the identity problem...

[Peter Kropotkin]

the right/conservatives claims that part of the
''woke" problem is the left wing fixation on identity.....
there is too much fixation on being black or being gay or
being a minority... the fact is that Florida for example
has banned "woke" or questions of identity...

OK, let us take them at their word.... we remove identity
from people... let us take Kropotkin as an example..
(as tend to make myself an example, this fits into that)

let us take my identity away as the right suggests...
I am white.. gone, I am 64.. old, gone.... I am heterosexual,
gone... I am middle class. gone...I live in California.. gone...
ok, we have taken identity away from me...Ok, so what is left?

Ok, Kropotkin, describe yourself... and if all aspects of
my identity is gone, how am able to describe myself?

I am kind... but am I kind compared to say, St. Francis?
who knows?

the point of removing identity politics is to remove any past or
present from people..... how are we to describe our selves or
understand who we are, individually, if we have removed
the who, what, when, where, why and how of existence?

Did my ancestors own slaves? Since my family, on my mom's side,
has been in America since 1650, I would have to say yes....
and how does that make me feel? It doesn't have anything to do with me....
but it is another factor in which I can use to identify myself.
my past, however it happened, is a part of me...
just as my being white or male or my sexual identity is heterosexual.......
they are simple part of the story that tells me and you, who I am...
and that is what the conservatives want to erase by erasing
identity politics... our past....

to erase identity is to erase who people are...it allows others
to tell my own story without my participation... Kropotkin is
a liberal... is a different explanation than if I say, I am a liberal...
my identity is my identity.... and that is not yours to use....
or to erase... my older sister did that 23 and me kit,
and she found out that we have mostly British/Irish background
and that is what I have heard from family...and it is a part
of my identity...part of who I am... but in that kit came some
interesting results.. that I have some African American in me
as well as native American.... and if my family has been here as long
as they have been, I would have been surprised not to see that...
part of legacy from the past is this "carnal" relationships of
whites, blacks, native Americans.... and I am no different than
millions of other Americans... to babel inanities like the Neo-Nazi's
in America do about race... I am also 5% Ashkenazi Jew....
thus for me to say, down with the Jews or death to Jews
is to deny my own heritage... of course, for many Neo-Nazi's
denying their heritage is kinda the point.... to remake themselves
into something else was part of the Nazi's agenda.... they proudly
called themselves "Aryans" which is to mean that they are somehow
''pure'' in body/blood... but the fact is that part of humanity's
story or legacy is that we are, all of us, connected to each other...
we are black and we are native American and we are Jew
and we are Ashkenazi Jew..... and a million other things...
that come to light if we were to test ourselves, like a 23 and me...

I self-identify as Irish... my father's side came from Ireland
in the 1890's or so.. I could have just as easily self-identify as English...
my mothers side....part of me is that of nation.. My family came
from both Ireland and England... my past is my past and nothing
I can do to change that....just accept it and move along...
it is part of my identity... who I am.. just as surely as I am
white or male or heterosexual... and to deny me my identity
is to remove my past... remove part of or even all of who I am....

so not only do we need identity, but we need to accept it
and even flaunt it... for why should I be ashamed of my past?
as the right wing wants.... to remove identity from the equation
as the right wants, is to remove my own identity and remove
my history/past... to rewrite history and my own past...

I don't want to remove identity as the conservative wants...
I need to embrace it ... for it is who I am...
so, I need to proclaim for all to hear... I am white.
I am male, I am Irish, I am heterosexual....

Now let us reimagine myself as gay or black or Jewish...
and I need to embrace that.. proclaim that.. be that..
for that is who I am... I need not feel shame or deny my own
past, my own identity as the right wants... shout it from the
rooftops if that is what you want to do..
not that may not be what you want, but we have to accept
and understand that the past, who we come from, matters
as much as who I am today... and why not take pride in that....
even if it means, as it probably does mean in my case, my
own past includes slave owners... I don't need to be embarrassed
or ashamed about that... for I cannot escape my own self,
my own past.. it is part of who I am... and there is no escaping that....

Kropotkin

[Iwannaplato]

the point of removing identity politics is to remove any past or
present from people....

