Do you believe that the prevalence of identity in modern life is positive or negative for society?
(From my perspective, the modern fascination with identity seems like a destructive and divisive force in society. The more that we concentrate on how we are different from one another, the less kinship we feel towards one another.)
I'm also genuinely interested in people's ideas as to why identity has become such a prevalent aspect of modern life.
jasper76 wrote: Do you believe that the prevalence of identity in modern life is positive or negative for society?
(From my perspective, the modern fascination with identity seems like a destructive and divisive force in society. The more that we concentrate on how we are different from one another, the less kinship we feel towards one another.)
I'm also genuinely interested in people's ideas as to why identity has become such a prevalent aspect of modern life.
I think you need to define your question a bit more. Identity is multi-dimensional (personal, group, national) and has been around forever. It's nothing new and has always been both positive and negative.
I think you need to define your question a bit more. Identity is multi-dimensional (personal, group, national) and has been around forever. It's nothing new and has always been both positive and negative.
It's almost like gak is too complex to effortlessly fit into a self serving box of individual sentiment.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: You are assuming that focus on identity is a modern phenomenon when that is blatantly not true. Tribalism might as well be humanity's default setting.
I definitely realize that tribalism is as old as humanity, but in recent times their seems to have been an explosion in fascination with identity, and it is getting more and more granular, to he point that many of us even have websites entirely dedicated to ourselves and our own identity.
Do you think this is the modern manifestation of our tribalistic impulses? Will this evolve until each individual is his or her own unique tribe?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: You are assuming that focus on identity is a modern phenomenon when that is blatantly not true. Tribalism might as well be humanity's default setting.
Pft. Clearly sir you agree with the Saracens. I'll see you at the next Crusade, the annual visits of Franks to the Orient
Identity is extremely complex, and, while currently particularly sensitive, is always an issue and always will be an issue.
As for its value, I generally think it trends inversly with prosperity. Identity is a powerful mechanic to bind a group together in adversity towards a common goal or against a common threat. At the same time, subidentities will tear apart that same group of people in good times over relatively minor issues as tiny matters serve as the focus of identity rather than larger ones.
jasper76 wrote: Do you believe that the prevalence of identity in modern life is positive or negative for society?
(From my perspective, the modern fascination with identity seems like a destructive and divisive force in society. The more that we concentrate on how we are different from one another, the less kinship we feel towards one another.)
I'm also genuinely interested in people's ideas as to why identity has become such a prevalent aspect of modern life.
I think you need to define your question a bit more. Identity is multi-dimensional (personal, group, national) and has been around forever. It's nothing new and has always been both positive and negative.
I'm talking about what I perceive as an increase in the ways in which we separate ourselves from our fellow people at large, which seems to be getting more and more granular. Strangely enough, I perceive that national identity is on the decline, as we now have instant access to people from around the world, we come to understand that nationality is pretty unimportant (people are people, or something like that). But I perceive an increase in fixation on group identity and personal identity. People seem to want to define further and further how they are different from one another.
This stuff is hard to put down in words for me, but I hope that clears what I mean up a bit a least.
It's one part marginalised people finding their voice and taking space in the public discussion and one part the infinite atomisation of late capitalism.
"A focus on identity" is really a very vague thing to say so unless you specify what makes you wonder this you might not get a good answer.
Rosebuddy wrote: It's one part marginalised people finding their voice and taking space in the public discussion and one part the infinite atomisation of late capitalism.
"A focus on identity" is really a very vague thing to say so unless you specify what makes you wonder this you might not get a good answer.
I hope my replies so far have clarified what I meant at least a bit.
jasper76 wrote: Do you believe that the prevalence of identity in modern life is positive or negative for society?
(From my perspective, the modern fascination with identity seems like a destructive and divisive force in society. The more that we concentrate on how we are different from one another, the less kinship we feel towards one another.)
I'm also genuinely interested in people's ideas as to why identity has become such a prevalent aspect of modern life.
For the slow like myself what do you mean by focus on identity?
The value of the individual has always been a strong focus of western phylosophy.
You can go to Japan or China to find the other extreme. What happens when you destroy the identity of individuals and make them a homogeneus group. Those photos of japanese businessmen all with the same suit and the same haircut, walking alongside Lolitas and people with anime-hair style? Basically, as you try to make people feel the same, they will sthrugle to feel unique.
Is easy to dismisse the "identity" of other persons or groups when the identity of your group is the dominant one.
Theres no thing as a "No identity/cultural group". You will always be part of one, or more than one.
jasper76 wrote: Do you believe that the prevalence of identity in modern life is positive or negative for society?
(From my perspective, the modern fascination with identity seems like a destructive and divisive force in society. The more that we concentrate on how we are different from one another, the less kinship we feel towards one another.)
I'm also genuinely interested in people's ideas as to why identity has become such a prevalent aspect of modern life.
For the slow like myself what do you mean by focus on identity?
I mean a fascination with how we are unique and different from each other either as groups or individuals, and the broadcasting of those differences to each other. Or something like that.
Are you talking about living-as-a-brand blogs? People expressing themselves through consumer choices and wanting everyone to know? That's because we live in a society where you aren't relevant other than as a unit of labour or as a unit of consumption. The only choice we have is what to consume and you aren't meant to think about alternatives so that's what people get wrapped up in.
Are you talking about people arguing about sexual, gendered or racial identity? That's people who've been suppressed for a very long time finding a presence on platforms that are easier to access than traditional media plus capitalist attempts at commodifying these groups' struggles for liberation.
People care a lot about identity because generally it means you are something and thus ostensibly belong somewhere or have a people, which is not something that the economic system encourages. People use it to explain or handle their traumas, however poorly, because the rest of society doesn't offer much help there or outright creates the traumas in the first place.
Basically we live in a culture where people are very alone and where the individual and individual choices are held up as supreme. When everyone is encouraged to find their Personal Brand so that they may Achieve Happiness you get a lot of perverse nonsense.
Basically we live in a culture where people are very alone and where the individual and individual choices are held up as supreme. When everyone is encouraged to find their Personal Brand so that they may Achieve Happiness you get a lot of perverse nonsense.
I disagree with the premise of the first sentence. Actually, we are less alone than anytime I can ever remember. This thread is the perfect example. I can post something on an internet forum, and I am almost instantly met with replies from people all over the globe.
Basically we live in a culture where people are very alone and where the individual and individual choices are held up as supreme. When everyone is encouraged to find their Personal Brand so that they may Achieve Happiness you get a lot of perverse nonsense.
I disagree with the premise of the first sentence. Actually, we are less alone than anytime I can ever remember. This thread is the perfect example. I can post something on an internet forum, and I am almost instantly met with replies from people all over the globe.
Don't exist a proverb about being alone in the middle of a crown of people?
Compare it with a little town vs a city. You can live in a town of 100 habitants, and probably you will know every single one of them. If you live in a big city, if you know the people that live in others appartments in your same building, you are lucky.
Rosebuddy wrote: Are you talking about living-as-a-brand blogs? People expressing themselves through consumer choices and wanting everyone to know? .
You may have to dumb down what you mean by this for me. I don't know what "living-as-a-brand blog" is, nor do I really see an emphasis on people connecting their fundamental identity to their consumer choices, except perhaps with the youthful and/or materialistic.
