Why are some people obsessed with race, gender, and generation ?

[Rival]

What Century ?

Marxism begins in the 1840s.

This version of it in the 1970s.

 

[Massimo2002]

Marxism begins in the 1840s.

This version of it in the 1970s.

Very interesting.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You are talking about subjectivism there's no truth in subjectivism.

Well, there is. It is just local. You want an universal answer. Well, it won't stop other people for doing it differently than you, if they can.
That is the truth, if you want to play the truth.

So the truth is that you subjectively don't accecpt local truth, but that you don't accept local truth, is local. And that I accept local truth, is true.
Now of course there are limited, yet universal cases of truth. But they are not all universal for everything.

 

[Nakosis]

There are people on the internet I've enclosed who seem to live for hating people because they aren't the same race gender and generation as them why is this ?

Folks accept these things as part of their identity. A lot of people seem to go about boosting their own ego/identity by disparaging the identity of others. Honestly it is easy to get caught up in if someone goes about attacking something you personally identify with.

 

[Nakosis]

You are talking about subjectivism there's no truth in subjectivism.

Where is truth?
Good luck trying to get much agreement on that.

 

[Debater Slayer]

There are people on the internet I've enclosed who seem to live for hating people because they aren't the same race gender and generation as them why is this ?

A subset of humans throughout the entire history of our species have always been tribalistic, racist, sexist, etc. Humans have evolved to survive, not to be rational, so some tribalistic and unjustifiable tendencies keep showing up in our history.

Now that the internet grants people increased visibility compared to the status quo before it, one can come across the beliefs of various groups online, including beliefs like the ones you mentioned. I wouldn't stress over this; it becomes much easier to acknowledge (even if one rejects those beliefs, as one should, in my opinion) without disturbing one's peace of mind once one realizes that it is more or less a permanent feature of human history. This is not to downplay its harms; it's just to say that we can acknowledge the harms and condemn hateful beliefs without necessarily stressing out or having our composure disturbed.

 

[Quintessence]

See, for example:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0963721420924763

Intolerance appears to be commonplace worldwide. There are near-daily reports of intolerance toward refugees and immigrants, people from different religious and ethnic groups, and people who hold ideologically differing viewpoints. However, not all forms of intolerance are the same. In the present work, we discuss the psychology of three understandings of intolerance that are concealed within the literature: (a) prejudicial intolerance based on rigidity, closedmindedness, and antipathy toward a group of people; (b) intuitive intolerance involving disapproval of out-group beliefs or practices based on unreflective responding; and (c) deliberative intolerance, which involves interfering with specific beliefs or practices that are considered to violate moral principles and values. We argue that these three understandings have different implications for (a) how to respond to intolerance and (b) how disagreements on interpretation of examples of intolerance can result in irreconcilable differences among cultural, religious, and ideological groups.

There's an entire field of literature - thousands upon thousands of papers - dedicated to studying this. Have fun.

 

[Massimo2002]

See, for example:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0963721420924763

There's an entire field of literature - thousands upon thousands of papers - dedicated to studying this. Have fun.

Thanks

 

[icehorse]

See, for example:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0963721420924763

There's an entire field of literature - thousands upon thousands of papers - dedicated to studying this. Have fun.

I think an easy way to cut through all the complexity is to find out what a person (or people) values. If two people mostly value the same things, then regardless of what identity politicians might want to impose, those people should be allies.

 

[Stevicus]

I think we were on the right track when society was influenced by Martin Luther King. But today, sadly, some people on the right AND on the left have devolved. I think most of us would agree that "the right" is guilty of racism and misogyny. It's probably harder to see or admit that the "far left" or "progressives" or the "social justice warriors" (who won't stand up and name themselves), are also guilty of racism and misogyny. One way in which this manifests on the far left is via an extreme approach to identity politics. The far left now views many things through a simplistic and damaging "oppressed vs. oppressor" worldview. Taken to extremes (which happens a lot), we hear things like "white guilt" or "systemic racism". These ideas put everyone into identity politics buckets, and judge them by the bucket they fall into. So MLK's idea of judging people by the content of their character has been replaced with these crude, ham-handed identity politics divisions.

A few points come to mind while reading this. For one thing, it's natural for "the left" to take the side of the oppressed against the oppressor. Sometimes it depends on the context, but overall, that's been a common core principle.

However, the problem that's happened for the left is that they have seemingly painted themselves into an ideological corner. For example, the left, by and large, supported the liberation of nations from colonial and imperial rule. This entailed supporting some elements and concepts of nationalism which are/were antithetical to a more internationalist, globalist perspective on the world and geopolitics. Once upon a time, a leftist ideal was for all the workers of the world to unite under a single banner, and presumably a single world government. That's not likely to happen in a world where there are nearly 200 sovereign nations with independent governments.

A good way to keep people under control is to divide them against each other.

Back during MLK's time, the Civil Rights Movement was in full swing, but still in largely a grass-roots period, somewhat raw but sincere and full of zeal. However, 20 years later, during the Reagan era, it was brought up to the establishment-level, which was still predominantly right-wing (as it has remained ever since). What people now see as "woke" or "politically correct" or associated with identity politics is, for all intents and purposes, a corporate contrivance. It's not really "the left," even as much as some people might associate it with the left.

