You evaded my argument and tried to reframe it into a "But the other side!" conversation, which is worse than worthless because you have refused to engage in discourse.
If you won't (or more likely can't) refute my argument, it stands to reason my position is vindicated: There is no difference of substance between the left talking about class and the left talking about race and sexuality.
To put it another way, you are failing to convince me to your ideas.
You proposed a definition of “Left”. I pointed out your definition doesn’t work because taken literally it incorporates things which nobody in their right mind would call “Left”. I am engaging in discourse-I don’t feel like you are.
The "We are the 99%!" crowd were decidedly left, but that is beside the point.
I said I see no difference of substance between class, race, and sexuality insofar as politics is concerned, it's all identity politics all the way down. You have provided nothing to suggest otherwise.
> The "We are the 99%!" crowd were decidedly left, but that is beside the point.
That was more than 10 years ago though. A lot has changed in the decade+ since. 2023 “progressivism” differs in many ways from its 2011 incarnation, to the point that you have to ask if it is still the same thing, or has evolved (or been hijacked) into something else
> I said I see no difference of substance between class, race, and sexuality insofar as politics is concerned, it's all identity politics all the way down.
“Identity politics” isn’t exclusive to “the Left” however-nationalism is a form of “identity politics” too, and while there are “left” versions of it, the majority of it is usually considered “right”. White nationalism,
Christian nationalism, Kahanism, Islamism, Nazism, “men’s rights activists”, “incels”, etc - all are examples of “right-wing identity politics”. So, defining “left” in terms of “identity politics” doesn’t work
You keep talking about lefts and rights, while I'm saying I don't see any difference of substance between class, race, and sexuality insofar as it regards to politics.
At best you're misunderstanding, at worst you're disingenuous, and either way you aren't carrying your half of the conversation.
I’m talking about “left” because how to define that term is the topic of conversation. And I don’t see how could can define “left” without defining “right” - the two terms have always existed as a pair.