I mean, we may all say "I am a 40K player", but I doubt many of us would say "I identify fundamentally as a 40K player". Or someone might say "I am a Subaru driver", but I doubt many would say "I identify fundamentally as a Subaru driver."
jasper76 wrote: I disagree with the premise of the first sentence. Actually, we are less alone than anytime I can ever remember. This thread is the perfect example. I can post something on an internet forum, and I am almost instantly met with replies from people all over the globe.
I may be wrong, though I believe it is a reference to the effect cited in material such as this:
Are you talking about people arguing about sexual, gendered or racial identity?
Yes, that's part of it, but not all of it. Political, philosophical, religious, motivational, generational, ideological, etc. Hell so.e people even separate themselves from each other by weight class.
jasper76 wrote: I disagree with the premise of the first sentence. Actually, we are less alone than anytime I can ever remember. This thread is the perfect example. I can post something on an internet forum, and I am almost instantly met with replies from people all over the globe.
I may be wrong, though I believe it is a reference to the effect cited in material such as this:
Rosebuddy wrote: Are you talking about living-as-a-brand blogs? People expressing themselves through consumer choices and wanting everyone to know? .
You may have to dumb down what you mean by this for me. I don't know what "living-as-a-brand blog" is, nor do I really see an emphasis on people connecting their fundamental identity to their consumer choices, except perhaps with the youthful and/or materialistic.
I mean, we may all say "I am a 40K player", but I doubt many of us would say "I identify fundamentally as a 40K player". Or someone might say "I am a Subaru driver", but I doubt many would say "I identify fundamentally as a Subaru driver."
There are food and home decoration and what have you blogs that are, well, incredibly up their own asses for the aesthetics of the craft rather than the actual practice of it. They're usually run by wealthy white people who love the word "inspirational" and aimed mostly at other wealthy white people and the middle class in general.
Ads are usually about selling a feeling that you can supposedly only get from that particular product. Look at Coca Cola ads, they're all about how life is better then you've got a coke. Look at car ads and the image they sell, look at the kind of life the advertisement tells you that people who buy their cars live. The end result is people think about themselves as "Ford guys" or "Marlboro men" and so on. Companies are very good at exploiting insecurities. Consider what it means that this is the angle advertising has chosen to work on. Billions have been spent on optimising ads and what thousands of people working around the clock have arrived at is that the best way of selling something is to make you think that it'll fill an emptiness in your life. What does it say about our society that this not only happens but works?
Rosebuddy wrote: Billions have been spent on optimising ads and what thousands of people working around the clock have arrived at is that the best way of selling something is to make you think that it'll fill an emptiness in your life. What does it say about our society that this not only happens but works?
That some people's lives are unfulfilling. I'd argue that only those who actually do not lead fulfilling lives are especially susceptible to this kind of advertising. Maybe that's more people than I think, maybe not. I'd like to think most people just need toilet paper, toothpaste, a way to get from A to B, etc., and they know that advertisers are trying to sell it to them through fantasies.
I don't know much about the efficacy of marketing, but the games they play are pretty obvious to me. TBH I don't even know what commercials are like these days as I hardly ever watch television. Most of the ads I see are on YouTube and they are for video games or movies, selling escapism (nothing wrong with a little escapism ).
It's worth noting thay not just capitalist advertisers that try to fill the "God-sized hole". Political movements do it, religious movements do it, and so do identity movements.
Some people need to feel special, and the prevalence of social media shows us that no, you really aren't special. So some people go down the rabbit hole into ludicrous caricatures of themselves in order to try and stand out.
That some people's lives are unfulfilling. I'd argue that only those who actually do not lead fulfilling lives are especially susceptible to this kind of advertising. Maybe that's more people than I think, maybe not. I'd like to think most people just need toilet paper, toothpaste, a way to get from A to B, etc., and they know that advertisers are trying to sell it to them through fantasies.
People need more than simply the existential minimum. People need fulfillment, rest and culture. People need to feel that things are, on the whole, worth it.
People are also a lot more affected by advertising than they think. Being bombarded day in and day out with ads is going to shape anyone. Being constantly exposed to something is going to eventually rub off on you, no matter how aware you are that it's all fake. If most of society buys into the fundamental assumptions of advertising then you're going to get pulled in to some degree as well. You can't live outside of society, after all. Being unhappy also does a number on your ability to make good choices. It's why comfort eating and vicious circles are a thing, to say the least.
Rosebuddy wrote: People are also a lot more affected by advertising than they think. Being bombarded day in and day out with ads is going to shape anyone. Being constantly exposed to something is going to eventually rub off on you, no matter how aware you are that it's all fake. If most of society buys into the fundamental assumptions of advertising then you're going to get pulled in to some degree as well. You can't live outside of society, after all. Being unhappy also does a number on your ability to make good choices. It's why comfort eating and vicious circles are a thing, to say the least.
To give a more direct example of this; those super annoying adds that pop up and take over your screen to play some stupid video for a some Hyundai SUV you'd never buy?
Well that add was never really intended to get you to buy that SUV. Marketers know that the ad itself will result in little sales. What it will do, is that the day you're having a conversation about modern advertising you'll make a post about that annoying Hyundai SUV ad that took over your screen to play some stupid video. Now everyone who reads that post will know about it, and they'll think "Hyundai SUV ads, I hate those too." Now everyone's talking about Hyundai SUV ads, and that annoying jingle that was playing.
Brand awareness. Marketers know how annoying many internet ads are, and purposefully make them annoying because brand awareness, positive and negative, has been shown to increase sales. They don't care if you like the ad, agree with it, or if it directly connects to you and leads to a purchase. The more you talk about those annoying Hyundai SUV ads the more people talk about Hyundai SU-
Oh dear go they've won! You bastards! *shakes fist at sky*
jasper76 wrote:I'm talking about what I perceive as an increase in the ways in which we separate ourselves from our fellow people at large, which seems to be getting more and more granular. Strangely enough, I perceive that national identity is on the decline, as we now have instant access to people from around the world, we come to understand that nationality is pretty unimportant (people are people, or something like that). But I perceive an increase in fixation on group identity and personal identity. People seem to want to define further and further how they are different from one another.
This stuff is hard to put down in words for me, but I hope that clears what I mean up a bit a least.
I see rather a resurgence of national identity/patriotism/nationalism in most developed countries (especially after 2008 crash). Nationalistic right wing parties are growing in popularity all over Europe and the US even elected a guy as their president who used that rising sentiment as a way to get the needed votes. I don't know how one could see all that and count it as a decline in national identity. But overall identity politics like you apparently worry about (repeatedly) is not really a problem from my point of view (and I say that as a white/cis/hetero/male who's not included in the list of allowed identities to have). A lot of our culture, history, and economic preferences were formed/guided/made/curated — call it whatever you want — by people like me (w/c/h/m) but that's slowly changing (which in turn worries some people).
We also made some cultural progressive stuff happen and that led to groups — that were historically disenfranchised, suppressed, or otherwise disregarded — getting a bit more visibility because they are now more secure in their lives and have found, more or less, safe spaces to voice their opinions (often some place on the internet). But a lot of us are not used to actually hearing the voices from marginalised people and see any disagreement as an attack on us (instead of seeing as displeasure with how things are). You can see it every time when a very white and very male person writes a really ignorant article (like about living in ghettos any "why don't they just make better life choices") and gets some pushback from people who are actually living these lives. They are just not used to that type of feedback that is available today and often react poorly to that (they were happily sitting in their male dominated white/middle class echo chamber).