No it's not. The point is to remove it from legislation, rules in workplaces, from how people are treated or dismissed, from creating divisions that may or may not arise.

If you are going to as a rule misrepresent what other people are saying, potentially just through an inability to understand it, you are just adding to divisions.

Did my ancestors own slaves? Since my family, on my mom's side,
has been in America since 1650, I would have to say yes....
and how does that make me feel? It doesn't have anything to do with me....
but it is another factor in which I can use to identify myself.
my past, however it happened, is a part of me...
just as my being white or male or my sexual identity is heterosexual.......
they are simple part of the story that tells me and you, who I am...
and that is what the conservatives want to erase by erasing
identity politics... our past....

Yeah, that's it. Conservatives don't want people to think of themselves as heteosexual or white or black. That's it. They want people to forget the past. LOL No one should think of their class or ethnic background. That's what they are after. It's the how people identify. Identity POLITICS. dimwit.
The problem with your misunderstandings is that they are so basic and fundamental any news or details just flow into the confirmation biased conclusions.

[Peter Kropotkin]

Now a major part of our modern world is to
deny people their own identity... to be gay or
to be trans is part of self identity...to ban
saying the words, as Florida has done, any discussion of
sexual orientation and gender identity is to deny our own self...
to deny that we are, if the one persona may be, gay.. is to remove
part of our own self identity.. which is the point of such laws..
to remove, by governmental decree, part of our own identity...
if I were gay or trans....

and by what right, do I have to force others to have a past or a story
that I approve of.... under what right do I have to tell people that
they can't say, I am gay... or I am trans... oh, right...
the idiotic idea that I am somehow "protecting the children"
but the point is that children are, some of them, gay or trans..
that is a fact.. and to deny them that identity is to deny
them their story, their own self... to remove books about
gays or trans people is to take away part of gays/trans self-identity...
and by what right do you have to take away gays/trans self-identity?

Just as I have no right to take away your self-identity.. to deny
you the right to claim your past and be aware of it and accept
that past, regardless of what may have happened in that past....

or to say this another way.. it is injustice to remove someone's
past, to remove their self-identity because it makes you uncomfortable...
the act of justice is the act of equality... justice requires equality
to be justice... and to take away someone's history/or self identity
as a group, is to deny justice to that group.... to take away
equality from anyone in society is to promote injustice as a value...
and that cannot become a value that we can support or value....

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

the point of removing identity politics is to remove any past or
present from people....

No it's not. The point is to remove it from legislation, rules in workplaces, from how people are treated or dismissed, from creating divisions that may or may not arise.

If you are going to as a rule misrepresent what other people are saying, potentially just through an inability to understand it, you are just adding to divisions.

Did my ancestors own slaves? Since my family, on my mom's side,
has been in America since 1650, I would have to say yes....
and how does that make me feel? It doesn't have anything to do with me....
but it is another factor in which I can use to identify myself.
my past, however it happened, is a part of me...
just as my being white or male or my sexual identity is heterosexual.......
they are simple part of the story that tells me and you, who I am...
and that is what the conservatives want to erase by erasing
identity politics... our past....

Yeah, that's it. Conservatives don't want people to think of themselves as heteosexual or white or black. That's it. They want people to forget the past. LOL No one should think of their class or ethnic background. That's what they are after. It's the how people identify. Identity POLITICS. dimwit.
The problem with your misunderstandings is that they are so basic and fundamental any news or details just flow into the confirmation biased conclusions.

K: at this point, I am pretty sure Iwann will attack any viewpoint
I put forward... regardless of what I write, according to I. I will
be wrong.... so what, me worry? Nah...
I would actually be really confused if I. actually agreed with
any viewpoint I put forward.. no matter what I write,
I will be wrong... so... at least we know he will be consistent...

Kropotkin is wrong.. on everything, no matter what he writes...

Kropotkin

[Iwannaplato]

K: at this point, I am pretty sure Iwann will attack any viewpoint
I put forward... regardless of what I write, according to I. I will
be wrong.... so what, me worry? Nah...
I would actually be really confused if I. actually agreed with
any viewpoint I put forward.. no matter what I write,
I will be wrong... so... at least we know he will be consistent...

Kropotkin is wrong.. on everything, no matter what he writes...

