical offices (no matter who’s currently placed in the seat).
Would it be justified to tell the same “all men are trash”-agenda in an orphanage, in a problem school, in a drug rehab ward, in an anger management group or in an industrial facility where mostly males work? Where people (a remarkable share of males probably) are either because they got dumped by their parents, family and society, where they are in need of help, in need of psychical warmth, and admitted it, or brought there by society because they behavior was unendurable - or where they sacrifice a lot of their physical strength daily to produce gizmos for society?
Are these people responsible through the power of only their own will for how bad the world is?
Boys who were dumped, boys who were beaten, boys who flee into drugs and violence to forget?
Men who work their ass off and sacrifice their health for something that society makes use of later?
...Just always remember: They could also give no fucking damn about society and just be the violent, abusive and/or lazy schmocks which don’t contribute anything to the well-being of others, which cause other people only pain, and leave you standing there “Just do my job yourself, if you’re such a smart ass!”.
Putting all caring fathers, loyal workers and troubled boys and men who want to get out of their misery in the same pot with old greedy capitalist geezers which can’t do without superior power over a part of the earth and large amounts of money, with non-remorseful war criminals, rapists, child molesters, thugs, bullies and whatnot - just because they all share the same born sex and a dick -, is the same sexist argumentation chain that reduces women to the cliché of assumed cooking and cleaning abilities and their physical features such as tits, ass, pussy and the ability to bear children. The same sexist argumentation chain that brings you thought patterns like “I know you want it, baby! Don’t be so shy...”, “Grab them by the pussy”, “Women only want one thing - a man’s wallet” and “All women are bad - except for Mom and except for the hoes who shut up and take my dick into whatever orifice I want it to take her into”.
Another note about “sexual orientation” other than the heterosexual one.
Gays, bisexuals, lesbians, asexuals - they all can be intellectually dumb as a bucket of shrimp, be lazy good-for-nothings, intolerant towards people, be biased like a cliché, be assholes, be abusive, violent, ruthless, cowardly, they can refuse to take over responsibility for their wrongdoing and so on.
Their sexual orientation doesn’t automatically make them morally superior people. As one’s sexual preferences are something that you cannot pick at will (remember that?).
So why should that be an indicator for the quality of a person’s moral virtues?
Or a criterion to not criticize a person if it’s factually due?
Another significant delusion included in this assumption of a supposed “group identity” is that people who get sorted or sort themselves to these groups all harbor nearly the same wishes, hopes, feelings, needs, ambitions and thought patterns.
For real: Does every black person (“black” in the sense of an sub-Saharan African) on earth think the same? Does a wealthy black person in America necessarily mind “his black brothers and sisters” in the rest of the country and do something for them to increase their status within the system?
Do black people worldwide harmonize among each other and not lay a finger upon one other?
Body features and preferences don’t negate peoples bad or good character.
Actually, they don’t have much to do with it. They’re just tiny details of the whole person, nothing more.
Sorting people according to such features, which they mostly can’t be held accountable for as they couldn’t choose them at birth, not only does it tear society apart into groups which don’t exist, but also strengthen the assumption in “average” people that black and white are different on the whole, that non-heterosexuals are like aliens from another planet compared to heterosexuals. That one religion is more virtuous or meaningful than the other and they don’t do the same in praying to imaginary creatures which no human eye has seen until today and kill people over the belief that “their God is the right one”.
To be frank and outspoken: Identity Politics is about to tear down every little bit of the thought that human plebs has fought so hard for that all humans shall be treated equally, have equal rights and possibilities to participate and be punished equally for their wrongdoings.
Admittedly, mankind still did not make it to turn this ideal into a full-blown reality, but it seriously doesn’t get any better if you give up on the idea, citing it to be whatever kind of mistake to actually have wanted that because the wrong people wanted or fought for it.
(In fact, these people are long dead by now and ideals can be modified, so that they better suit the modern circumstances, which those long-dead people couldn’t take into account back then.)
According to that principle, no-one of the ID politics die-hard campaigners probably should use a smart phone, a computer, a car, electronic kitchen gadgets of whatever kind or even eat tofu (if they’re vegans).
Because all that either is produced with economic slavery these days or was invented by somebody who was racist, sexist, bigoted or biased in any way towards another specific type of humans which later turned out to be morally wrong and based on nothing but nonsensical belief.
Pick an example: Is it universally morally so okay to call out all white people as morally rotten, bad and potential evil-doers in areas where 99% of the whole population is just white-skinned? Isn’t that a big risky and morally-questionable supposition? If not to speak: Insulting?
