Cornell U. welcome package: check your privilege

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Oh Dante, you are just saying that because you scored 15/15 on the privilege scale, aren't you? That would invalidate your opinion. Unless we count Scottish as ''accented English''. I love how there's a double penalty for white people and Western Europeans.

Remember the old ''let's value people as invididuals regardless of race and creed''? Scratch that.

Hey only 12/15 if that counts? But aye- surely the fact too that i'm losing my Scottish accent (according to homelanders) means i'd be doubly oppressed? Forced to conform! Freeeedom!
Also anyone looked at the appearance section? The hell - that's all subjective crap 'beautiful'/'handsome'... Its not about privilege as sections of it are merely a series of subjective judgments that sort of render any potential worth of the test (if there is any- i personally doubt it) in terms of being a device to remedy perceptions of 'privilege'. Whose call is it to make that the person in front of them is 'handsome' and thus is higher on the scale? That demeans their own personal experience- you can be 'beautiful' to someone and still have a shite life with few opportunities.

Again getting my rant on- its why this type of liberalism when displayed in these contexts is a complete farce, making a mockery of what liberalism should be. The pursuit of everyone individually being of equal worth and potential- regardless of their circumstances. Your spot on when you say what happened to the cornerstone of being a liberal. What's worse is things like this actively undermine the liberal social contract towards everyone being of equal value, no one being 'better' or 'worse' but an aspiration for true equality- as through its selectiveness it fuels a reaction that will (as we've seen happen in some areas) tip the scale back even further away from the concept.

I mean heck, we have issues in the west in terms of stagnating wages and living standards for everyone who is an 'average' person (and this will have a further knock on to the wealthy down the line, and the poor now even worse). If in the face of this issue and those like it (Polarisation of wealth, changing nature of work etc) we instead of acting together as a whole to provide sustainable and stable solutions that benefit everybody, instead devolve into single minded interest groups, pushing their own small agendas at the expense of others, then the whole ideology of liberalism, fairness, equality will collapse as we see a political and social context reminiscent of Weimar Germany's Reichstag response to the Great Depression- narrow interest groups of the center, left and liberals fight among themselves over the scraps, furthering the depression, weakening the response to it and forcing those 'left out' to seek solutions elsewhere by framing the context of the debate in terms of an oppositional framework where there are winners and losers.

And yes i realize i've gone from 0 to Germany in a post about one college criteria for privilege, but to me this is a case study of where certain liberals have gone wrong and of what overall this is leading to (i.e. the collapse of the traditional liberal values that created modern western society and have sustained it thus far).

[Basil II the B.S]

Hey only 12/15 if that counts? But aye- surely the fact too that i'm losing my Scottish accent (according to homelanders) means i'd be doubly oppressed? Forced to conform! Freeeedom!
Also anyone looked at the appearance section? The hell - that's all subjective crap 'beautiful'/'handsome'... Its not about privilege as sections of it are merely a series of subjective judgments that sort of render any potential worth of the test (if there is any- i personally doubt it) in terms of being a device to remedy perceptions of 'privilege'. Whose call is it to make that the person in front of them is 'handsome' and thus is higher on the scale? That demeans their own personal experience- you can be 'beautiful' to someone and still have a shite life with few opportunities.

Again getting my rant on- its why this type of liberalism when displayed in these contexts is a complete farce, making a mockery of what liberalism should be. The pursuit of everyone individually being of equal worth and potential- regardless of their circumstances. Your spot on when you say what happened to the cornerstone of being a liberal. What's worse is things like this actively undermine the liberal social contract towards everyone being of equal value, no one being 'better' or 'worse' but an aspiration for true equality- as through its selectiveness it fuels a reaction that will (as we've seen happen in some areas) tip the scale back even further away from the concept.

I mean heck, we have issues in the west in terms of stagnating wages and living standards for everyone who is an 'average' person (and this will have a further knock on to the wealthy down the line, and the poor now even worse). If in the face of this issue and those like it (Polarisation of wealth, changing nature of work etc) we instead of acting together as a whole to provide sustainable and stable solutions that benefit everybody, instead devolve into single minded interest groups, pushing their own small agendas at the expense of others, then the whole ideology of liberalism, fairness, equality will collapse as we see a political and social context reminiscent of Weimar Germany's Reichstag response to the Great Depression- narrow interest groups of the center, left and liberals fight among themselves over the scraps, furthering the depression, weakening the response to it and forcing those 'left out' to seek solutions elsewhere by framing the context of the debate in terms of an oppositional framework where there are winners and losers.

And yes i realize i've gone from 0 to Germany in a post about one college criteria for privilege, but to me this is a case study of where certain liberals have gone wrong and of what overall this is leading to (i.e. the collapse of the traditional liberal values that created modern western society and have sustained it thus far).

One thing you need to address, reading your conversation with Hannibal as well, is whether you want equality of opportunity or equality of outcome. Those are mutually incompatible and belong to different systems. One is liberalism (classical), the other is socialism (today goes as ''liberalism'').