PK Always has a reason not to actually interact with any criticism. Sometimes he reacts, but the reactions do not interact with the ideas.

I happen to agree that current capitalism is terrible.
I agree that that there is significant racism in the US.
As a couple of examples. There are quite a few more.

Why then do I focus on what I disagree with regarding PK's posts.
Because I think he ADDS to the problems in the world by generalizing, misrepresenting, and demonizing conservatives. I see this as creating as many problems as when conservatives do this, which many of them also do with great frequency.
In fact I see a similar love of conflict in many individuals on each side and facile thinking and misrepresentation feed that love and self-righteousness.
It'd be lovely if both groups of binary thinkers could have their own planet to play with their binary thinking and inablity to understand other perspectives.

But notice: regardless of who criticizes what PK writes, he fails to engage. He may write some pseudo reaction, generally without making it clear what points he is responding to. With many his responses do not engage at all. A blogger who pretends to respond but does not.

It could be that he lacks the ability to interact with other people's ideas. That fits with the way he misrepresents the views of other people. But I don't know. He certainly can be utterly unaware of the weaknesses in his thinking. I don't assume bad intent.

Here PK finds a way to make it seem correct to simply ignore things.

He'd have more integrity if he just ignored posts It would be an honest presentation that he can't or won't interact with people.

PK has said that he lacks certain social skills IRL. Perhaps he is not capable of realizing that his lack of being able to interact, in certain ways, with people IRL, affects his ability to understand other perspectives and also to interact with ideas, rather than simply repeating his positions or faux/vague responding.

[Peter Kropotkin]

K: at this point, I am pretty sure Iwann will attack any viewpoint
I put forward... regardless of what I write, according to I. I will
be wrong.... so what, me worry? Nah...
I would actually be really confused if I. actually agreed with
any viewpoint I put forward.. no matter what I write,
I will be wrong... so... at least we know he will be consistent...

Kropotkin is wrong.. on everything, no matter what he writes...

PK Always has a reason not to actually interact with any criticism. Sometimes he reacts, but the reactions do not interact with the ideas.

I happen to agree that current capitalism is terrible.
I agree that that there is significant racism in the US.
As a couple of examples. There are quite a few more.

Why then do I focus on what I disagree with regarding PK's posts.
Because I think he ADDS to the problems in the world by generalizing, misrepresenting, and demonizing conservatives. I see this as creating as many problems as when conservatives do this, which many of them also do with great frequency.
In fact I see a similar love of conflict in many individuals on each side and facile thinking and misrepresentation feed that love and self-righteousness.
It'd be lovely if both groups of binary thinkers could have their own planet to play with their binary thinking and inablity to understand other perspectives.

But notice: regardless of who criticizes what PK writes, he fails to engage. He may write some pseudo reaction, generally without making it clear what points he is responding to. With many his responses do not engage at all. A blogger who pretends to respond but does not.

It could be that he lacks the ability to interact with other people's ideas. That fits with the way he misrepresents the views of other people. But I don't know. He certainly can be utterly unaware of the weaknesses in his thinking. I don't assume bad intent.

Here PK finds a way to make it seem correct to simply ignore things.

He'd have more integrity if he just ignored posts It would be an honest presentation that he can't or won't interact with people.

PK has said that he lacks certain social skills IRL. Perhaps he is not capable of realizing that his lack of being able to interact, in certain ways, with people IRL, affects his ability to understand other perspectives and also to interact with ideas, rather than simply repeating his positions or faux/vague responding.

K: ahhh, the Kropotkin is wrong because he won't interact with
me/anyone.... it isn't what I say, but how I say it that seem to have
Iwaana panties in a bunch... but nevertheless, I am wrong...

there is a god... Iwanna... wrong.... there is not god...Iw. wrong... there
might be a god, IW.... wrong... there could be a god.. In.. wrong..
there should be a god.. Iw. wrong...

and why is Kropotkin always wrong.. he won't engage with me..
in other words, I don't play the game as Iwanna and others demand of
me... to be right.. I must engage with every single post they write....
to play the game as they want me to.. not as I want to....
once again to take away my own choices.. and demand I play
by their rules/with their ideas.... no, thanks... I respect myself
more than that, to play the game as I am expected to or I will be wrong...

so I guess I will aways be wrong... that seems to me to be a binary choice
put upon me by others, like Iwanna..who demands that I respond
and react to their every whim... no... I won't play that game...
I will continue to respond or react as I seem fit to.. and if they
don't like it.. they can declare me wrong... as usual...