Doing the same with another skin color easily “earns” you the attribute “racism” - because it simply is such. Judgment of people by their skin color (“giving names” is judging) and what myths your brain carries inside of it regarding that particular body feature.
Go on with the tightly-intertwined topics sexism/born sex/reassigned sex.
It’s a popular fashion these days to apply guilt for anything that goes wrong in this world to born males - because there is a small section of males who have significant political power and links to powerful political and economical offices (no matter who’s currently placed in the seat).
Would it be justified to tell the same “all men are trash”-agenda in an orphanage, in a problem school, in a drug rehab ward, in an anger management group or in an industrial facility where mostly males work? Where people (a remarkable share of males probably) are either because they got dumped by their parents, family and society, where they are in need of help, in need of psychical warmth, and admitted it, or brought there by society because they behavior was unendurable - or where they sacrifice a lot of their physical strength daily to produce gizmos for society?
Are these people responsible through the power of only their own will for how bad the world is?
Boys who were dumped, boys who were beaten, boys who flee into drugs and violence to forget?
Men who work their ass off and sacrifice their health for something that society makes use of later?
...Just always remember: They could also give no fucking damn about society and just be the violent, abusive and/or lazy schmocks which don’t contribute anything to the well-being of others, which cause other people only pain, and leave you standing there “Just do my job yourself, if you’re such a smart ass!”.
Putting all caring fathers, loyal workers and troubled boys and men who want to get out of their misery in the same pot with old greedy capitalist geezers which can’t do without superior power over a part of the earth and large amounts of money, with non-remorseful war criminals, rapists, child molesters, thugs, bullies and whatnot - just because they all share the same born sex and a dick -, is the same sexist argumentation chain that reduces women to the cliché of assumed cooking and cleaning abilities and their physical features such as tits, ass, pussy and the ability to bear children. The same sexist argumentation chain that brings you thought patterns like “I know you want it, baby! Don’t be so shy...”, “Grab them by the pussy”, “Women only want one thing - a man’s wallet” and “All women are bad - except for Mom and except for the hoes who shut up and take my dick into whatever orifice I want it to take her into”.
Another note about “sexual orientation” other than the heterosexual one.
Gays, bisexuals, lesbians, asexuals - they all can be intellectually dumb as a bucket of shrimp, be lazy good-for-nothings, intolerant towards people, be biased like a cliché, be assholes, be abusive, violent, ruthless, cowardly, they can refuse to take over responsibility for their wrongdoing and so on.
Their sexual orientation doesn’t automatically make them morally superior people. As one’s sexual preferences are something that you cannot pick at will (remember that?).
So why should that be an indicator for the quality of a person’s moral virtues?
Or a criterion to not criticize a person if it’s factually due?
Another significant delusion included in this assumption of a supposed “group identity” is that people who get sorted or sort themselves to these groups all harbor nearly the same wishes, hopes, feelings, needs, ambitions and thought patterns.
For real: Does every black person (“black” in the sense of an sub-Saharan African) on earth think the same? Does a wealthy black person in America necessarily mind “his black brothers and sisters” in the rest of the country and do something for them to increase their status within the system?
Do black people worldwide harmonize among each other and not lay a finger upon one other?
Body features and preferences don’t negate peoples bad or good character.
Actually, they don’t have much to do with it. They’re just tiny details of the whole person, nothing more.
Sorting people according to such features, which they mostly can’t be held accountable for as they couldn’t choose them at birth, not only does it tear society apart into groups which don’t exist, but also strengthen the assumption in “average” people that black and white are different on the whole, that non-heterosexuals are like aliens from another planet compared to heterosexuals. That one religion is more virtuous or meaningful than the other and they don’t do the same in praying to imaginary creatures which no human eye has seen until today and kill people over the belief that “their God is the right one”.
To be frank and outspoken: Identity Politics is about to tear down every little bit of the thought that human plebs has fought so hard for that all humans shall be treated equally, have equal rights and possibilities to participate and be punished equally for their wrongdoings.
Admittedly, mankind still did not make it to turn this ideal into a full-blown reality, but it seriously doesn’t get any better if you give up on the idea, citing it to be whatever kind of mistake to actually have wanted that because the wrong people wanted or fought for it.
(In fact, these people are long dead by now and ideals can be modified, so that they better suit the modern circumstances, which those long-dead people couldn’t take into account back then.)
According to that principle, no-one of the ID politics die-hard campaigners probably should use a smart phone, a computer, a car, electronic kitchen gadgets of whatever kind or even eat tofu (if they’re vegans).
Because all that either is produced with economic slavery these days or was invented by somebody who was racist, sexist, bigoted or biased in any way towards another specific type of humans which later turned out to be morally wrong and based on nothing but nonsensical belief.