Why are they incompatible? Because if you give everyone equality of opportunity, IQ and personaliy traits generate different outcomes. You can pick two twins, same race, gender, genes, everything, in the same exact moment they pick different hobbies, that will generate different outcomes in their lives. To achieve equal outcomes, you have to do what socialists regimes do, repress individual choices, thus limit the equality of opportunity, because the more talented will have to be repressed so that they don't achieve more than the less talented. There's what used to be the social-democratic way, that focuses on equality of opportunity, but also avoids excessive inequality of outcome. There's still inequality but it's bracketed to avoid extremes. That was always the limit.

The kind of policies in the OP simply belong to equality of outcome (aka equity). The idea is that if some individuals are inherently privileged by their race/sexual orientation/whatever, then equality of outcome should be achieved by actively discriminating against them while favouring the allegedly oppressed. Indeed, as you said in your post, this is simply not liberalism. It's the humiliation of the individual, the pandering to stereotypes (ironically what they claim they want to fight), in the name of a selective, subjective, anti-scientific, idea of utopia that's pretty consistent in delivering athrocities instead.

And for the sake of the far right, nothing fuels white nationalism like identity politics, because white nationalism is identity politics of the right. Then you'll end up with the coalition of the oppressed that somehow wants to keep together Muslims and the LGBTQIA+ community, feminists and transwomen (there's a funny recent controversy, a tranny banker from Credit Suisse was named among the top 100 influential women, it sent feminists into overdrive) and all sorts of contraddicting, incompatible lifestyles and beliefs, against the homogenous group of heterosexual white males whose options are to die out or embrace white nationalism. This is what the left is doing, imagine how well it can end.

[skh1]

If you look closely, the material appears to have been originally developed by a Dr. Kathryn Obear whose website I believe this to be:
https://drkathyobear.com/
… and subsequently adapted by the Office of Multicultural Affairs at the University of Seattle whose website this certainly is:
https://www.seattleu.edu//oma/
Just some additional context.

[Big War Bird]

I would give you rep Hannibal for your unironic support of racial and sexual discrimination, but I've been a bad boy or was it because I was born wrong? For you either works.

[HannibalExMachina]

Hey only 12/15 if that counts? But aye- surely the fact too that i'm losing my Scottish accent (according to homelanders) means i'd be doubly oppressed? Forced to conform! Freeeedom!
Also anyone looked at the appearance section? The hell - that's all subjective crap 'beautiful'/'handsome'... Its not about privilege as sections of it are merely a series of subjective judgments that sort of render any potential worth of the test (if there is any- i personally doubt it) in terms of being a device to remedy perceptions of 'privilege'. Whose call is it to make that the person in front of them is 'handsome' and thus is higher on the scale? That demeans their own personal experience- you can be 'beautiful' to someone and still have a shite life with few opportunities.

Again getting my rant on- its why this type of liberalism when displayed in these contexts is a complete farce, making a mockery of what liberalism should be. The pursuit of everyone individually being of equal worth and potential- regardless of their circumstances. Your spot on when you say what happened to the cornerstone of being a liberal. What's worse is things like this actively undermine the liberal social contract towards everyone being of equal value, no one being 'better' or 'worse' but an aspiration for true equality- as through its selectiveness it fuels a reaction that will (as we've seen happen in some areas) tip the scale back even further away from the concept.

I mean heck, we have issues in the west in terms of stagnating wages and living standards for everyone who is an 'average' person (and this will have a further knock on to the wealthy down the line, and the poor now even worse). If in the face of this issue and those like it (Polarisation of wealth, changing nature of work etc) we instead of acting together as a whole to provide sustainable and stable solutions that benefit everybody, instead devolve into single minded interest groups, pushing their own small agendas at the expense of others, then the whole ideology of liberalism, fairness, equality will collapse as we see a political and social context reminiscent of Weimar Germany's Reichstag response to the Great Depression- narrow interest groups of the center, left and liberals fight among themselves over the scraps, furthering the depression, weakening the response to it and forcing those 'left out' to seek solutions elsewhere by framing the context of the debate in terms of an oppositional framework where there are winners and losers.

And yes i realize i've gone from 0 to Germany in a post about one college criteria for privilege, but to me this is a case study of where certain liberals have gone wrong and of what overall this is leading to (i.e. the collapse of the traditional liberal values that created modern western society and have sustained it thus far).

hey, you figured out that privilege is bestowed by absolutely arbitrary measures, and thats the problem! big hand!

and i have to burst your bubble, but you cant solve problems without looking at underlying issues. because there is more than just economic privilege. initially, i was willing to accept that moderate progressives may just have neglected social issues, relying on established voter preference to, well, know whats in their own best interest.

unfortunately, the fact that conservatives are increasingly relying on scapegoating instead of offering solutions to these very same issues, had me conclude that playing it nice and uncontroversial is no longer viable.

and really, the weimar republic? you bring that up to blame political divide on those who bring to light societal issues? here is the thing: these issues exist. you cant ignore them, just to pretend there is no division.

no offense, but read up on interwar germany, you will find the parallels are in the rise of reactionaries, not in combating them. thats what sunk the ship, the lack of opposition, and a makeup that stunted a democracy in the cradle.

