Identity politics - immoral?

[Ontheway]

One of the byproducts of identity politics is that it divides social groups and sows distrust. It pits one group against another, by first defining those groups in terms that can and do contribute to division.

This sounds an awful lot like the work of the evil one. Is identity politics evil? Are you committing a sin by supporting such positions? Should it be confessed as such?

 

[DarkLight]

I think identity politics is such a vague and abused term that it’s meaningless to consider whether it’s a sin or not.

Pretty much anything that acknowledges there are differences between groups can be called “identity politics.”

 

[ATraveller]

Everyone is involved in identity politics to some extent. It doesn’t have to pit groups against other groups. Such conflicts only happen when some political organizers and commentators do certain things.

One tactic that does this is try to squeeze people into us vs. them paradigms and when they exclude people’s opinions that don’t match with what they expect 100%. For example, if a gay person says he or she doesn’t support redefining marriage, that person is a ‘them’ by default. If a heterosexual says he or she is in favour of laws explicitly saying people shouldn’t be denied medical care based on sexual orientation but is against same-sex ‘marriage’, that person is by default homophobic. You simply can’t disagree with them on anything.

Some of the people at the top will silence any debate. You can’t question anything. Is it wise to set gender quotas at a fire department? You can’t ask that and most certainly can’t say there’s a good chance most women can’t be a firefighter due to the physical requirements. It doesn’t matter if you’re a woman or a man, you hate women because asked a question or hold a different opinion on one topic within a larger issue.

There is also the issue of demonising opponents instead of seeing people who need to be convinced to switch positions and coercing the undecided and apolitical to take pick a side. For example, if you support Brexit, the only reason is you’re a racist or conversely if you support Remain it’s only because you hate the UK. This is useful when you can’t use facts to argue. For the part on coercing the undecided, this may come as to surprise to some but these people want more information and time to think it through and people have the right to opt out of politics, a free country allows this.

 

[TK421]

One of the byproducts of identity politics is that it divides social groups and sows distrust. It pits one group against another, by first defining those groups in terms that can and do contribute to division.

This sounds an awful lot like the work of the evil one. Is identity politics evil? Are you committing a sin by supporting such positions? Should it be confessed as such?

The Holy See would state, in very certain terms the way it has with abortion and other issues, if something were intrinsically evil. Inventing things to be confessed feeds scruples and hinders progress in the spiritual life. If a person discerns that perhaps they’ve participated in something venially sinful, they can accuse themselves to their Confessor for further direction.

 

[PJH_74]

Identity politics in itself is not an issue. However when the political is only one’s identity it’s easy to disengage from matters that are important to others. This is part of the political divide we have right now. It’s also something many parts of the media are looking to corner such as to have a reliable, often angry, base of dedicated viewers while cynically using this to drive up profits. The cable news channels and talk radio are by far the worst.

 

[SuperLuigi]

One of the byproducts of identity politics is that it divides social groups and sows distrust. It pits one group against another, by first defining those groups in terms that can and do contribute to division.

This sounds an awful lot like the work of the evil one. Is identity politics evil? Are you committing a sin by supporting such positions? Should it be confessed as such?

I would seek spiritual direction on the matter as far as Confession, but it’s a very negative force regardless.

 

[SuperLuigi]

I think identity politics is such a vague and abused term that it’s meaningless to consider whether it’s a sin or not.

Pretty much anything that acknowledges there are differences between groups can be called “identity politics.”

Come on, you know better than that.

 

[DarkLight]

Come on, you know better than that.

No one uses the term “identity politics” to describe themselves and what they’re doing. It’s purely a negative term that’s applied from the outside. So I don’t think asking if it’s a sin is useful because it’s not something anyone would consider themselves to be doing, and if they did consider themselves to be doing it they would stop.

I also know, for example, if I said we should set up programs for women who find themselves pregnant after abuse or assault and need extra support, I’m sure someone would tell me I was playing identity politics for doing so.

 

[petra22]

No one uses the term “identity politics” to describe themselves and what they’re doing. It’s purely a negative term that’s applied from the outside. So I don’t think asking if it’s a sin is useful because it’s not something anyone would consider themselves to be doing, and if they did consider themselves to be doing it they would stop.

I also know, for example, if I said we should set up programs for women who find themselves pregnant after abuse or assault and need extra support, I’m sure someone would tell me I was playing identity politics for doing so.

Gosh, I would just think you were the kindest person in the world and how can I help you get it started…!

 

[SuperLuigi]

No one uses the term “identity politics” to describe themselves and what they’re doing. It’s purely a negative term that’s applied from the outside. So I don’t think asking if it’s a sin is useful because it’s not something anyone would consider themselves to be doing, and if they did consider themselves to be doing it they would stop.

I also know, for example, if I said we should set up programs for women who find themselves pregnant after abuse or assault and need extra support, I’m sure someone would tell me I was playing identity politics for doing so.

Seriously? You really think someone is going to accuse you of identity politics for that?

 

[DarkLight]

Seriously? You really think someone is going to accuse you of identity politics for that?

