Take an argument, take an idea, and follow it to its logical extreme -- and its absurdities, and its contradictions, will be laid bare. La Sha's blog shows us where identity politics has led us to. Like dry rot in a timber frame, identity politics hollows out the liberal rhetoric espoused by its upholders. Their ideas and values remain just an empty husk.
Identity politics divides people by their race, gender, and sexual preference. Our human experience is divided upon these lines. Identity politics does not create equality, it merely reverses previous inequalities of respect. Certain kinds of people are preferred to certain others. Stick to this doctrine unflinchingly, and we find ourselves watching 'liberals' (or SJWs), homogenising and demonising groups, and siding with oppressors.
As Graham Good argues, the new sectarianism of identity politics treats people not as individuals, but as 'representatives' of their demographic group, and thus their dignity and autonomy are diminished. See how Muslim students who support liberalism and reject Islamism, seem to run counter to the popular perception of the authentic 'Muslim' prevalent on many campuses.
Identity politics assigns groups emotional scripts, and if individuals deny having such feelings, they risk being told that they are 'in denial', or that they have been intimidated or co-opted. This is the experience of many liberal Muslims, 'Terfs', or any other group that rejects the strict identity code that's handed down to them.
As Good describes, identity politics leads us to believe that 'discrimination is constructed not as conscious and individual, but as unconscious and collective. Normal, well-meaning people are held to be unwittingly acting in ways that 'exclude' certain demographic groups.'
A white male like Otto Warmbier for example, will inherently be aggressive and exclusionary to 'minority' groups. It's easy to see where this belief can lead to.. Otto Warmbier you see, had committed the terrible crime of being born white, male, and heterosexual.
No wonder La Sha's tone is gleeful. Her article is a joyous celebration of man getting his comeuppance for being born so 'privileged'. La Sha says in her bio that she writes to 'deconstruct oppressive ideologies and systems'. Surely her horror would be placed at the foot of the totalitarian regime that is the exemplar for state-sponsored terror? But no, her warm ridicule is saved for Mr Warmbier, because he had the contempt to disrespect North Korea's 'law and order'.
Indeed, "If he had obeyed North Korea's laws, he would be home now."
When you see a person primarily as a 'white male' or a 'black female', you diminish both their humanity and their individuality. Through this distorted lense, you can now see how La Sha could have come to her position. Otto Warmbier was simply an example of privilege, rather than a human being. And so the terrible punishment handed down to him by an 'oppressive system', wasn't just rationalised, and apologised for, it was seemingly revelled in.Suggest a correction