I would give you rep Hannibal for your unironic support of racial and sexual discrimination, but I've been a bad boy or was it because I was born wrong? For you either works.

no apology needed, i know you would support racial and sexual discrimination quite unironically

[Dante Von Hespburg]

hey, you figured out that privilege is bestowed by absolutely arbitrary measures, and thats the problem! big hand!

and i have to burst your bubble, but you cant solve problems without looking at underlying issues. because there is more than just economic privilege. initially, i was willing to accept that moderate progressives may just have neglected social issues, relying on established voter preference to, well, know whats in their own best interest.

unfortunately, the fact that conservatives are increasingly relying on scapegoating instead of offering solutions to these very same issues, had me conclude that playing it nice and uncontroversial is no longer viable.

and really, the weimar republic? you bring that up to blame political divide on those who bring to light societal issues? here is the thing: these issues exist. you cant ignore them, just to pretend there is no division.

no offense, but read up on interwar germany, you will find the parallels are in the rise of reactionaries, not in combating them. thats what sunk the ship, the lack of opposition, and a makeup that stunted a democracy in the cradle.

Sorry if not clear, but isn't that exactly what i'm saying in regards to the example of interwar germany? The rise of a reactionary group is partly to blame by the complete lack of (on the liberal/centrist parties part) confrontation due in no small part to their own divisions. Sure they had a fear of communism on the left that arguably was seen as the key threat, until later (1929ish i'd argue', some can say earlier) but primarily the response to the depression was for these groups to double down in attempting to protect the interests of their core bases and not work together (One reason why Bruning was forced to resort to using emergency powers to pass legislation...the fact too this legislation was with hindsight the wrong choice to protect from political instability figures too of course). Within this space, a counter-reaction to their ineffectiveness was bourne using mass politics and feeding off the oppositional divisions. I think that's a very direct parallel to some of the issues now.

Also nowhere did i mention that you can't have equality without looking at underlying issues- what its completely counterproductive is in your response to these issues of inequality, to implement a policy (such as the old argument around 'positive discrimination' in employment) that effectively 'tips' the balance in favour of the previously underrepresented party over the formally over-represented party. That's been the failure of contemporary liberalism and is exactly why there has been such a hit-back against it. Its the same arguments for instance that we use with austerity- the financial crash was bad and needed a solution. Austerity was used... it was one of many options on the table (as with reactions to getting rid of inequality in society) it turned out to be the worst option, with a large social and political cost and an unstable 'gain'. That's what i call policy failure and that can be directly seen in conceptions like this.

Incidentally the largest enforcement of privilege IS through economics. To try and marginalize an economic and egalitarian response to this in favour of objectively unsustainable and unworkable (long term) policies such as this being enacted in places is ridiculous.

That elements of the right are successfully scapegoating to gain electoral advantage minority groups over offering solutions is an opening that has been directly created by the misuse of identity politics in the way that has been described in the OP. The answer to this isn't to 'double down' on identity politics (Which elements of the right have very ably used to achieve their current gains) as this is literally giving them the oppositional ammunition needed and is politically a bad idea doomed to failure. The answer is to go back to liberalisms egalitarianism (and keyly indeed economics- when everyone is suffering, human behavior is alas typically to give less about specific 'niche' issues, thus 'niche' and 'minority' issues for sustainability and stability have to be woven into the larger narrative instead of specific concentrations, a broader equal approach to 'privilege'). If you don't do this, we are going to see the continued rise of far-left and far-right populist politics. Its in terms of basics the whole 'idealism' (as shown here) vs Power politics (of say Blair- you get into power by uniting the various 'identity' politics, not concentrating on them- and once in power under that broad narrative, you can then start to address problems around specific inequalities, by at the same time not marginalizing any group or the majority as this does).

EDIT: Final point i promise, but something you said here resonated:

hey, you figured out that privilege is bestowed by absolutely arbitrary measures, and thats the problem! big hand!

So you are essentially advocating that because inequality/privilege is arbitrary...the policy answer and solution to it should also have the same flaw?

That thinking absolutely sums up the major issues i hold and have explained above with this kind of liberal thinking. If you want real, sustainable and long-term stable change that combats inequality you DO NOT answer it with tit for tat crap like this. Its political short-terminism at its finest and is exactly the reason radical elements on the right and left have been able to gain so much traction. There is a real lack of pragmatic consideration from those who create policy plans such as this. It cannot and should not become the 'mainstream' of progressive thinking.

[HannibalExMachina]

thats exactly what i am talking about, you are trying to wag the dog by the tail. identity politics arent the cause of reactionary resurgence, that is another scapegoat. scapegoating, by its very nature, cannot be prevented. you cant outlogic something that is illogical.