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

Now one of the arguments against sexual identity is
that some turn sexual identity problems into
identity politics... but let us look at the matter in hand.....

examples might be in the banning of books, in Florida for
example..... this is kinda a chicken or the egg problem.....
which came first?... the answer might give us some insight
to this question of identity, social, individual and legal....

now depending, some societies/civilizations may outright
ban gays/behavior... or some might tolerate it, not outright
ban but strongly discourage it via social pressure...
and some may accept it, legally as most of the Industrial
West has done...

now many refuse to accept the use of legal means to
promote a social agenda... so, we legally allow
gays the same rights as we allow anyone else....
and according to the right, that is unacceptable..
to promote one value over another is wrong...
and yet, as gays have been legally and socially undesirable,
to fight this "prejudice" we have introduce laws that allows gays
to have the same rights as a heterosexual... to marry, to have children,
to have a say in all matters that a heterosexual has a say in....
but in the past, those rights and that is what we are talking about,
rights have been denied to gays and trans people... for example,
transpeople in some states have been denied medical service
based on being trans...and this is done legally... so we deny
gender affirming medical care for children... we remove parental control
and insert government control over our children medical rights....
and by engaging in these attacks on our rights, by engaging in
political identity issues... we are trying to engage all children,
regardless of their situation, to be treated equally......
and in denying them medical care based on sexual orientation,
is denying them fundamental rights other children have...
and if legal means are used to deny rights, then legal means
must be used to return those rights to those who have been
denied their basic fundamental rights...

identity politics exists because of rights being taken away...
allow people their legal rights, as is offered to all citizens,
there is no need for identity politics...or laws.... only when
rights have been violated or denied, is there any reason to
engage in identity politcs.....

''as I have been a good little reindeer and engaged, does
that mean I am finally right? or am I just always wrong..
not matter what I say? I am guessing that I will be declared being
wrong.. just because''.....

Kropotkin

[Iwannaplato]

K: ahhh, the Kropotkin is wrong because he won't interact with
me/anyone...

It's right there in what you quoted but you seem not to have noticed. It's that you won't respond while pretending to respond. It's mis-generalizing, misinterpreting, ignoring information that goes against what you say and more. Those are things that I think are problematic.

Pretty unbelievable that you can't manage to read what you quote.
Pretty amazing that instead of responding to what I disagree with you make up something instead.

I've criticized behavior. I've also criticized assertions.

Yes, I think some of your assertions are incorrent. Not becuase you don't respond. Because I think they are wrong.

Get it? Two separate things.

I also specifically said two things I agree with that were central points in a couple of your threads. I believe I also said these were just two examples.

. it isn't what I say, but how I say it that seem to have
Iwaana panties in a bunch... but nevertheless, I am wrong...

Appreciate the sexism. And again. I have, in most of my posts, criticized your ideas. Here I mainly laughed at your ideas. But in other threads I have argued against your ideas only to get faux responses. The faux responses don't mean you are wrong. They just mean you seem incapable of actually interacting with ideas.
And in a number of posts I have criticized your behavior. Sometimes there is overlap: such as misrepresenting people as a pattern. I never said it was how you said it, it was what you said.

That you fail to actually respond to people's arguments and points is a different problem.

there is a god... Iwanna... wrong.... there is not god...Iw. wrong... there
might be a god, IW.... wrong... there could be a god.. In.. wrong..
there should be a god.. Iw. wrong...

A near unintelligible strawman.

and why is Kropotkin always wrong..

AGain, terrible reading. I specifically mentioned things we agree about and explained why I focus on what I do.
Again, can't or won't read.

he won't engage with me..

And again, poor reading. It's that you pretend to engage. I've said that a few times.

in other words, I don't play the game as Iwanna and others demand of
me... to be right.. I must engage with every single post they write....

Strawman and again contradicted by what I wrote.

so I guess I will aways be wrong... that seems to me to be a binary choice

Except, again, I pointed out a couple of things that I agree with that have been central your posts.

put upon me by others, like Iwanna..who demands that I respond
and react to their every whim...

