If person A argues that 2 + 2 = 5 and person B says that 2 + 2 = 4, I am seriously doubting that the right answer is 2 + 2 = 4.5
That much about Hegel's dialectics.
Here is my original quote:
“It’s really hard to tell whether these people anonymously pushing for identity politics are pseudo-intellectuals holding a useless humanities degree or if they are from the “alt-right” trying to stir up mutual hatred between individuals of different ethnic backgrounds and sexes.
Both groups (meaning: pseudo-intellectuals and “alt-righters”) may appear very different at a first look, but ironically they have more commonalities than differences in their views.
Their basic assumptions are fixed on presumed generalized characteristics of groups instead of individual merits. Unsurprisingly their politics is based on power-relations of groups and ******* instead of individual achievements, responsibilities and agreements on a mutual basis.
Identity politics fucks up everything for (almost) everyone. So please don’t allow this great community to be fucked up as well.
Thank you.“
It only took these few lines in order to be categorized as a member of an “enemy group” by you although there is no reference to you. Furthermore, if you are also seeing the divisive nature of identity politics, why do you have a problem with the above statement?
Or is it possible that you don’t understand, or don’t want to understand the thesis of this simple text?
Dear Monica, I am not seeing anyone as an enemy and this applies to you as well, although our conversation so far could have been nicer. However, if you want to fight certain negative principles (sterotyping based on race or gender, lack of empathy, etc.) it would help if you are not applying these principles on your own. Fighting fire with fire usually doesn’t work.