"tips the balance in favour"? we are nowhere close to a balance, how can there be any tipping? again, you are blaming the scapegoat, not the cause.

blair is actually a good example for the failure of purely opportunistic policies. once people get wise to them, they will crash and burn, all that holds them up is a false narrative, in whatever form. its a pretence of unity, which the current state of labour shows. corbyn, contrary to the narrative of his opponents, isnt creating cracks, he just isnt glossing over them. your whole narrative relies on the fiction of unity where there is none. unless you adress divise issues, instead of desperately trying to find common ground, however spurious, they will come back to bite you.

the whole narrative of the US being racially or otherwise divided by progressives now is a complete fiction, it always was. but the narrative is showing cracks, and those relying on it are desperately trying to gloss it over.

weimar wasnt shaken by "interest groups", any more than any other society that allows them, unless you mean the impossibility to reconcile liberal democracy with authoritarian tendencies. a liberal democracy blamed from the start with losing a war it didnt start, for reparations it had no choice but to accept, with a population falling for the myth of the strong man to get them out. a society already divided between socialists and monarchists. the war itself was a good vehicle to create a unity that would have been impossible otherwise. the czar made a similar calculation, but to his misfortune, the situation was worse domestically, and disastrous on the front. unless german conservatives, he had no sufficent backing when the revolution happend. weimar was a red october more or less narrowly avoided.

you see what all those have in common? problems kept in check by ignoring them. and intersectionality is key, you cant keep certain "interest groups" out, just because they trouble you. troubling you may be the point. did you know the suffragetes set houses on fire?

[Dante Von Hespburg]

thats exactly what i am talking about, you are trying to wag the dog by the tail. identity politics arent the cause of reactionary resurgence, that is another scapegoat. scapegoating, by its very nature, cannot be prevented. you cant outlogic something that is illogical.

"tips the balance in favour"? we are nowhere close to a balance, how can there be any tipping? again, you are blaming the scapegoat, not the cause.

blair is actually a good example for the failure of purely opportunistic policies. once people get wise to them, they will crash and burn, all that holds them up is a false narrative, in whatever form. its a pretence of unity, which the current state of labour shows. corbyn, contrary to the narrative of his opponents, isnt creating cracks, he just isnt glossing over them. your whole narrative relies on the fiction of unity where there is none. unless you adress divise issues, instead of desperately trying to find common ground, however spurious, they will come back to bite you.

the whole narrative of the US being racially or otherwise divided by progressives now is a complete fiction, it always was. but the narrative is showing cracks, and those relying on it are desperately trying to gloss it over.

weimar wasnt shaken by "interest groups", any more than any other society that allows them, unless you mean the impossibility to reconcile liberal democracy with authoritarian tendencies. a liberal democracy blamed from the start with losing a war it didnt start, for reparations it had no choice but to accept, with a population falling for the myth of the strong man to get them out. a society already divided between socialists and monarchists. the war itself was a good vehicle to create a unity that would have been impossible otherwise. the czar made a similar calculation, but to his misfortune, the situation was worse domestically, and disastrous on the front. unless german conservatives, he had no sufficent backing when the revolution happend. weimar was a red october more or less narrowly avoided.

you see what all those have in common? problems kept in check by ignoring them. and intersectionality is key, you cant keep certain "interest groups" out, just because they trouble you. troubling you may be the point. did you know the suffragetes set houses on fire?

You mistake me, my narrative doesn't rely on unity, but a recognition of plurality and policies that do not raise above one interest group over another, but provides an even playing field through broad-based social change within which specific minority group issues can be tackled within this larger framework that supports it. You address divisive issues indeed, but not by then playing 'swings and roundabouts' by marginalizing another group in the process. It doesn't work in the long term and always creates a growing counter-reaction by innately being 'oppositional'.

Blair didn't fail because of 'power politics', he failed (after a hugely successful run) due to political rivalries (Brown was absolutely key- and Blair had to honour the agreement about the number of terms he'd stand before stepping down in favour of Brown) and the Iraq war aftermath (and process). Blair's party also didn't have the pretense of unity, but pushed forward policy on an egalitarian platform which addressed minority and majority concerns by and large. Note though i'm not an avid Blair supporter in terms of policy before anyone jumps at me but his manner of working was successful (and indeed has been more successful than any British party since government or opposition). Corbyn who i thoroughly support also advocates a similar 'together' identity by basing his efforts to achieve equality directly on economics and social class. Within this framework he forwards then minority issues too, while also making sure not to ostracize or create a divisive template among other majority or minority groups- literally what i'm advocating here. In terms of how Corbyn deals with Labour opponents, it again is not oppositional- Labour has a long tradition of very vocal groups from distinct backgrounds who don't often agree, what they do do though is come together and find broadly unifying policies, within which minority concerns and specific inequalities can be addressed (again what i'm advocating).

In terms of scapegoating, not really, but identity politics that is divisive as the above creates a reaction- fact. Its a choice. You can also as i've said achieve the same thing by not going out of your way to create a reaction- pragmatic politics. The latter is sustainable.

I would argue it was, stalemates over policy among the Weimar parties as they attempted to 'pass on the pain' of the Great Depression provided (on top of the conditions you've rightly put forward) the seeds of its downfall. It directly influenced the overly strong executive to then furthermore undermine democratic legitimacy through the use of emergency powers. I'm not saying your wrong to emphasize other aspects, the scholarly debate on Weimar is huge and on-going (Allowing lecturers to demand endless essays thus far ). But a factor which i would emphasize is the active oppositional politics within a system that encourages (or forces) compromise.