Someone will accuse me of identity politics for anything that caters to one group and not another.

Didn’t say it would be someone I would take seriously. It’s a big world, you can find an idiot for any opinion you want.

The main point is, asking if “identity politics” is immoral is not very useful because no one thinks that they themselves are involved in identity politics. Someone accused of immorality for identity politics is almost certainly going to say “no, I’m not creating division, I’m just trying to address divisions that already exist.”

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I have no idea what you mean by “identity politics”. It could be anything from white supremacy to someone just acknowledging a documented pattern of unfair treatment of a particular “identity” (for example, black motorists who get stopped more often for “driving while black”, or women getting historically paid less than men for doing the same work).

I think the morality of any position depends on whether it is mistreating or denying the humanity of other people, and also the tactics you are using to assert your position (such as real or threatened violence). I hear a lot of opinions that I personally disagree with or even think are stupid (for example, all the defenses of the employee at Google who repeatedly made statements about women’s competence to work in tech jobs), but I don’t think that the other person is immoral for just having the opinion.

 

[Ontheway]

I have no idea what you mean by “identity politics”. It could be anything from white supremacy to someone just acknowledging a documented pattern of unfair treatment of a particular “identity” (for example, black motorists who get stopped more often for “driving while black”, or women getting historically paid less than men for doing the same work).

I think the morality of any position depends on whether it is mistreating or denying the humanity of other people, and also the tactics you are using to assert your position (such as real or threatened violence). I hear a lot of opinions that I personally disagree with or even think are stupid (for example, all the defenses of the employee at Google who repeatedly made statements about women’s competence to work in tech jobs), but I don’t think that the other person is immoral for just having the opinion.

If I understand the last part of your statement, you consider to be stupid anyone who has an opinion other than yours? Then, anyone who is “stupid” will lose his job, as is the case with the Google employee.

 

[josh987654321]

No one uses the term “identity politics” to describe themselves and what they’re doing. It’s purely a negative term that’s applied from the outside. So I don’t think asking if it’s a sin is useful because it’s not something anyone would consider themselves to be doing, and if they did consider themselves to be doing it they would stop.

I agree.

God Bless

Josh

 

[josh987654321]

If I understand the last part of your statement, you consider to be stupid anyone who has an opinion other than yours?

I didn’t get that out of it. I’m sure we have all run across a comment before that we thought was wrong or we thought was silly.

Then, anyone who is “stupid” will lose his job, as is the case with the Google employee.

I don’t know enough about the whole Google employee thing.

For an analogy though, if an employee got drunk at the pub in his/her work shirt they could loose their jobs, but if they changed their shirt and then got drunk at the pub it’d be fine. Depends which category the Google employee falls into I think.

I hope this has helped

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Tis_Bearself]

If I understand the last part of your statement, you consider to be stupid anyone who has an opinion other than yours? Then, anyone who is “stupid” will lose his job, as is the case with the Google employee.

No, I thought his particular opinion was stupid, and stupidly expressed also. I didn’t think he was immoral or bad for having the opinion, just lacking in good judgment (and paid the price for that by being fired by his employer).

I have the same thoughts about dozens of opinions I read on the Internet daily, including on here. As someone else said, we all read or hear opinions that we think are stupid or silly or wrong, whether we say out loud “that’s stupid, silly, wrong” or just shake our head and scroll.

I do not think every opinion that disagrees with me is stupid. Some such opinions are very well reasoned and I learn from them or appreciate why the person thinks that way even if I still disagree. I have no idea why you would assume I think every opinion contrary to mine is stupid because I cited one particular example of an opinion I thought was stupid. That does not make logical sense.

 

[BoomBoomMancini]

Something can be bad or imprudent without necessarily being sinful. I don’t think the confessional is the right place to think about this issue.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

What is being described in the OP is the caste system.

My combination of attributes and actions makes me me. There’s no reason any body or thing should consider themselves against that.

What you in the U.S. have had from all sides is package dealing in such a way as to ensure there will be something wrong with it.

When everything gets looked at on its merits, one can have primary purpose in any particular time and place, which causes tolerance.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Something can be bad or imprudent without necessarily being sinful. I don’t think the confessional is the right place to think about this issue.

A lot of bad ideas and bad outcomes come from people who genuinely meant well or at least meant no harm. In other words, they did not intend to commit any sin and did not think they were doing so. I think a lot of identity politics, and politics in general, falls in this category.

 

[Ontheway]

No, I thought his particular opinion was stupid, and stupidly expressed also. I didn’t think he was immoral or bad for having the opinion, just lacking in good judgment (and paid the price for that by being fired by his employer).

Exactly my point. If I say that I believe in a nuclear family (one father, one mother plus children) I will be fired from my job.
If I do not support gay everything, I will be fired from my job.
These beliefs lack “good judgement” in the eyes of the thought police, the progressive left, the media and large swathes of the government.

Are we really living in a country where you can lose your job/livelihood for LACKING GOOD JUDGEMENT. Really!

You now lose your job for not supporting the party line. This is pure Stalinism and/or Nazism, or WORSE. Pure and simple.