The left actually seems at an extreme disadvantage these days, as capitalism still rules the roost, and the world order still centers upon the inviolability of the nation-state, thus fueling a nationalist resurgence. During the Cold War, the primary focus was on ideological alignment, whereas since the Cold War, the focus has been more on national identity and national sovereignty, as seen in the break up of the USSR, the former Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia. It got even more complicated in Africa, as the boundaries of nation-states were drawn haphazardly, by European colonialists, and not really congruent with the settlement patterns and indigenous territory of the local populations. As a result, there have been tribal and civil wars in many of these countries.

It seems a problem for the left is that they seem to want to fight the right-wing on the right-wing's terms.

 

[icehorse]

What people now see as "woke" or "politically correct" or associated with identity politics is, for all intents and purposes, a corporate contrivance. It's not really "the left," even as much as some people might associate it with the left.

I haven't heard that before, can you elaborate?

 

[Massimo2002]

A few points come to mind while reading this. For one thing, it's natural for "the left" to take the side of the oppressed against the oppressor. Sometimes it depends on the context, but overall, that's been a common core principle.

However, the problem that's happened for the left is that they have seemingly painted themselves into an ideological corner. For example, the left, by and large, supported the liberation of nations from colonial and imperial rule. This entailed supporting some elements and concepts of nationalism which are/were antithetical to a more internationalist, globalist perspective on the world and geopolitics. Once upon a time, a leftist ideal was for all the workers of the world to unite under a single banner, and presumably a single world government. That's not likely to happen in a world where there are nearly 200 sovereign nations with independent governments.

A good way to keep people under control is to divide them against each other.

Back during MLK's time, the Civil Rights Movement was in full swing, but still in largely a grass-roots period, somewhat raw but sincere and full of zeal. However, 20 years later, during the Reagan era, it was brought up to the establishment-level, which was still predominantly right-wing (as it has remained ever since). What people now see as "woke" or "politically correct" or associated with identity politics is, for all intents and purposes, a corporate contrivance. It's not really "the left," even as much as some people might associate it with the left.

The left actually seems at an extreme disadvantage these days, as capitalism still rules the roost, and the world order still centers upon the inviolability of the nation-state, thus fueling a nationalist resurgence. During the Cold War, the primary focus was on ideological alignment, whereas since the Cold War, the focus has been more on national identity and national sovereignty, as seen in the break up of the USSR, the former Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia. It got even more complicated in Africa, as the boundaries of nation-states were drawn haphazardly, by European colonialists, and not really congruent with the settlement patterns and indigenous territory of the local populations. As a result, there have been tribal and civil wars in many of these countries.

It seems a problem for the left is that they seem to want to fight the right-wing on the right-wing's terms.

But who is dividing the people of there is something overarching division them and not just themselves doing it.

 

[Stevicus]

I haven't heard that before, can you elaborate?

It's just my own observation over the years. Many of the ideas and catch phrases seem to be derived from establishment-level, institutional and corporate settings. What people commonly call "political correctness" didn't come out of some grass-roots protest movement in the 60s, but more from corporate boardrooms in the 1980s. Maybe they do it for public relations, or maybe to boost their image.

 

[Massimo2002]

It's just my own observation over the years. Many of the ideas and catch phrases seem to be derived from establishment-level, institutional and corporate settings. What people commonly call "political correctness" didn't come out of some grass-roots protest movement in the 60s, but more from corporate boardrooms in the 1980s. Maybe they do it for public relations, or maybe to boost their image.

1960s ?

 

[Stevicus]

But who is dividing the people of there is something overarching division them and not just themselves doing it.

I've noticed that a lot of people tend to be easily influenced in the usual ways - political rhetoric, advertising speak, propaganda, various kinds of shills, agitators, and instigators who are out there. Most people just don't do their own thing on their own. It would be nice if they did, but people can sometimes be easily led and manipulated. Over the course of my lifetime, I've seen all kinds of fads and other weird stuff that people might latch onto or engage in temporarily. But then, the fad dies off and people look back years later and wonder "why did I ever do that?"

That's how it generally works, unfortunately. If you see large numbers of people believing the same thing and saying the same things and following the same familiar rhetorical patterns, then it's safe to assume that most are being led or influenced by someone. They're not doing it by themselves or by their own initiative. They're being led and guided.

 

[Ignatius A]

There are people on the internet I've enclosed who seem to live for hating people because they aren't the same race gender and generation as them why is this ?

Have these people that you enclosed on the Internet said they hate people who arent the same race gender or generation as them? It is it that you just know they hate people who aren't the same race gender or generation as them? Or you?

 

[Ignatius A]

There are people on the internet I've enclosed who seem to live for hating people because they aren't the same race gender and generation as them why is this ?

Have these people that you enclosed on the Internet said they hate people who arent the same race gender or generation as them? Or is it that you just know they hate people who aren't the same race gender or generation as them? Or you?

 

[Ignatius A]

Because a haters got to hate

How do you suppose he knows the people he enclosed on the Internet hate the people he claims they hate?

 

[stvdv]

There are people on the internet I've enclosed who seem to live for hating people because they aren't the same race gender and generation as them why is this ?

Some people are brought up by parents who were brought up by parents full of anger and hate, and devoid of Love, compassion and empathy.

Energy is known to flow when + and - meet.

Loving people look for similarities
Whereas
Hateful people look for differences

Hence the problem you describe is created

 

[ChristineM]

How do you suppose he knows the people he enclosed on the Internet hate the people he claims they hate?

Experience