The “Identity Politics” Debate Is Splintering the Left. Here’s How We Can Move Past It.

[rainbows_]

We must redefine “identity politics,” because the debate about it is mostly wrong. We can start by recognizing that Clintonian identity politics aren’t intersectional-they’re racist

Comments

[lovedforaday]

Is continuously writing about how the now irrelevant Bill and Hillary Clinton sucks also a problem?

[moonshaz]

Lol!

Yeah, I don't understand why we all can't just recognize that the past is past and move on. I don't see the point of harping on the Clintons at this point.

IF she decides to run again, then go ahead and preach why she shouldn't and/or why people shouldn't vote for her. The key word being "if".

[liliaeth]

Not to mention, people like these constantly like to blame Hillary for Sander's inability to reach out to black voters.

[mimblexwimble]

That bit at the end isn't cute, OP.

ETA: Thank you for removing it.

[eveofrevolution]

[meadowphoenix]

OP wanted to make sure we knew there was a WOC author on this one, since OP got called out for that on the last post they made.

[eveofrevolution]

[blackjedii]

Yeah my faith in Americans isn't that high. I've already seen enough variations of "screw you I got mine / screw you you aren't like me" to think the "Left" can be cohesive, let alone a political force.

[meadowphoenix]

But combined with a strong class program, socially conservative workers can not only stomach such positions but might even be convinced, over time, to change their minds.

Again you cannot hold the position that white workers can be motivated to educated themselves and choose better choices which don't fuck over other groups with self-interest in other helpful political positions when you will not admit that white supremacy is the goal of self-interested white people.

[bunnybutt]

Wow. So I learned a lot from this posting. To wit:

1) This OP (Rainbows_) is unclear on how to attribute properly. This post is set up to read as if it is her original work; only after literally fifteen screens do we find an actual attribution to other authors, with no citation or link to where the original material can be found;

2) This OP does not appear to be equipped to engage in critical inquiry, and so all of their writings are suspect as being parroted from others, and in this case, as a defensive response to critique of another recent post.

Moving along, LITERALLY nothing to see and no value added to any conversation here.

[mimblexwimble]

This is a community to repost news articles. The OP sourced the article exactly like any of us do when we post. And I'm not sure they're required to defend a piece they didn't write. I know I've shared articles here that I find interesting but don't agree with...

[bunnybutt]

Disagree. Typically if someone reposts an article, it's made clear it's a repost, and somewhere in the repost is a link to "source". Not the case here.

[mimblexwimble]

It's at the end of the post like it always is.