lpm wrote: ↑
Wed Jul 15, 2020 7:57 am
The priority order should be:
1) Actions - what a person does
2) Speech - what a person says
3) Identity - who a person is
- I'd have doubts about trying to get a GP fired when she books children in for vaccinations like any other GP, even if she says on Facebook vaccinations are bad
yes I agree
- If a person heads a charity that gives support to trans prisoners, that action counts for a lot more than if she says on twitter she doesn't think transwomen should have the same rights to play sport
Not really, the action is a more significant act, but it doesn’t make that person immune from criticism over other things they do or say. The action here is a mitigating factor that limits the degree of bigotry one can infer, but if you think what they said was bigoted then its fine to still criticise them for it regardless.
- If a man says supportive things about the right of employees to strike in protest against workplace bullying, that speech matters more than that he went to Eton and never worked in a factory in his life
Yes I agree.
We've run into trouble because the order has been reversed. People look to identity first, to see if the person is on the correct side, then look to what they say, and what they actually do in life is ignored.
maybe, but I think we are in a much better situation in that respect than when people thought it was fine to keep someone as a slave if they had a certain identity.
- a left wing politician is a "Sir" and so is too privileged to serve the working class
I wouldn’t say that, but I do support people rejecting knighthoods, and would reject one myself (not that I’ll ever do anything that could result in one)
- a misogynist delighting in sabotaging women's sport is trans, so must be supported without hesitation
I suspect this is a very slanted description of a real event, where you equate “wanting to participate in” with sabotage, but I could be wrong.
- a BLM protestor vandalises property and injures a police officer during his arrest, but gets uncritical support because protestors are good and police are bad
Seems plausible that a significant number of people would react that way and I agree it’s not best. I do support criticising your own side as well and holding it a high standard, but plenty of people on here have disagreed and said we should ignore things like that because it’s not the core problem.
The whole point of the Gender Recognition Act is to give everyone the right to effortlessly claim their own personal identity because it shouldn't matter in the slightest what gender variant someone wants to call themselves, and the anti-racism movement is all about ending how society always sees identity first and individual qualities last. Which makes it ironic that identity is so often used by these movements as the key determinant.
Identity politics is ultimately self-contradictory. It's created an environment where actions speak quieter than words, and the book's cover determines whether the words inside should be read.