Issues that don’t alter economic arrangements yet are the focus of mainstream politics, or issues amplified and masqueraded as politics for this specific purpose. The idea that people you resent being treated worse than you is a political achievement, is the foundational mechanism of culture war. As the basic economic arrangement is no longer on the table or negotiable politically, politics increasingly becomes focused on individual resentments. The right is fueled by culture war right now more than any other political faction.
It does seem like a good diversion tactic to blame a completely unrelated minority for a completely unrelated problem when you really want to protect billionaires from raised taxes.
I mean just move the discussion as far away as possible from them.
They want people to punch down, blame the person scraping by on welfare or the person who’s identity is maligned for what is actually caused by massive wealth disparity. MLK Jr didn’t advocate fighting a vague notion of racism, he convinced black and white unions they were stronger together and that economic equality as a class program was the mechanism to combat the issue, with specific laws and legislation and job action as the tools available. In a certain context, the biggest advocacy group for the rights of gender non-conforming individuals in the world right now is the AFL-CIO.
The TEXTBOOK playbook for bringing people together to find peace, is to start by finding some common ground. On LITERALLY anything. Then you build on that. “Maybe, given enough time, we can grow to understand to have enough the same that we can work together”
Culture war is the simple inversion: find something, ANYTHING that you can disagree about. Then you build on that. “Maybe, given enough time, we can grow to understand others to be different enough that working together is impossible”
The right is way more hooked into the culture war, but plenty of leftist communities cannibalize each other via “no true Scots”-ing each other with intersectionality. I see very little patience or compassionate education on intersectionality, and instead see a competition about how quickly one can scold. Regardless of whether that’s valid, it sure as hell makes it difficult to build bonds with other groups or onboard new folks to leftist ideas.
Definitely agree and I think sometimes people conflate intersectionality with the way it’s been commodified and adopted by capital and it causes debates because it’s not precise about what the problem is. A lot of left scholars have been a lot more pointed about the “problem with diversity” not being about “diversity” or inclusion etc. It’s just important to recognize why it doesn’t threaten capitalist institutions, which doesn’t mean it’s bad, it means it’s ineffective for that purpose, it’s like being nice to people at work. Education on intersectionality that a lot of people are exposed to is often mediated/coerced by employers through business relationships with HR/diversity industry consultants. They’re presenting very specific notions of the topic that they’re able to sell to employers, and employers are being sold on it as basically a branding/marketing thing to “make the company look good,” but leadership might even be personally invested in it and genuinely want people to feel included at their company, it’s not a radical notion at all. The problem is the inherent conflict between employers and employees and how it dictates what notions of intersectionality or EDI are presented in that context.
Issues that don’t alter economic arrangements yet are the focus of mainstream politics, or issues amplified and masqueraded as politics for this specific purpose. The idea that people you resent being treated worse than you is a political achievement, is the foundational mechanism of culture war. As the basic economic arrangement is no longer on the table or negotiable politically, politics increasingly becomes focused on individual resentments. The right is fueled by culture war right now more than any other political faction.
It does seem like a good diversion tactic to blame a completely unrelated minority for a completely unrelated problem when you really want to protect billionaires from raised taxes.
I mean just move the discussion as far away as possible from them.
They want people to punch down, blame the person scraping by on welfare or the person who’s identity is maligned for what is actually caused by massive wealth disparity. MLK Jr didn’t advocate fighting a vague notion of racism, he convinced black and white unions they were stronger together and that economic equality as a class program was the mechanism to combat the issue, with specific laws and legislation and job action as the tools available. In a certain context, the biggest advocacy group for the rights of gender non-conforming individuals in the world right now is the AFL-CIO.
I don’t even think this is even that complicated.
The TEXTBOOK playbook for bringing people together to find peace, is to start by finding some common ground. On LITERALLY anything. Then you build on that. “Maybe, given enough time, we can grow to understand to have enough the same that we can work together”
Culture war is the simple inversion: find something, ANYTHING that you can disagree about. Then you build on that. “Maybe, given enough time, we can grow to understand others to be different enough that working together is impossible”
That’s a nice thought, but what comes across is “Your current problems aren’t important, now support my fringe political view”
What would be a better way to frame it?
I think I meant to reply to the OP, sorry. Your comment is great, and I like it much more.
The right is way more hooked into the culture war, but plenty of leftist communities cannibalize each other via “no true Scots”-ing each other with intersectionality. I see very little patience or compassionate education on intersectionality, and instead see a competition about how quickly one can scold. Regardless of whether that’s valid, it sure as hell makes it difficult to build bonds with other groups or onboard new folks to leftist ideas.
Definitely agree and I think sometimes people conflate intersectionality with the way it’s been commodified and adopted by capital and it causes debates because it’s not precise about what the problem is. A lot of left scholars have been a lot more pointed about the “problem with diversity” not being about “diversity” or inclusion etc. It’s just important to recognize why it doesn’t threaten capitalist institutions, which doesn’t mean it’s bad, it means it’s ineffective for that purpose, it’s like being nice to people at work. Education on intersectionality that a lot of people are exposed to is often mediated/coerced by employers through business relationships with HR/diversity industry consultants. They’re presenting very specific notions of the topic that they’re able to sell to employers, and employers are being sold on it as basically a branding/marketing thing to “make the company look good,” but leadership might even be personally invested in it and genuinely want people to feel included at their company, it’s not a radical notion at all. The problem is the inherent conflict between employers and employees and how it dictates what notions of intersectionality or EDI are presented in that context.