In "identity politics" underrepresented people have found al kinds of communities where they can talk about issues that address some of the things they have with the general public but that they can't discuss there (at best they get ignored, at worst killed). The people who are used to the status quo from ten or twenty years ago seem way more worried about identity politics without realising that a lot of the things they take for granted are drenched in white/male/middle class identity politics and solutions that benefit them disproportionally.
For a fish, water is the most normal thing in the world and if they had big enough brains they would think it's absurd how we humans can't handles this or how it could even be a problem ("you just move like this, simple"; "what do you mean with, you need air?") but you take a fish out of the water and it flops around in panic. A lot of this panic about identity politics comes from people who are used to how things are and don't see how all this affects other people and assume everything is fine because it works for them and they just can't believe that others could have problems with how things are.
I don't know if or how it applies to you but identity is also having a favourite sports team and most people accept that as totally normal and only certain types of identity seem worrying for people (because they are excluded an can't easily get access? I don't know). It's similar to trigger warnings, people have no problem when somebody asks for spoiler warnings but when somebody asks for consideration because or something that could be traumatic for them all hell breaks loose instead of people just behaving like civilised humans. The same for trans people and their pronouns. If a friend doesn't like a nickname you use and they ask you to not use it you stop doing that but when somebody asks you to use different pronouns it becomes incredibly hard for some people to remember that. And I am writing this on a forum where a lot of us have memorised whole combat resolution tables, who knows how many stats lines, some probably even know hundreds of Pokemon names (and ancillary details), the names of uncountable Space Marine chapters and IG regiments, some of us even speak german and learned how this works. Pronouns should be manageable for such a smart bunch.
In short: Identity has become such a big deal because the internet made it really easy to self select and form communities, these communities and culturally progressive politics have given more — and different — people a voice, and some people are just not used to hearing these voices and are concerned because it deviates from the norm they are used to. Whatever identity someone identify with online is usually not the one defining thing for a person but it's just what we see online a lot (and this heavy focus makes them look like a very one dimensional person). It's a bit how facebook tends to show you all the best parts of your friends' lives and nothing else (to keep you "engaged with the platform") while you are very cognisant of the different layers, ups and downs, and complexities of your own life (this dissonance can lead to "facebook depression").
The entire idea of "identity politics" is nonsense. Yes, people use labels for themselves and advocate for policies that are in their best interest, but that's not a new thing or something that is limited to one particular group/side. In my experience the people complaining about "identity politics" have plenty of labels of their own, they just use the term as a synonym for "people with opinions I don't like". It's a fake moral high ground that has no place in constructive discussion.
jasper76 wrote: I mean, we may all say "I am a 40K player", but I doubt many of us would say "I identify fundamentally as a 40K player".
Ahah not true, there are so many people that “identify fundamentally as a gamer” in bs movements like Gamergate . And they get SO offended when anyone says anything negative about “gamers”.
Was that the kind of thing your question was about? Or was it about the rise of xenophobia?
I think a "focus" on identity is neither negative nor positive.
I've been writing a 25+ page research paper on the history of heavy metal, and the bulk of my historiography is from sociological texts. This is important (at least for me) because there is a sociologically recognized group of humanity called "metalheads" with some of that population being more visibly recognizable than others. If you see me walking down the street wearing my Cannibal Corpse shirt, or my Slayer shirt, you probably make a judgement about me, or think, "ahh, there is a metalhead"
Beyond this, I think the internet has definitely made the Tribalism over stupid crap worse. Just go on FB and look at a Mustang group, a Camaro group, or almost any other number of vehicle groups. Ya know, you see Bob and Joe come to literally hate each other because they drive a different vehicle.
Peregrine wrote: The entire idea of "identity politics" is nonsense. Yes, people use labels for themselves and advocate for policies that are in their best interest, but that's not a new thing or something that is limited to one particular group/side. In my experience the people complaining about "identity politics" have plenty of labels of their own, they just use the term as a synonym for "people with opinions I don't like". It's a fake moral high ground that has no place in constructive discussion.
Whether or not it's nonsense, "Identity politics" is not the subject of the the thread, but rather why identity itself is becoming so unusually prevalent in modern life (in my view at least) and whether it's good or bad for society. "Identity" is much much more than "identity politics" which most people seem to realize in the thread, and I'm afraid if we start down the route of a lengthy argument over "identity politics" this thread will go straight down the toilet.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I think a "focus" on identity is neither negative nor positive.
I've been writing a 25+ page research paper on the history of heavy metal, and the bulk of my historiography is from sociological texts. This is important (at least for me) because there is a sociologically recognized group of humanity called "metalheads" with some of that population being more visibly recognizable than others. If you see me walking down the street wearing my Cannibal Corpse shirt, or my Slayer shirt, you probably make a judgement about me, or think, "ahh, there is a metalhead"
Beyond this, I think the internet has definitely made the Tribalism over stupid crap worse. Just go on FB and look at a Mustang group, a Camaro group, or almost any other number of vehicle groups. Ya know, you see Bob and Joe come to literally hate each other because they drive a different vehicle.
One could argue (and I think they'd be correct) that identifying tribally by musical genre is just as much of "stupid crap" as identifying tribally by Mustangs, Camaros, etc. Music is entertainment. Maybe identifying tribally as a "Star Wars" fan or a "muggle" is a more appropriate comparison. In either case, even though entertainment elicits strong feelings, I personally think it's pretty paper thin as a subject to attach your identity to. I was a "metal head" in high school and it actually meant alot to me at the time. I enjoyed the music alot, listening and playing, and it gave me a way to define myself against other people, but as I aged and the more important realities in life set in through experience, I realized it was a pretty silly thing to latch my identity onto. It's just music, whether you like it or not is trivia about you as a person, and it doesn't say much about you as a human being.
Unless you subscribe to the notion that if you listen to violent music, you must be a violent person, or if you listen to peace-knick music you must be a peaceful person. There may be smoke there, but is there fire? John Lennon, for example, wrote songs about peace and love, but apparently had problems as a domestic abuser and was a pretty big ego-maniac. And from my own experience I know that many folk who listen to death metal are some of the most non-violent people I've met. So I'm inclined to believe musical preferences, just like preferences for TV shows, sports, etc, are more trivia than anything else, and don't say much about a person fundamentally.
One could argue (and I think they'd be correct) that identifying tribally by musical genre is just as much of "stupid crap" as identifying tribally by Mustangs, Camaros, etc. Music is entertainment. Maybe identifying tribally as a "Star Wars" fan or a "muggle" is a more appropriate comparison. In either case, even though entertainment elicits strong feelings, I personally think it's pretty paper thin as a subject to attach your identity to. I was a "metal head" in high school and it actually meant alot to me at the time. I enjoyed the music alot, listening and playing, and it gave me a way to define myself against other people, but as I aged and the more important realities in life set in through experience, I realized it was a pretty silly thing to latch my identity onto. It's just music, whether you like it or not is trivia about you as a person, and it doesn't say much about you as a human being.