Again, my main suggestion has been to not pretend to respond. IOW I never demanded you respond. I said it was preferable, in fact, if you didn't respond at all, rather than making faux responses that don't actually deal with any arguments or points made.

So, strawman.

no... I won't play that game...
I will continue to respond or react as I seem fit to.. and if they
don't like it.. they can declare me wrong... as usual...

Zero substance, apparant lack of reading skills or disingenuousness in the extreme.

Thank you for demonstrating what I actually said, while/by pretending I said other things.
A perfect example of what I said.

[Agent Smith]

I now know who's the boss!! Bricks, the clue is in the bricks. Rebok?

[Consul]

What is Identity Politics?

"Identity politics is an orientation towards social or political theorizing, rather than a coherent body of ideas with a settled political character. It seeks to challenge and overthrow oppression by reshaping a group's identity through what amounts to a process of politico-cultural self-assertion. This reflects two core beliefs. (1) Group marginalization operates through stereotypes and values developed by dominant groups that structure how marginalized groups see themselves and are seen by others. These inculcate a sense of inferiority, even shame. (2) Subordination can be challenged by reshaping identity to give the group concerned a sense of pride and self-respect (e.g. 'black is beautiful' or 'gay pride'). Embracing or proclaiming a positive social identity is thus an act of defiance or liberation."

(Heywood, Andrew. Political Ideologies. 6th ed. London: Palgrave, 2017. p. 282)
——————
"Identity politics as a mode of organizing is intimately connected to the idea that some social groups are oppressed; that is, that one’s identity as a woman or as African American, for example, makes one peculiarly vulnerable to cultural imperialism (including stereotyping, erasure, or appropriation of one’s group identity), violence, exploitation, marginalization, or powerlessness. Identity politics starts from analyses of such forms of social injustice to recommend, variously, the reclaiming, redescription, or transformation of previously stigmatized accounts of group membership. Rather than accepting the negative scripts offered by a dominant culture about one’s own inferiority, one transforms one’s own sense of self and community.
…
The scope of political movements that may be described as identity politics is broad: the examples used in the philosophical literature are predominantly of struggles for recognition and social justice by groups of citizens within western capitalist democracies, but Indigenous rights movements worldwide, nationalist projects, or demands for regional self-determination use similar arguments. Predictably, there is no straightforward criterion that makes a political struggle into an example of “identity politics.” Rather, the term signifies a loose collection of political projects, each undertaken by representatives of a collective with a distinctively different social location that has hitherto been neglected, erased, or suppressed.
…
What is crucial about the “identity” of identity politics appears to be the experience of the subject, especially their experience within social structures that generate injustice, and the possibility of a shared and more authentic or self-determined alternative. Thus identity politics rests on the connection between a certain undergoing and the subject-position to which it is attributed, and hence on unifying claims about the meaning of politically laden experiences to diverse individuals. Sometimes the meaning given to a particular experience will diverge from that of its subject: thus, for example, the victim of sexual violence who is told they caused their own fate by taking risks, when they believe their attacker is culpable. Making sense of such interpretive gaps depends on methods that recognize the divergence between dominant epistemic accounts and subjugated knowledges. Thus concern about this aspect of identity politics has crystallized around the transparency of experience, and the univocality of its interpretation. Experience is never, critics argue, simply epistemically available prior to interpretation; rather it requires a theoretical framework—implicit or explicit—to give it meaning."

(Hayes, Cressida, "Identity Politics." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2020: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-politics/)
——————
"[W]hat makes identity politics a significant departure from earlier, pre-identarian forms of the politics of recognition is its demand for recognition on the basis of the very grounds on which recognition has previously been denied: it is qua women, qua blacks, qua lesbians that groups demand recognition. The demand is made irrespective of whether identities are viewed as socially, culturally, or discursively constructed. The demand is not for inclusion within the fold of “universal humankind” on the basis of shared human attributes; nor is it for respect “in spite of” one’s differences. Rather, what is demanded is respect for oneself as different."

(Kruks, Sonia. Retrieving Experience: Subjectivity and Recognition in Feminist Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2001. p. 85)