I get what your saying, but by no means have i once said we ignore it. I'm offering what Corbyn arguably is working towards- a broader platform to address inequality, from which specific issues can be addressed under its framework- so a narrative of wealth inequality and the need to address it, opens up the ability to then look at why some sections of society lack educational opportunities, but in a manner and on a policy platform that does not follow 'tit for tat' marginalization as such silly things as the OP's liberal 'privilege' check list.

The suffragetes are perhaps a bad example, as the violence aspect arguably set womens right's back by allowing the narrative crap about them being 'emotively driven' and thus not political mature etc. The actual campaigners though who shunned violence did sterling work. A key contributor to why they received the vote (In the UK) was due to changing economic and social pressures brought about by the war that the sustained non-violent political campaign could monopolize on.

EDIT: Just to build on the Suffragets point, iirc remember the framework that most women's vote advocates used to achieve their goal- it was calling upon the universality of contemporary liberal thinking in regard to equality- they were talking about how unfair it was for women to be marginalized when men were (to varying extents admittedly depending upon time) not. They did not frame the campaign for political equality in terms of 'You have the vote, we don't, so now we'll swap and we'll vote and take it away from you'- that is exactly what the kind of liberal policy put in the OP is doing be being 'tit for tat'. Successful and enduring political change is not made on such a premise. Oppositional politics in such a manner does not work. Nor did they indeed base their campaign upon women being 'better' than men. They used a broad framework to draw attention to hypocrisy and unfairness, not to misuse it by using a narrow framework which marginalized the 'majority' that needed to change.

[HannibalExMachina]

You mistake me, my narrative doesn't rely on unity, but a recognition of plurality and policies that do not raise above one interest group over another, but provides an even playing field through broad-based social change within which specific minority group issues can be tackled within this larger framework that supports it. You address divisive issues indeed, but not by then playing 'swings and roundabouts' by marginalizing another group in the process. It doesn't work in the long term and always creates a growing counter-reaction by innately being 'oppositional'.

but we dont have a recognition of plurality and policies that do not raise above one interest group over another. making a marginalized group equal doesnt make the non-marginalized group unequal, obviously. what you fail to to realize is, the whole reactionary movement is predicated on telling the groups in power that they are actually being marginalized. yes, its oppositional, you have to oppose marginalization to fix it. no easy way round.

and no, purely "pragmatic" policies arent sustainable in reality, they are built on false premises.

i get your point here, but it is simply not realistic. you want to build viable politic power on pretense. that works only if the group holding that power doesnt rely on societal consensus, and thus doesnt have to achieve what they promised. the far-right has one big advantage here: they dont intend to fix any problems, thus they dont have to opperate under the assumption they would. they dont adress the real problem, and so have to break no promise.

you cant build a platform promising to keep identiy politics out of your agenda, and then do it anyway once you have the platform, because it will collapse before you achieve your goal.

blair failed due to rivalry. thus, power politics, no contradiction here. and considering the rift in labour, where did that come from? did it spring fully formed from browns head, or was it already there, just kept in check by politics within the party? did corbyn summon socialism from stalins tomb?


The suffragetes are perhaps a bad example, as the violence aspect arguably set womens right's back by allowing the narrative crap about them being 'emotively driven' and thus not political mature etc. The actual campaigners though who shunned violence did sterling work. A key contributor to why they received the vote (In the UK) was due to changing economic and social pressures brought about by the war that the sustained non-violent political campaign could monopolize on.

that is, simply, factually wrong. the narrative against women existed already, as part of the inherently patriarchal society. thats another false narrative at work, calling someone a racist doesnt make them racist. either the accuser is wrong, or the accused is. either way, the accused is a racist or he isnt, the claim doesnt change the outcome.

violence has been part of any succesful liberation movement, to various degrees. the rule of law has to be broken in the event the law cant be changed otherwise. what is the final resort of the state if the law is broken? force. the only defence is equal force. consensus cant always be reached. if violence isnt in self-defence (and note, no law ever has accepted self-defense agains the state), sometimes it acts as a show of force. the state itself relies on shows of force more often than force itself.

it is rather dubious to look at events, and then exclude parts of them arbitrarily. did partaking in the war effort bring public oppinion around? absolutely. can we dismiss the threat of violence if amicable solutions alone had failed? not conclusively.

but thats beyond the point, suffice to say that no observed social revolution has ever been completely peaceful. often, violence wasnt followed by moderation and compromise, because the latter failed, and the former was the only solution. see the french, american, russian, irish revolutions. the german revolution that was at least partly responsible for the end of the monarchy.