Unless you subscribe to the notion that if you listen to violent music, you must be a violent person, or if you listen to peace-knick music you must be a peaceful person. There may be smoke there, but is there fire? John Lennon, for example, wrote songs about peace and love, but apparently had problems as a domestic abuser and was a pretty big ego-maniac. And from my own experience I know that many folk who listen to death metal are some of the most non-violent people I've met. So I'm inclined to believe musical preferences, just like preferences for TV shows, sports, etc, are more trivia than anything else, and don't say much about a person fundamentally.
And we'd disagree, because this is something that a significant number of sociologists have written volumes on. Though perhaps my usage of tribal identity does get a bit stupid when people take things in the same way that the car/truck people do. One theme that comes up often in the sociology that I've read, is that quite often it's not a self-identity when it comes to music. As in my example, my wearing a band t-shirt shows an outward expression of my liking of a band/genre/movie, etc. and as I said in my earlier post, others will see this and judge (or not) as even I judge everyone I see by their looks. If there's no further interaction, then they have placed me in a metal tribe.
And, I suggest you look up the psychological research of Adrian North that shows a very strong correlation of a number of traits that people have. His research shows that, for instance, people who listen to almost solely pop music, tend to have low self-esteem, and high stress levels. Country fans are rather introverted, but tend to work hard. Both classical and metal groupings exhibited low stress, high self-esteem measures AND a higher creativity level than listeners in his study from other genres.
One could argue (and I think they'd be correct) that identifying tribally by musical genre is just as much of "stupid crap" as identifying tribally by Mustangs, Camaros, etc. Music is entertainment. Maybe identifying tribally as a "Star Wars" fan or a "muggle" is a more appropriate comparison. In either case, even though entertainment elicits strong feelings, I personally think it's pretty paper thin as a subject to attach your identity to. I was a "metal head" in high school and it actually meant alot to me at the time. I enjoyed the music alot, listening and playing, and it gave me a way to define myself against other people, but as I aged and the more important realities in life set in through experience, I realized it was a pretty silly thing to latch my identity onto. It's just music, whether you like it or not is trivia about you as a person, and it doesn't say much about you as a human being.
Unless you subscribe to the notion that if you listen to violent music, you must be a violent person, or if you listen to peace-knick music you must be a peaceful person. There may be smoke there, but is there fire? John Lennon, for example, wrote songs about peace and love, but apparently had problems as a domestic abuser and was a pretty big ego-maniac. And from my own experience I know that many folk who listen to death metal are some of the most non-violent people I've met. So I'm inclined to believe musical preferences, just like preferences for TV shows, sports, etc, are more trivia than anything else, and don't say much about a person fundamentally.
And we'd disagree, because this is something that a significant number of sociologists have written volumes on. Though perhaps my usage of tribal identity does get a bit stupid when people take things in the same way that the car/truck people do. One theme that comes up often in the sociology that I've read, is that quite often it's not a self-identity when it comes to music. As in my example, my wearing a band t-shirt shows an outward expression of my liking of a band/genre/movie, etc. and as I said in my earlier post, others will see this and judge (or not) as even I judge everyone I see by their looks. If there's no further interaction, then they have placed me in a metal tribe.
And, I suggest you look up the psychological research of Adrian North that shows a very strong correlation of a number of traits that people have. His research shows that, for instance, people who listen to almost solely pop music, tend to have low self-esteem, and high stress levels. Country fans are rather introverted, but tend to work hard. Both classical and metal groupings exhibited low stress, high self-esteem measures AND a higher creativity level than listeners in his study from other genres.
I have deep skepticism of the field of psychology, and even moreso of sociology, but I'm not completely close-minded to them. However, all I can find on this Adrian North fellow is websites that are selling stuff. Would you care to provide links to free material he's published pertinent to the topic at hand?
jasper76 wrote: Whether or not it's nonsense, "Identity politics" is not the subject of the the thread, but rather why identity itself is becoming so unusually prevalent in modern life (in my view at least) and whether it's good or bad for society. "Identity" is much much more than "identity politics" which most people seem to realize in the thread, and I'm afraid if we start down the route of a lengthy argument over "identity politics" this thread will go straight down the toilet.
If this isn't about the usual "identity politics ruins everything, democrats fix your party" complaints then what else is left? Some vague idea that people shouldn't describe themselves, or be conscious of which (significant) groups they are part of?
jasper76 wrote: Whether or not it's nonsense, "Identity politics" is not the subject of the the thread, but rather why identity itself is becoming so unusually prevalent in modern life (in my view at least) and whether it's good or bad for society. "Identity" is much much more than "identity politics" which most people seem to realize in the thread, and I'm afraid if we start down the route of a lengthy argument over "identity politics" this thread will go straight down the toilet.
If this isn't about the usual "identity politics ruins everything, democrats fix your party" complaints then what else is left? Some vague idea that people shouldn't describe themselves, or be conscious of which (significant) groups they are part of?
The stuff we are talking about. You don't have to join the discussion if all you want to talk about is identity politics. If your only goal here is to poo poo on the conversation, perhaps you should consider leaving this thread behind and moving on to another one.
I have deep skepticism of the field of psychology, and even moreso of sociology, but I'm not completely close-minded to them. However, all I can find on this Adrian North fellow is websites that are selling stuff. Would you care to provide links to free material he's published pertinent to the topic at hand?
jasper76 wrote: The stuff we are talking about. You don't have to join the discussion if all you want to talk about is identity politics. If your only goal here is to poo poo on the conversation, perhaps you should consider leaving this thread behind and moving on to another one.
I honestly don't see how any of that stuff has any substance to it. The concept in general is way too broad to give you any useful insight into anything (there's quite a bit of life-experience difference between identifying as a member of a particular religion and identifying as a fan of a TV show), and I don't see any reason to believe that this is a new development rather than another iteration of "kids these days". People have been forming identity-based groups for as long as there have been people, and in the end most of these frivolous identities (like being a fan of a TV show) have no practical impact on a person's life.
The stuff we are talking about. You don't have to join the discussion if all you want to talk about is identity politics. If your only goal here is to poo poo on the conversation, perhaps you should consider leaving this thread behind and moving o to another one.
I'll be plain, I saw the title and thought, 'Ah, someone's probably trying to subtly complain about other people daring to define themselves as non cis-gendered or something'.
I mean, let's be honest, the minute someone starts trying to define 'positive and negative for society', that means they're trying to put people/behaviours in boxes and issue highly subjective moral judgements on them. What's good and bad for society is entirely dependent upon what you think is a good and/or bad society, after all.
People identify themselves as one thing or another all the time. Charles VI identified himself as made of glass. Generally speaking, the Western/liberal view these days is that you can identify yourself as a small donkey called Harold if you feel like it, but so long as you don't hurt anyone, that's entirely your own affair.
Concerns of whether or not that would be 'negative for society' tends to be left to people with God complexes who want to channel societal development into their deluded visions of what it 'should' be. A more interesting topic would be 'Is a focus on what's positive or negative for society actually positive or negative for society?'
