When you say "a radical feminist approach is needed" do you mean Radical Feminism*? Or did you mean radical in the more general sense of progressive/positive?
If they had I wouldn't have asked.
I am referring to how "liberation" is generally perceived by ID politckers today, in 2017. One of those words that has become somewhat stripped of its meaning over the years.
I never said that. On the contrary, I acknowledge that the rights of oppressed groups need to be fought for in the here and now, not just waiting on some abstract 'revolution' to make it all disappear.
See also: The scandal regarding some Labour councillors and postal votes in various Asian communities (notably in Birmingham) a few years back.
Until recently the "traditional" left has been very slow to adapt to the realities of neoliberalism, applying tactics and implementing strategies that are stuck in the 70s, if not earlier, and tending to be oblivious to how things are now, and continuing to do things that way because "it's how we have always done this". This of course excludes all manner of people, and is almost inevitably dominated by white, middle-aged men. Whereas it takes say, for example, a "pissed-off non-white person" to be able to expose that and shake things up. Like you I get quite annoyed with "radical" left groups that talk the talk but don't walk the walk, and I am definitely up for holding dodgy Labour councils (or dodgy councils of any stripe) to account for their actions.
I am harking back to earlier days on these boards, where "revolutionaries" were much more vocal, and I had started to go right off the idea - and a lot of my political beliefs of now would have been dismissed as "reformist" by many on here in the past. Old habits die hard.
OK, why do you think this? Personally I don't think that's an accurate summary of identitypolitics. But regardless, poster after poster has repeatedly said that that isn't what they are talking about when they talk about identitypolitics, moreover it quite clearly isn't what the OP is referring to. A well known book extract containing Humpty Dumpty springs to mind.
But the criticisms on this thread, and others, aren't just directed at the behaviours, they are directed at the ideology, the whole political approach. The fact is that identitypoiltics is a political approach that some of us, as socialists/communists/anarchists, consider fundamentally at odds with a class based political approach. Now you may think we are wrong but people quite clearly are not just talking about behaviours. Re-read the OP it is talking about a political ideology.
It is and was. I think you might be conflating a few things here.
I have to agree. However annoying, self-indulgent and just plain wrong so-called "SJWs" (and why do we have to adopt this things from the US anyway?) they're to be defended against the brownshirts.
Her tweets are protected. . . so how'd you manage that, then?
I thought you were all about the stacking.
I thought you were all about the stacking.
That's almost definitional, isn't it? Politics becomes id politics when it considers the cause of a particular group in a way that ignores the implications of looking at the structural issues of class that are also in play (are pretty much always in play).
How do you know that the set of students prioritized by her stacking system didn't include poorer students?
Well I think so but there are posters, like ska invita, that seem to either disagree and/or be in favour of both, and so presumably they don't see a opposition between the two. I'd like to hear their arguments.