that said, we need to see that there is no equal threat from extreme progressives and reactionaries. reactionaries have commited murder. this speaks of a mindset that is willing to void any societal contract. the only way to avoid such mindsets is by education, not by trying to apease reactionaries that wont compromise. and it starts by getting some uncomfortable truths out in the open, even at the risk of alienating bystanders. because unlike those people, whose only hardship will be to adjust their mindset, being marginalized means facing the constant reality of physical and mental harm, of economic deprevation and even death. sounds dramatic, unless you are part of a group that suffers from hate crime or sexual assault disproportionally, then it actually is dramatic.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

but we dont have a recognition of plurality and policies that do not raise above one interest group over another. making a marginalized group equal doesnt make the non-marginalized group unequal, obviously. what you fail to to realize is, the whole reactionary movement is predicated on telling the groups in power that they are actually being marginalized. yes, its oppositional, you have to oppose marginalization to fix it. no easy way round.

and no, purely "pragmatic" policies arent sustainable in reality, they are built on false premises.

i get your point here, but it is simply not realistic. you want to build viable politic power on pretense. that works only if the group holding that power doesnt rely on societal consensus, and thus doesnt have to achieve what they promised. the far-right has one big advantage here: they dont intend to fix any problems, thus they dont have to opperate under the assumption they would. they dont adress the real problem, and so have to break no promise.

you cant build a platform promising to keep identiy politics out of your agenda, and then do it anyway once you have the platform, because it will collapse before you achieve your goal.

blair failed due to rivalry. thus, power politics, no contradiction here. and considering the rift in labour, where did that come from? did it spring fully formed from browns head, or was it already there, just kept in check by politics within the party? did corbyn summon socialism from stalins tomb?

Indeed we don't, i doubt you'll find someone less happy with the status-quo socially and economically than me (in the UK context). Where poorly implemented austerity policies have created societal rifts and growing wealth inequality among what in the UK still exists (But shouldn't)- a class system. Which has benefited a narrow strand of society at the expense of all others. Within this women have been hit harder by said poor policy implementation than men, among this too certain groups in deprived areas (Black families in urban schools, young men and women in council estates etc). The policy answer to this (as Labour actually is doing) is not then to individually pick out these groups and say 'All women will receive a benefit of £100 a month for 7 years to make up the discrepancy with men' or that 'Black children will have 'first pick' out of their peers for secondary school places' (A key problem in the UK being quality of secondary education). What they do is recognize the plurality of groups, they recognize there is a broad-framework here for policy implementation- and they avoid policy choices that directly antagonize other groups at the expense of one. Thus they address the UK's current issues with talking about better schools for all- and as part of this specifically that would entail the upgrading or construction of more schools in deprived areas, they talk about access to all UK adults to free education with a National Education Service (Despite the fact that those over 50 are statistically 'better off' than those under 30 currently)- they are not though saying 'the young are penalized, lets just sort them', their also taking into account that older adults (particularly with a gig economy) are also struggling in some ways- what your advocating would lead to though specific oppositional policies such as 'Under 30's free education, but over 50's who have had it so much better in the past, now have to pay double for there's'.

That's the type of thing i'm riling against that is apparent in some elements of progressive liberalism. So i'm not saying we lie, or avoid talking about specific groups interests, but you weave those interests into the broader rhetoric and make sure that everyone benefits in some way or another.

I hear get you on the points about the far-right having an advantage being essentially expected to 'fix' the problems they identify or use. But that's rather always been the case. Liberal parties tend to get held to a higher standard electorally because (arguably) they are perceived as genuine vehicles of change, as opposed to what might be described in some contexts as a 'protest' movement. Conservative parties i'd also argue are given a bit more lee-way (In the UK at least), for instance while their can be furor regarding silly comments made my Conservative MP's or Councillors, it usually has less damning consequences among the electorate than if it was a Lib-dem, Green or Labour counterpart (Not in any way am i saying Conservatives are of the far right in the UK i'd note- in fact their currently very nervous about the 'extreme' right 'infiltrating their party membership).

I would say, i'm not saying actively running on keeping 'identity politics out', i'm saying kill the idea of a divisive version of identity politics as has been shown in the OP and other such policy choices. As i mentioned earlier, i'm not saying we lie, or hide anything. But you make sure policy is grounded in a unifying area- So again take UK education-

Academisation has failed with profiteering running rampant at the expense of quality of education (Or opportunity- a nod to Basil). UK schools generally too have been underfunded due to continuing austerity policies (The stories about Departments being cut, or Teachers have to purchase from pocket their own education materials, or begging parents for subsidies). Deprived Schools in the UK (Such as good ol Mandeville Upper School) are in an even worse position due to already having a large intake of students from poor areas, with low literacy levels and adult education (and job prospects), Mandeville is also struggle (to use an example) due to on a far smaller and already streched budget being the one to take on Learning disabled students, who need specialist help and equipment/time. Mandeville has a large black and asian student body section, as well as 'poor working class white'- A policy-platform i would advocate is indeed as Corbyn is doing- talking about generally the UK's failing education system, where you recognize all schools are under pressure. You reform broadly through policy and then as part of that schools like Mandeville will have more invested into them than their counterparts of say Henry Floyd (a Grammar school who while struggling with budgets, its performance is nowhere near as bad as Mandeville). The reason Mandeville get's more is because indeed their demographics are identified as being from groups who lack the same opportunity as peers from 'better off areas' who attend Grammar schools- but at the same time, we're not penalizing students at 'better schools', as they also have suffered. What your doing is bringing Mandeville up to a better standard- your not then pouring in masses of extra funding to make it doubly better than its Grammar counterpart, just to punish Grammar students with an unequal education- which again essentially what the type of OP policies are.