Ensis Ferrae wrote: And we'd disagree, because this is something that a significant number of sociologists have written volumes on. Though perhaps my usage of tribal identity does get a bit stupid when people take things in the same way that the car/truck people do. One theme that comes up often in the sociology that I've read, is that quite often it's not a self-identity when it comes to music. As in my example, my wearing a band t-shirt shows an outward expression of my liking of a band/genre/movie, etc. and as I said in my earlier post, others will see this and judge (or not) as even I judge everyone I see by their looks. If there's no further interaction, then they have placed me in a metal tribe.
You'll find this is History as well, particularly immigration history where it's been a theme since the work of Oscar Hamlin in the 50s.
More recently the torch has been picked up by a gal named Nancy Foner, who has written two books focusing on "imposed identity," one about the Irish in the Civil War (Or apparently Foner didn't write this one, no idea why I thought she did XD Appropriate author Susannah Ural), and the other about the two immigration waves to New York in the 20th century. For some reason the concept hasn't caught on in social history yet. Not sure why. Sociologists talk about it, immigration historians talk about it, and that's like 3/5's of the social historian's reader list.
Ketara wrote: Concerns of whether or not that would be 'negative for society' tends to be left to people with God complexes who want to channel societal development into their deluded visions of what it 'should' be. A more interesting topic would be 'Is a focus on what's positive or negative for society actually positive or negative for society?'
Damn. Just beat the man while he's flailing about why don't you?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: People have been forming identity-based groups for as long as there have been people, and in the end most of these frivolous identities (like being a fan of a TV show) have no practical impact on a person's life.
Tell that to the Achaemenids.
Damn Homer, espousing the glories of Greek culture and talking about how they were strongest when united against a common foe. And then there's this fether.
I have deep skepticism of the field of psychology, and even moreso of sociology, but I'm not completely close-minded to them. However, all I can find on this Adrian North fellow is websites that are selling stuff. Would you care to provide links to free material he's published pertinent to the topic at hand?
Thanks for providing the link. I do admit that it is interesting to me. For example, the correlation between heavy metal and classical musical preferences to creativity. Alot of heavy metal and alot of classical music is pretty darn complex, and alot of creative people tend to be very intelligent.
Something that struck me as interesting was the correlation between low income people and soothing people, and higher income people and exciting music. I wonder if this might be situational. This is all just speculation based on my experience so bear with me. When I am stressed out (and lack of money can be a big stresser) I find that if I listen to exciting music like fast or chaotic metal, or fast or chaotic classical, to actually increase my feelings of stress, and to level myself out, soothing music reduces it. So if I'm stressed about money, I'm going for the Enya over the Megadeth. But when I'm fairly worry-free, I find the Enya boring, and the Megadeth invigorating. Maybe a persistent stress in life about money due to having lower income lends itself to wanting to be soothed by soothing music.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ketara wrote: A more interesting topic would be 'Is a focus on what's positive or negative for society actually positive or negative for society?'
I'm willing to have this conversation if you are sincere in putting it out there. I think discussing social phenomena as positive or negative is ultimately positive for society. I think society is something that we collectively create for ourselves, and if there are certain things that are having a negative or positive effect society, then they are worth thinking about and discussing, so that as a collective we can move away from things that are harming us and reinforce things that benefit us. To me, his isn't playing at God so much as being a concerned citizen.
To relate this to the thread, it's my opinion that if we collectively put an emphasis on our similarities as people, we become more empathetic and sympathetic to each other, which is good for society, and conversely when we put an emphasis on what divides us, we become more fractured from one another, and less sympathetic and empathetic towards each other. And I think we see this play out all the time. And I think the increasing granularity with which people separate themselves from one another (at least in my perception) will likely lead to a decrease in our sympathy and empathy for one another, because it leads to us alienating ourselves from other people by defining ourselves against them, and it also lends itself to self-absorption, where we think more and more about the details of our self-definition, and less and less about what's going on around us.
jasper76 wrote: The stuff we are talking about. You don't have to join the discussion if all you want to talk about is identity politics. If your only goal here is to poo poo on the conversation, perhaps you should consider leaving this thread behind and moving on to another one.
I honestly don't see how any of that stuff has any substance to it.
Fair enough. When I encounter a subject that I feel lacks substance, I tend to just move on to a topic that interests me.
I'm willing to have this conversation if you are sincere in putting it out there. I think discussing social phenomena as positive or negative is ultimately positive for society. I think society is something that we collectively create for ourselves, and if there are certain things that are having a negative or positive effect society, then they are worth thinking about and discussing, so that as a collective we can move away from things that are harming us and reinforce things that benefit us. To me, his isn't playing at God so much as being a concerned citizen.
The problem is that 'harm' or 'benefits' are entirely subjective.
Example. I like weed. You don't. I believe it should be legalised, as it does less harm than say, cigarettes, which are legal. You believe it empowers gang violence. I say I should be allowed to put whatever I like in my mouth as a free adult. You say I'm a bad influence to passing children. I say that it has medicinal purposes. You say it lowers the tone of the neighbourhood. I say it helps me to relax. You say it's giving me mental health problems.
Is it good or bad for society? The answer is, it's about as good or bad for society as a large rubber duck. ie, who knows? But in a Western Society, because I'm not really hurting anyone, odds are most officials will let me get on with my life and not obsess about forcing me to 'move away' from it.
Another example. I have a pop-up noodle stand in the streets of Beijing. You're the Chinese Government and want to get rid of me. I say I boost the local economy. You say I'm an eyesore. I say I provide a sense of local community. You say I obstruct part of the street. I say I've been here for thirty years and nobody's complained, cars can still get past. You say the Olympics are coming, and I need to get out of the way, chop chop. I say that I'm providing cultural delicacies for the tourists.
Am I good or bad for society? The answer is, we're in communist China, and it doesn't matter. Because of people trying to decide what's 'best' for society, I get locked up, my stall torn down, and a McDonalds thrown up in my place. Trebles all round!
And that, generally speaking, is what comes from worrying too much about what other people are doing with their lives as 'concerned citizens'. There are times and places for the needs of the majority to take precendence over individual property rights and opinions. War, life or death medical emergencies, disaster relief, and so on. How people choose to define and perceive themselves is not one of them, and is only ever considered one of them if you've gone so far left or right wing you've found the magical place they hold hands round the back. At which point people start being prosecuted for not 'thinking' the right way.
This is generally perceived by a large number of people to be a 'bad' thing.
jasper76 wrote:To relate this to the thread, it's my opinion that if we collectively put an emphasis on our similarities as people, we become more empathetic and sympathetic to each other, which is good for society, and conversely when we put an emphasis on what divides us, we become more fractured from one another, and less sympathetic and empathetic towards each other. And I think we see this play out all the time. And I think the increasing granularity with which people separate themselves from one another (at least in my perception) will likely lead to a decrease in our sympathy and empathy for one another, because it leads to us alienating ourselves from other people by defining ourselves against them, and it also lends itself to self-absorption, where we think more and more about the details of our self-definition, and less and less about what's going on around us.
I think that's the other way around. If you have something in common with someone then you have something that connects you despite all possible other differences. But you are still two individuals and this one connection is not all you are and this common interest doesn't completely define you as a human being. This probably makes it easier explore your differences than if you had to start at zero. Many people have found friend online in all kinds of niche interests that they couldn't find locally (or would have a hard time finding) who are from all kinds of different backgrounds or nations. Don't these connections count? Or are these similarities only valuable if they are locally made? Overall I think the fact that people are different and individuals is much more beneficial to humanity than being some sort of "one big mass" that's all the same. I'm all for more biodiversity, it makes everything more flexible and resistant to catastrophic events (even if it's a bit more more work).
