Identity Politics - The Cause of War and Genocide
The 20ᵗʰ century featured some of the worst atrocities of human history. In the Ottoman Empire, my Armenian ancestors were mostly wiped out. The Nazis killed most of Europe’s Jewish population, as well as numerous other groups. In the east, communism killed anywhere from 10 million to one hundred million, while threatening the entire world with nuclear war. These are only a fraction of the total number of atrocities committed in the 20ᵗʰ century alone. I think it should be self-evident to anyone with any set of morals that these events should never occur again. Thus, it is crucial that we work to understand these events, why they occurred, and ensure that they never occur again.
I originally wanted to monetize this article, as it took many days to complete; however, I believe this topic is too important for me to limit the spread of. So please, if this article makes you think, please share it to justify it being free. I also wanted to do an in-depth analysis of numerous historical events and connect them to my argument. However, that would require weeks of research and writing. If my argument does not come across as valid in this article, I will gladly write a second article for proper research. I hope I may do this topic justice without having the significant body of historical events I originally intended to back it up. Hopefully, your own historical knowledge will help carry my argument.
There are always going to be flaws with any argument and as such, there are flaws within my argument as well. The biggest way to break apart what I’m saying is to claim that what I call “identity politics” is different from what you call “identity politics”. In the next section, I will begin to describe what I mean by identity politics; however, the name is truly irrelevant. What matters is the behavior and ideology I describe. Even if you disagree on what we call it, you must recognize that this pattern of behavior exists. The next way to criticize this article is to recognize that I have failed to point out many of the flaws of an individualistic world view. I’m sure you can find many ways to attempt to tear apart my argument; however, please read with an open mind and think critically, beyond any preconceived notions you may hold. If you are going to criticize, please do so with the intent to improve our overall understanding of the following events. The easiest way to criticize this article is through the lens of identity politics. You could simply point some arbitrary characteristic you believe belongs to be that means I am unsuited to discuss this topic. This is simply a version of the ad hominem fallacy. Without a logical argument, it is effortless to break down this argument as being wrong simply because it disagrees with your preconceived notions.
To understand why I believe that identity politics is as the title says, we must first define what identity politics is. This isn’t as simple of an idea as I’d like to imagine it is. Personally, however, I find this definition to be consistent with how identity-politics-based activists behave and describe themselves:
Identity Politics: politics in which groups of people having a particular racial, religious, ethnic, social, or cultural identity tend to promote their own specific interests or concerns without regard to the interests or concerns of any larger political group
Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, s.v. “identity politics,” accessed August 20, 2021, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/identity%20politics.
I want to continue to work this definition. Implicit with the concept of identity politics is an oppressor-oppressed narrative based on resentment. This is, rightfully, a large leap to make from the definition. I would like to point out that, once you have an oppressor-oppressed narrative, resentment comes free from that. Oppression occurs because of resentment, and oppression causes resentment. I will attempt to develop this idea throughout the article. Merriam-Webster’s definition also includes quotes to explain how the word is used in a sentence, and I really like the following quote:
Identity politics is contemporary shorthand for a group’s assertion that it is a meaningful group; that it differs significantly from other groups; that its members share a history of injustice and grievance; and that its psychological and political mission is to explore, act out, act on and act up its group identity.
— Catharine R. Stimpson
I believe this quote summarizes identity politics brilliantly. I especially like the fact that, at least how I’m reading it, Stimpson is writing in favor of identity politics. Considering Stimpson is a feminist, I would suspect I am correct. This gives me a sense of irony because, while she wrote that to support the cause, I read it as a damning indictment. Firstly, she tells us that identity politics is predicated on group-level analysis of people. This follows the Merriam-Webster definition as well. Fundamentally, identity politics is about groups. Next, she explains that, under identity politics, each group is its own entity. Each group “differs significantly from other groups”. Then, implicit in the nature of identity politics, is the concept of oppression — the idea that “members (of a group) share a history of injustice and grievance”. Lastly, she summarizes that, given these assumptions, the purpose of identity politics is to act out this identity in the world. Meaning, to enforce the idea that the group exists, is an entity of itself, has been oppressed, and deserves recognition and some form of reparations for its historical hardships. This is what identity politics is as far as I’m concerned. If you disagree that what I am describing is not “identity politics”, then cast away the label, but consider this concept itself.
Now, this is the perspective of identity politics belonging to the historically oppressed; this is identity politics on the left. However, there also exists identity politics on the right. The definition of identity politics does not limit it to one political belief. So, if the left represents the oppressed, the right represents the oppressors. Now, it’s crucial to understand that the concept of left and right in politics is necessary. Allow me to paraphrase Jordan Peterson to formulate why. We live in a complex societal structure, and all structures tend towards chaos if left alone; moreover, a lot of people become displaced by the structure and become stacked up at zero. People begin to suffer and become resentful of the structure. They will then work to destroy the structure. The left wing is necessary to be a voice for the politically dispossessed. Their goal is to minimize suffering and indirectly protect the structure. The right wing is necessary to be a voice for the structure. Their goal is to keep the structure operating efficiently, so society grows and develops. When the left gains too much control, the structure becomes chaotic. When the right gains too much control, the structure becomes authoritarian. The dialogue between left and right is necessary to keep the structure between chaos and order, in a balanced state. So, when I say that right-wing identity politics represents the oppressors, do not simply assume I am saying the right-wing is bad. The political dialogue is essential, so be wary of anyone who tries to claim either side serves no useful purpose, or is inherently bad.