EDIT: Ok​ so an even better example that is more succient (apologies)- broad based policy is looking at Mandeville and saying 'they need more funding- lets do it', while extreme progressive identity politics as referenced by the OP's example would say 'black students are under-performing at Mandeville, lets give those pupils better funding and some extra classes/help'- that is despite the fact that other underprivileged groups at Mandeville are also struggling in the same circumstances- electorally then gunning for helping one specific group while not helping/at the expense of others is not stable- and moreoever its not even effective policy for tackling inequality.

This is sensible policy, and is what most UK parties who are serious about power (even the lib-dems) are doing. To your point about Blair's failure and Corbyn's rise- as i've said in other threads, and perhaps this is where our different outlooks stem from here- the UK unlike PR parties, are 'Umbrella' parties. So in Germany, you guys have coalitions and far more 'opportunities of power' for different groups (Something i approve of), but the 'compromise' tends to happen from the partyies in power, not the oppositional parties so much (unless on an issue by issue basis) but the UK while we too compromise- its a never ending triage, its all between one overarching party narrative with FPTP 'Umbrella parties' i.e. the only two contain a diverse plethora of opinion from for Labour- extreme left to Center right, and Tories Center-Right to extreme right. Their councilors and MP's are extremely diverse. What every leader and his cabinet do, and which Blair did and indeed what Corbyn is doing now- is compromise to get where they are. With Corbyn for instance, that meant shelving his lifelong held anti-nuclear stance at the last GE and committing to keeping Trident. The 'rift' in Labour isn't new indeed, its been there from the beginning (same with the rifts in the Conservative party). What UK umbrella parties do (and what i'm advocating stems from this) is compromise by using 'broad-based' policies from which specific needs can then be dealt with. Its just how politics is done here. The issues come in the UK when- Like with May on brexit- everyone is unprepared to follow a broad policy and compromise and devolves into factionalism. Corbyn and his socialist platform has seen some of this, but he's been more successful in large part because of the seriously contentious points (Trident) he's stepped back for that broader picture. While May refuses and thus is propped up solely on the fact that no other one umbrella faction is prepared to step-up once she is toppled. Corbyn indeed has shown his ability to compromise under his parties umbrella (just like Blair) on brexit- he's of course a well known advocate for leaving the EU, has ruled out even backing a second referendum- until today (The Labour conference) where 40 minutes ago he said he would now back a second referendum if the party membership at large wanted it. That's power politics in action.

So no indeed Corbyn did not pray at Stalins tomb for righteous spirit of socialism to flow through him , its an element of the umbrella party that has always been there, Blair had Prescott to act as his medium to keep 'traditional labour' on board and in-line. Some of this indeed was throwing them compromises or making the case that his policies (which again where broad-based) would also end up helping their wards and was compatible with their beliefs.

@Historical movements part

I think your taking my comments are far too much black and white. I assumed we were taking it for granted that a patriarchal narrative already existed against women- hence my comment that women's violence set the movement back because it confirmed to the men in power that women were indeed 'emotionally driven'- it didn't create a new narrative, it allowed in the minds of these men the women's movement to conform to the expectation of women without a 'mans guidance' as being every bit as 'dangerous' as suspected. So yes, it indeed set the narrative back- hence these 'militant' suffragettes are subject to so much historical debate surrounding their 'worth' for the movement.

'Threat of violence' has been part of every liberation movement is what i would argue, the nuance being incredibly important. Again this is where i think our views differ on this. Actual violence slows down the process and entrenches the 'other side' more than making them amenable- The Irish and the 'troubles' is a case in point for this. Violence prevented earlier settlements, and it was only once a ceasefire was declared that any progress was made. So threat, yes, actual violence or militant action is counter-productive. Indeed i've just finished a paper on violence's place in the Indian independence movement, in which i advocate this nuance and actual violence's lack of worth in forwarding the movement , so i will respectfully disagree that actual violence is ever a true 'help' more than a hindrance (Though that is my bias too! ).

Agreed on education being key- but here's the difference between our stances. I'm saying educating and awareness is key yes, we should have these discussions- for instance how women have been disproportionately effected by austerity than men, or how black students are under-performing in urban schools. But what is not a good idea is then taking these discussions and actively making policy on them that singles out the under-privileged group and seeks to address it by attacking/ detracting from the majority.

Again see the difference- the debate should be happening, but the actions (as this list) should always fit into a broader narrative that shows how everyone benefits (Again back to the school example- instead of as an answer to black students under-performing giving them more classes specifically- fund the entire school properly. Then in the home sphere if its likely they are from poor and struggling families due to austerity and lack of opportunity- craft policy that fixes this, but does so as part of the whole anti-austerity and pro-investment package- that recognizes too the council estate students are also in the same boat, and that you want to create an even playing field for all- that doesn't involve dragging people downwards to the same level, but raising everyone up to a better point.