Where's the threshold for this "if we collectively put an emphasis on our similarities as people, we become more empathetic and sympathetic to each other" bit. What counts as similarity and what counts as granularity/separation? If we, for example, connect over wargaming and become friends, are we finding similarities and growing more empathic or are we separating from the rest of humanity that's not in the wargaming in-group? How does one define "similarities as people" without creating a separation?
Concerns of whether or not that would be 'negative for society' tends to be left to people with God complexes who want to channel societal development into their deluded visions of what it 'should' be. A more interesting topic would be 'Is a focus on what's positive or negative for society actually positive or negative for society?'
Damn. Just beat the man while he's flailing about why don't you?
Lol, I didn't say that. Not sure what happened with the quote blocks there
Concerns of whether or not that would be 'negative for society' tends to be left to people with God complexes who want to channel societal development into their deluded visions of what it 'should' be. A more interesting topic would be 'Is a focus on what's positive or negative for society actually positive or negative for society?'
Damn. Just beat the man while he's flailing about why don't you?
Lol, I didn't say that. Not sure what happened with the quote blocks there
I know you didn't XD
Sometimes when cutting out bits for quoting I end up cutting out the name of the actual poster, leaving just a quote block. I figure everyone is reading the thread and actually knows who said what, and if they're not they shouldn't be quoting people anyway
But if it bothers you I'll fix it right quick! EDIT: Fixed.
focus on identity can only be a positive thing, and it's not a big deal. everyone is different, and never fit into broad labels that society want's to impose of everyone. It's not a big deal, it's just the way it is.
"to label me is to negate me" truer words were never spoken.
Yet when someones self identity strays outside the mobs mentality the mob can't handle it and rejects the individual. Yet when you start looking at everyone in the mob, it becomes clear they`re all individuals as well with their own identity often pretending they think exactly like the mob to fit in, so they`re not rejected.
sirlynchmob wrote: Yet when someones self identity strays outside the mobs mentality the mob can't handle it and rejects the individual. Yet when you start looking at everyone in the mob, it becomes clear they`re all individuals as well with their own identity often pretending they think exactly like the mob to fit in, so they`re not rejected.
Sounds like what someone in the mob would say whenin denial about being in the mob to protect their own ego. Heard it hundreds of millions of times...MILLIONS!
All kidding aside I've heard this kind of sentiment for decades. It isn't really all that radical or new.
I think identity has always been with is. Like many things in life, it is just becoming more nuanced.
The issue I'm finding, though, is that notions of identity have traditionally come with a sense of responsibility. You belong to a town or a country, and as well as giving you a sense of belonging, but it also gave you expectations, about how you should behave and about what you should give back. A lot of modern identities don't have the latter part.
I have no reading or studies to back that up, it's just a general feeling I've developed over the years. Which means it might be completely wrong, of course
Peregrine wrote: The entire idea of "identity politics" is nonsense. Yes, people use labels for themselves and advocate for policies that are in their best interest, but that's not a new thing or something that is limited to one particular group/side. In my experience the people complaining about "identity politics" have plenty of labels of their own, they just use the term as a synonym for "people with opinions I don't like". It's a fake moral high ground that has no place in constructive discussion.
Fairly often people critical of identity politics are mostly just resentful that someone's identity other than their own is now being represented. Look at all this nonsense after Clinton defeat, claiming that instead of focusing on 'identity politics' she should have focused on the concerns of the white working class. The criticism completely missed that WWC is an identity group.
The art of political campaigning is all about telling groups of people in a convincing way that you are like them and will do things for them. The idea that identity wouldn't play a part in that is bonkers.
Well, if this thread has taught me anything, it's just how bad that OT needs a US Politics thread. Without it, US politics makes its way into all other threads. It's an irresistible force
jasper76 wrote: Do you believe that the prevalence of identity in modern life is positive or negative for society?
(From my perspective, the modern fascination with identity seems like a destructive and divisive force in society. The more that we concentrate on how we are different from one another, the less kinship we feel towards one another.)
I'm also genuinely interested in people's ideas as to why identity has become such a prevalent aspect of modern life.
What do you mean by identity? M/F/Trans sex? Nationality? Race? Religion? Or all of the above?
jasper76 wrote: Do you believe that the prevalence of identity in modern life is positive or negative for society?
(From my perspective, the modern fascination with identity seems like a destructive and divisive force in society. The more that we concentrate on how we are different from one another, the less kinship we feel towards one another.)
I'm also genuinely interested in people's ideas as to why identity has become such a prevalent aspect of modern life.
What do you mean by identity? M/F/Trans sex? Nationality? Race? Religion? Or all of the above?
I was thinking more or less all of the above. But not just those things you listed. Like there seems to be an increased focus people have on the various aspects of themselves and how they identify that separates them from other people...special snowflake syndrome, if you like, but certainly not limited to any part of any spectrum. For example, many regressives play the special snowflake game (and are frequently called out for it), but so do many liberals and conservatives. Many Muslims play the special snowflake game, but so do many Christians and atheists. And on and on it goes.
But honestly I've lost steam in continuing the conversation. It's true that identity has always been an important aspect of people's lives, and others here don't seem to think there is anything out of the ordinary going on in recent times. Even though I do still think the focus people have on themselves and their identities seems to me be on a marked increase, my idea here is not regarded as valid by most in this thread, so I'm happy to just let the subject drop.
Perhaps the explosion of the internet has either changed things, or laid things bare that were once hidden. The internet was just becoming available to the average Joe when I was in my late college years. It seems to me that before that, the focus on the self and ones identifying features did not seem as extreme as what it has become since then.
To me it seems that one of the things about the internet, and this has been mentioned before, is that we are no longer just members of our local communities, but part of this worldwide community of all internet-connected people where we are drowned out and somewhat dehumanized due to the overwhelming volume of participants, and perhaps people are finding more and more granular ways to differentiate themselves from the uber-herd.
The internet has definitely hyped some of that up, some of the stuff always existed but the interconnection and reinforcement of many things has definitely grown with the internet, particularly as hype machines and people's own self selections intensify.
Vaktathi wrote: The internet has definitely hyped some of that up, some of the stuff always existed but the interconnection and reinforcement of many things has definitely grown with the internet, particularly as hype machines and people's own self selections intensify.
We're definitely complicated creatures adapted by evolution to an environment that was dramatically different than what we are facing in the modern world.
I just recently heard a psychologist (healthy grain of salt here) talking about how we have evolved to be able to deal with about 250 different relationships with people (so basically a tribe). And then the internet hits. Strange and interesting social phenomena are inevitable. I wonder if the humans that grew up completely post-internet will be the most different kind of humans psychologically and socially that our species has ever generated.
jasper76 wrote: Perhaps the explosion of the internet has either changed things, or laid things bare that were once hidden. The internet was just becoming available to the average Joe when I was in my late college years. It seems to me that before that, the focus on the self and ones identifying features did not seem as extreme as what it has become since then.
Wars over soccer games, riots over "my side lost the election", etc. We've always focused on ourselves and our identifying features.
