First of all…. I absolutely love the name. Work of genius.
Secondly — I think you’re correct in a lot of your assumptions. My issue here isn’t with the general push for a more equitable society which I think is a worthwhile cause. My issue is with the methodology being used to push for such a thing.
When it comes to identity politics I don’t believe the ends justify the means. Communism was a valid solution to the struggle of Russian serfs, was it the right solution? That’s a difficult one to call. Right for some people perhaps, but probably not right overall. It’s hard to see how we can look at Stalin’s Russia and even Mao’s China and see the solution as less oppressive than the original.
I think nuanced voices will emerge from the chaos of hard line identity politics — and I think you’ll find one in Steve QJ. The centre ground, liberal democracy and socialism-lite rather than communism is where the healthy discourse emerged from the mess of the extremes of religion/monarchy and Communism/Fascism — and there is nothing liberal about identity politics.
The only way to mandate an inclusive agenda the way some people wish to see it enacted is by restricting freedom of speech and/or introducing social punishments for stepping out of line. It’s a dangerous line for a society to tread before it endorses such a thing.
It’s perfectly possible to encourage a liberal and pluralistic society that includes the voices of all — without letting the extreme people run the discourse. On that note….
You might enjoy this exchange between myself and prominent LGBTQ+activist James Finn. We’re both on the same side and arguing for the same thing — our styles differ wildly. :o)