@Basil
Just quickly alas prior to getting out in the rain, but i'm largely agreed with your points there. I'd strongly advocate equality of opportunity (hence my concentration on in the examples bringing up educational standards which in the UK have taken hits for all and for looking at investment in people at all points of life equally), and as you say, and as you know i have a strong social democratic streak Which believes in to create social stability and provide a safety net, there needs too to be a strong social welfare system and National Health Service (that also does not discriminate between citizens, anyone on hard times regardless of how it happened should be given access. So when i talk about equality its probably important to caveat indeed that i'm not talking about outcomes- though i reserve judgement on future policies like the potential for UBI that might be seen as more 'equality of outcome'- though i actually place UBI as merely an alternative welfare safety net for the gig economy and thus see it as 'equality of opportunity- specifically as everyone receives it- though again i'm now far more critical of its negative points and ability to deliver sustainability.

[tgoodenow]

Ah yes, liberals love to point out uncomfortable truths. Unless those uncomfortable truths pertain to their protected minority groups. Then it’s povertys fault.

[HannibalExMachina]

Ah yes, liberals love to point out uncomfortable truths. Unless those uncomfortable truths pertain to their protected minority groups. Then it’s povertys fault.

i see you are prepared to talk some socio-economics, lets have it.

[Elfdude]

I like how you refer to it as an uncomfortable truth. Good job tgoodenow.

[Prodromos]

According to the document, if you speak “accented English” you are marginalized or oppressed compared to “‘proper’ English” speakers who are privileged.

Boston people hahdest hit.

[the_mango55]

Boston people hahdest hit.

I mean you're making a joke here but that's actually right. People with a thick Bostonian accent would indeed face more difficulty all other things being equal than someone with a more neutral American accent, especially if they don't currently live in Boston.

[Prodromos]

I mean you're making a joke here but that's actually right. People with a thick Bostonian accent would indeed face more difficulty all other things being equal than someone with a more neutral American accent, especially if they don't currently live in Boston.

Difficulty is a good thing. That's how people improve. It builds character. Facing difficulties is a privilege. Otherwise you end up like this guy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethan_Couch

[the_mango55]

Difficulty is a good thing. That's how people improve. It builds character. Facing difficulties is a privilege. Otherwise you end up like this guy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethan_Couch

I would laugh at this argument if it wasn't so sad and horrifying.

"People born poor, oppressed, and facing discrimination are the ones that are actually privileged because they have a chance to build character"

Your example is gargbage too. This dude killed 4 people in a DUI and got an incredibly light sentence. He's the textbook example of privilege.

[Prodromos]

"People born poor, oppressed, and facing discrimination are the ones that are actually privileged because they have a chance to build character"

Your example is gargbage too. This dude killed 4 people in a DUI and got an incredibly light sentence. He's the textbook example of privilege.

Uh, yeah. They're being refined and tested in the "furnace of afflictions." They're being disciplined by life's difficulties, and discipline helps cultivate virtue, which is all that matters. What good is it to gain the worthless world but lose your soul? This materialism thing is really getting out of hand.

The guy seems like a terrible amalgam of bad traits. He lacks charity, patience, kindness, self-control, self-compassion, chastity, humility. Doesn't seem privileged to me. He actually seems pretty sad. Not that anyone is much better these days.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

5 And have you completely forgotten this word of encouragement that addresses you as a father addresses his son? It says:

“My son, do not make light of the Lord’s discipline,
and do not lose heart when he rebukes you,
6
because the Lord disciplines the one he loves,
and he chastens everyone he accepts as his son.”[a]

7 Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as his children. For what children are not disciplined by their father? 8 If you are not disciplined—and everyone undergoes discipline—then you are not legitimate, not true sons and daughters at all. 9 Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of spirits and live! 10 They disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, in order that we may share in his holiness. 11 No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it.

15 Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them.

38 and anyone who does not take up his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me. 39Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.

13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

[the_mango55]

I mean, what's the point of the thread? The chart is accurate. Its not like they are giving extra cookies or adding points to the GPA of the people with the most oppression points, it's just something someone should think about.

Also isn't this what the right wing snowflakes have been whining about? That a simple white/black dichtomy didn't adequately evaluate whether someone is advantaged or not?

Well now you have this chart showing that an ugly, poor white person from a broken family might actually be less privileged overall than a black person from a wealthy family.

[Basil II the B.S]

I mean, what's the point of the thread? The chart is accurate. Its not like they are giving extra cookies or adding points to the GPA of the people with the most oppression points, it's just something someone should think about.

Also isn't this what the right wing snowflakes have been whining about? That a simple white/black dichtomy didn't adequately evaluate whether someone is advantaged or not?

Well now you have this chart showing that an ugly, poor white person from a broken family might actually be less privileged overall than a black person from a wealthy family.

The welcoming package of an educational facility starts by telling people they know little about that they are either privileged or oppressed according to arbitrary ideological standards made by hateful people, but ''it's ok and correct''. There's no more room for dialogue. People should get weapons just in case the left moves to the next level of removing the oppressors and commits mass genocide.