To me it seems that one of the things about the internet, and this has been mentioned before, is that we are no longer just members of our local communities, but part of this worldwide community of all inherent connected people where we are drowned and dehumanized due to the overwhelming volume of participants, and perhaps people are finding more and more granular ways to differentiate themselves from the uber-herd.
IMO it's the exact opposite. The internet creates unity, not division. Instead of being the only {identity} in your area and feeling alone you can connect with similar people through the internet. The only separation effect is that people who get poor treatment over who they are have a greater ability to express those identities instead of keeping everything hidden, and feel less pressured to participate in a culture that hates them.
While we are certainly more connected with each other in terms of ability to communicate, I can't say that I think we're more unified. Perhaps my perspective is too influenced by the current political and social divisions within the US.
I'd grant that individual interest groups or "tribes" are more unified now due to the internet, but not that humans as a species are.
Peregrine wrote: IMO it's the exact opposite. The internet creates unity, not division. Instead of being the only {identity} in your area and feeling alone you can connect with similar people through the internet. The only separation effect is that people who get poor treatment over who they are have a greater ability to express those identities instead of keeping everything hidden, and feel less pressured to participate in a culture that hates them.
I'll say that in fact, it creates both. You see groups of every kind of things poppin up on the internet, but just as those groups appear, you see them fighting with other groups, even for just stupid reasons.
For example, hmm... furrys? You know. Many people have been conected by that, but at the same time a big division has erupted between furrys and anti-furrys.
jasper76 wrote: Perhaps my perspective is too influenced by the current political and social divisions within the US.
And this is why, despite your "this is not US politics, mods do not lock" reply, my initial comment about identity politics was correct. You seem to have bought into the idea that "identity politics" is a new thing instead of just a new label for "people who I disagree with". And you're also missing the fact that those political and social divisions have their roots in issues that go back decades. What we're seeing in 2017 is just the natural outcome of well-established trends, not something that just came up out of nowhere.
I'd grant that individual interest groups or "tribes" are more unified now due to the internet, but not that humans as a species are.
Of course humans as a species are more unified. Before the internet there was essentially zero unity, simply because you'd never interact with anyone outside of your local community. The vast improvements in communication the internet offers far more than offset anything else, if you're talking about humanity as a whole.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galas wrote: I'll say that in fact, it creates both. You see groups of every kind of things poppin up on the internet, but just as those groups appear, you see them fighting with other groups, even for just stupid reasons.
You mean like the "RAR MY SPORTSBALL TEAM IS BETTER THAN YOURS" conflicts that have existed since long before the internet?
For example, hmm... furrys? You know. Many people have been conected by that, but at the same time a big division has erupted between furrys and anti-furrys.
That's not a good example at all. Furries receive the same "eww, gross/burn in hell you filthy sinner" reactions that have been aimed at people with unconventional sexual preferences since long before the internet existed (just ask any LGBT people who were around back then). The internet hasn't created those feelings, it has only given them a visible target instead of having the furries repressing and hiding because they have nowhere to be themselves. The only difference is that now the anti-furry hate is visible to more people, and revealing ugly divisions to the general public is not the same thing as creating them.
jasper76 wrote: Perhaps my perspective is too influenced by the current political and social divisions within the US.
And this is why, despite your "this is not US politics, mods do not lock" reply, my initial comment about identity politics was correct. You seem to have bought into the idea that "identity politics" is a new thing instead of just a new label for "people who I disagree with". And you're also missing the fact that those political and social divisions have their roots in issues that go back decades. What we're seeing in 2017 is just the natural outcome of well-established trends, not something that just came up out of nowhere.
I'm not the one expounding on the subject of identity politics, and would rather this thread remain on the subject of identity as a broader concept. I don't mind talking about identity politics in a separate thread, but I'm afraid if we go down that rabbit hole this thread will inevitably get locked due the strong feeling the particular subject of identity politics elicits from all sides. In case you hadn't noticed, the mods have become pretty aggressive when it comes to moderating hot button subjects related to US politics, and identity politics is a big one.
jasper76 wrote: I'm not the one expounding on the subject of identity politics, and would rather this thread remain on the subject of identity as a broader concept. I don't mind talking about identity politics in a separate thread, but I'm afraid if we go down that rabbit hole this thread will inevitably get locked due the strong feeling the particular subject of identity politics elicits from all sides. In case you hadn't noticed, the mods have become pretty aggressive when it comes to moderating hot button subjects related to US politics, and identity politics is a big one.
And that's the problem. You're clearly thinking about "identity politics", but you're trying to hide it by talking about identity in general. And identity in general is way too broad and meaningless of a concept to have any useful discussion. So we're reduced to trying to talk about identity politics without ever saying those words and getting moderator attention, which is just plain ridiculous.
Nice Crystal ball there, Peregrine. On second thought, just do what you want...I don't much care if this thread dies TBH. Maybe you'll catch a fish with that line you are casting.
Narcissism is always bad. When people hold their own identity as paramount to others well-being, then you have problem. When this concept is applied through mass media and group reinforcement, then you have a pandemic.
You are correct Peregrine, my use of the word "Creates" was badly used. Probably a more correct term to what I think it that its makes them more numerous.
But I think that as you said, it isn't creating them, it just give different aspects of people a pedestal to be shown to the world, and as always, in the world theres always hate to give to everything
jasper76 wrote: Nice Crystal ball there, Peregrine. On second thought, just do what you want...I don't much care if this thread dies TBH. Maybe you'll catch a fish with that line you are casting.
Oh please, we're at thinly-veiled accusations of trolling now? I don't need a crystal ball when you have explicitly said, in this thread, that you're heavily influenced by US political and social divisions. IOW, "identity politics".
Can you just lock the thread now then, instead of the absurdity of trying to talk about something obviously related to US politics (as the OP has stated explicitly) without it getting "too political"? Or, better, get rid of the ban on US politics so we can have reasonable discussions again?
The proliferation of "NOT-us politic threads" and how everyone just want excuses to bring politics to other offtopics threads is a proof of that
If I didn't know any better, Peregrine, it would seem like you are intentionally trying to derail this thread, probably since asking nicely didn't get you anywhere.
Tactical_Spam wrote: If I didn't know any better, Peregrine, it would seem like you are intentionally trying to derail this thread, probably since asking nicely didn't get you anywhere.
To be fair, it was super obvious what the thread was REALLY about since the first post. It doesn't help that the same person started a nearly identical thread a year ago to demonstrate his concern for the left. So much concern.
Alpharius wrote: Sadly, the OT still doesn't deserve that privilege.
It's not about deserving or not, it's about keeping the mess under control. It's happened on other forums that try to ban politics, and it's happening here. You either allow politics and try to keep it to designated threads/forum sections, or you keep getting ridiculous threads like this one where people post thinly-veiled political content and everyone tries to discuss it while pretending that it isn't politics, until the thread is finally locked for being obviously a political discussion. Repeat over and over again, because most of the interesting stuff to talk about is related to politics. The only alternative to allowing political discussion is to limit the off-topic sections to inane thread after inane thread on bland topics like "what's your favorite movie", with everything else being immediately locked before it can turn political.
Obviously I'm not the one making the decision here, but I can tell you that the current policy is not going to work. You need to just accept that politics exists, accept that the threads are going to be a mess, and keep it in designated politics threads where anyone who doesn't want to get involved can just ignore it.
Funny, but I've been a member of plenty of forums that have a blanket ban on politics and religion. And those forums got along just fine. And as long as the mods and admins on said forums were on their toes, things were relatively peaceful and less contentious.
Political discussion, specifically U.S. politics, only works on forums that lean largely one way or the other, and caters to the interests of people that will lean in a certain direction. Forums like this one, where people will have widely divergent views on politics, social issues, and religion, are a potential storm every other thread. Especially with the strict rules regarding (and what constitutes) "polite" behavior and today's volatile social climate.
Personally, I wouldn't care if discussion of U.S. politics and religion in general were banned from Dakka Off-Topic.
Tactical_Spam wrote: If I didn't know any better, Peregrine, it would seem like you are intentionally trying to derail this thread, probably since asking nicely didn't get you anywhere.
To be fair, it was super obvious what the thread was REALLY about since the first post. It doesn't help that the same person started a nearly identical thread a year ago to demonstrate his concern for the left. So much concern.
To be fairer, this the same persons personal dead horse, and they brought it up constantly wherever they could but the real concern is for the English language and all those monsters who keep using definitions other than the ones said person demands they use, lest English be ruined forever
Tactical_Spam wrote: If I didn't know any better, Peregrine, it would seem like you are intentionally trying to derail this thread, probably since asking nicely didn't get you anywhere.
To be fair, it was super obvious what the thread was REALLY about since the first post. It doesn't help that the same person started a nearly identical thread a year ago to demonstrate his concern for the left. So much concern.
To be fairer, this the same persons personal dead horse, and they brought it up constantly wherever they could but the real concern is for the English language and all those monsters who keep using definitions other than the ones said person demands they use, lest English be ruined forever
To be even fairer, he's not the only in this thread that loves to pummel dead horses
Tactical_Spam wrote: If I didn't know any better, Peregrine, it would seem like you are intentionally trying to derail this thread, probably since asking nicely didn't get you anywhere.
To be fair, it was super obvious what the thread was REALLY about since the first post. It doesn't help that the same person started a nearly identical thread a year ago to demonstrate his concern for the left. So much concern.
I see you shop at the same crystal ball store as Peregrine and Lord of Hats. Where can I get one of those?
You know, I examined my topic post history on OT, since it seems you did the same. I can't find the "nearly identical thread" you are referring to...
Tactical_Spam wrote: If I didn't know any better, Peregrine, it would seem like you are intentionally trying to derail this thread
The observation that a thread talking about identity politics is intrinsically a discussion on US politics is one I agree with, FWIW - and I think it's evident by the page and a half of people asking what exactly the OP meant in the OP, because of course, if he hadn't been oblique, it would have been locked.
Since it seems so difficult for a few people here to separate the concept of "identity" with the concept of "identity politics", perhaps I should provide some definitions as to how I am using the terms as distinct from one another.
Identity - condition or character as to who a person or what a thing is; the qualities, beliefs, etc., that distinguish or identify a person or thing:
identity politics - political positions based on the interests and perspectives of social groups with which people identify.
Those delightful Pagans had it figured out before that even: "an it harm none do what ye will".
If I feel like living my life as a small dog named Colin, it should only be a problem for other people if I take it upon myself to start biting the mailman.
I don't really understand that US politics ban. Because it's only US politics apparently? My 100% politics thread about the French elections was allowed by the mods without any problem.
(That thread wasn't made to troll or anything, it was really for non-French people that wants to know about our elections and stuff, but it would be ridiculous to claim it was about politics…)
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: I don't really understand that US politics ban. Because it's only US politics apparently? My 100% politics thread about the French elections was allowed by the mods without any problem.
(That thread wasn't made to troll or anything, it was really for non-French people that wants to know about our elections and stuff, but it would be ridiculous to claim it was about politics…)
I can't say I understand it much either, but even a thread on the subject of the US Politics ban got locked in Nuts and Bolts, so the anti-US Politics members of the mod community are on high alert, and maybe it's not such a great idea to turn this thread into a "Why can't we discuss US Politics" thread.
jasper76 wrote:I just recently heard a psychologist (healthy grain of salt here) talking about how we have evolved to be able to deal with about 250 different relationships with people (so basically a tribe). And then the internet hits. Strange and interesting social phenomena are inevitable. I wonder if the humans that grew up completely post-internet will be the most different kind of humans psychologically and socially that our species has ever generated.
That would be Dunbar's number. It usually varies between 100 and 250, depending on how you define stable social relationship. You can keep in contact with more people if they are just in your facebook feed than if you regularly talk on the phone with them, and even less if they are close family/friends who you share more with.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: I don't really understand that US politics ban. Because it's only US politics apparently? My 100% politics thread about the French elections was allowed by the mods without any problem.
(That thread wasn't made to troll or anything, it was really for non-French people that wants to know about our elections and stuff, but it would be ridiculous to claim it was about politics…)
I can't say I understand it much either, but even a thread on the subject of the US Politics ban got locked in Nuts and Bolts, so the anti-US Politics members of the mod community are on high alert, and maybe it's not such a great idea to turn this thread into a "Why can't we discuss US Politics" thread.
Unless, of course, their express purpose is to get this thread locked. And to be frank, I wouldn't put it past some posters to do exactly that.
OP isn't opaque enough for anyone whose been around awhile to not know exactly what this is, and it only highlights that the problem in OT isn't the topics but certain users who seem addicted to their personal flame bait.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: I don't really understand that US politics ban. Because it's only US politics apparently? My 100% politics thread about the French elections was allowed by the mods without any problem.
(That thread wasn't made to troll or anything, it was really for non-French people that wants to know about our elections and stuff, but it would be ridiculous to claim it was about politics…)
I can't say I understand it much either, but even a thread on the subject of the US Politics ban got locked in Nuts and Bolts, so the anti-US Politics members of the mod community are on high alert, and maybe it's not such a great idea to turn this thread into a "Why can't we discuss US Politics" thread.
Unless, of course, their express purpose is to get this thread locked. And to be frank, I wouldn't put it past some posters to do exactly that.
Oh, I've noticed. The crystals balls keep coming out like clockwork after the sun goes down each night uncovering my "true intentions" and trying to drag this thread into politics. I've come to consider it a bizarre yet entertaining form of flattery.
Mods, give the people what they want. They are dying without their US Politics fix.
Peregrine wrote: It hardly takes a crystal ball when you explicitly state that your thoughts here are about US politics.
I actually stated that the fact that I don't perceive that we are very unified as a species is probably influenced by the current state of US political and social division. But you can read and seem intelligent, so I have to assume that you already knew that.
While tribalism has almost always existed, I too feel that an increased weight and focus has been placed on identity - especially with an increased focus on intersectionality.
Prophecy fulfilled. There is a standing ban - of indefinite length - on having a US politics thread. Starting a proxy thread (like this one) or twisting a thread into a proxy may result in the staff suspending your ability to post in the OT forum for the duration. Thanks!
).
. And they get SO offended when anyone says anything negative about “gamers”.
storm every other thread. Especially with the strict rules regarding (and what constitutes) "polite" behavior and today's volatile social climate.