Identity Politics and Group Conflict
Ironically, many of the people who support identity politics are wary of nationalism, when nationalism is a form of identity politics. I implore you to go back to the definition of identity politics anytime I say something falls under that definition. Fundamentally, I would even generalize that Merriam-Webster definition to include any possible identity, since who is Merriam-Webster to decide what identities matter and which don’t? Nationalism is then obviously an example of identity politics, where people hold a national identity and make policy for the nation first. Of course, however, most people who support identity politics are against nationalism. Since identity politics conceptually creates division and conflict between groups.
Can people be grouped by characteristics? Yes. Are groups inherently at conflict? I don’t think so. At least, not inherently significant conflict. The existence of a group is necessarily exclusive; however, this does not generate conflict if there is no benefit to being in the group. Conflict comes from creating groups that provide benefit to members over non-members. Then, it is beneficial to be within the group and potentially impossible to join. Hence, envy creates conflict. Crucially, however, it is the oppressor-oppressed narrative that drives the majority of conflict. This narrative directly poses two groups against one another, where one is an oppressor that owes the other — the oppressed — for their historical actions. Note that I’m not arguing whether the conflict is necessary or not yet. I’m simply stating that group conflict is not inherent in groups, but is primarily a result of identity politics.
It is this realization that led me to write this article. I was pondering whether religious groups were inherently at conflict or not. They are inherently in conceptual conflict, as they disagree in their world view; however, this should not lead to violence by itself until you make the decision to jump from an individual with a religion to a member of a religious group. While individuals with different religions are not in conflict, the religions are. If your political system is predicated on that group identity, then these individuals must now be in conflict to defend their group identity. This is why religions can go to war with each other, while individuals in many countries can simultaneously live peaceful lives with one another. The individuals are not engaged in identity politics with their religions and can tolerate other individuals making their own decisions.
Real-World Conflict
Now that I’ve gone through a hypothetical argument for as to how identity politics leads to conflict between groups, let's look at some real-world examples.
Let’s begin in Nazi Germany. The Nazis are the perfect example of right-wing identity politics. They hold a nationalist group identity that is entangled with their ethnic group identity. They then applied an ethnic group identity upon the Jews — members of a religion, not an ethnic group (it was the Nazis that made the entire concept of the Jews as an ethnic group widespread). Once they set these identities in motion, they could easily target their enemies and began to exterminate them. Nazi Germany only cared about Germany and in this battle for their own benefit, they destroyed a large part of Europe.
Allies with the Nazis, the Japanese equally held this group-level thinking. For years, the Japanese had viewed themselves as a nation and an ethnicity, with China being their enemy. Then, as they invaded China, the hatred for their enemies came through in some of the worst crimes of the entire war. They didn’t see Chinese citizens as individuals who were no threat to them; they saw them as Chinese and because of that, they raped and murdered thousands.
Around the same time, the communists had taken over in Russia. They are the perfect example of left-wing identity politics. For centuries, the tsar and nobility had enslaved serfs for their own benefit. This grew resentment and hatred for the nobility, and the new bourgeoisie, who were seen as oppressors against the proletariat working class. As such, thousands were murdered or thrown into work camp as slaves. Early on, the communists decided to collectivize farming, and this resulted in over 6 million Ukrainians starving to death. Anyone who took grains and didn’t turn them in would be shot. It was so bad that they had to put up signs reminding the farmers that it was wrong to eat their children, which many people were forced to do. I implore you to educate yourself about the horrors of the Soviet Union because the school system does not do it justice.
Moving to the Ottoman Empire, the ethnic Turks held a group identity and wanted to attack a group they saw as an enemy, so they murdered and transported the Armenian people eastward. The vast majority of Armenians were killed. The only reason my family is in the US is because of this event.
Looking to Rwanda, the French had set up an arbitrary group identity system between the Hutus and Tutsis. One group benefitted and the other grew resentful. This resulted in the Rwandan genocide. To learn more about this atrocity, I highly recommend the film Hotel Rwanda.
In the Americas, there are many examples of identity politics in both the relationships between European settler and natives, as well as between native tribes themselves. Tribes are tribal, by definition. Many people are unaware that many native tribes were warring with one another for centuries before Europeans arrived. Some tribes were more peaceful than others, but many were harsh warriors. Tribes battle, despite both being Native American, because they have a tribal identity. They fight over land, resources, and other things that any other members of our species have fought over. In many circumstances, European settlers would push tribes towards attacking enemy tribes. Of course, much more is known about European settlers and their treatment of natives. Once again, you have one group with an ethnic identity that pushes its goals above other groups.
In Cambodia, the communists (Khmer Rouge) wanted to enact a truly identity-politics founded world view. Their goal was to wipe out the old culture and ideas held in the region and replace them with collectivist ideology. Similar to the Holodomor, they attempted to collectivize the agricultural industry. Thousands of people were grouped up and shipped off to death camps. They were not viewed as individuals, as the communists do not believe in individuality, as communism is predicated on identity-politics. As such, they didn’t care about their individual struggles, their families, etc. They saw these human beings as enemies for holding religious views, enlightened views, or for simply being the wrong ethnicity.
There are unfortunately hundreds of more examples I could list. Fundamentally, identity politics creates conflict, and we see this conflict manifest throughout history. These events did not occur because people held an individualist mentality; they occurred because people held a collectivist mentality. They threw people into groups and decided that they were the enemy. This is simply historical fact. These groups were very open about why they did what they did, and it was always predicated on a difference in group identity.
Group-Level Analysis
I’ve been talking a lot about group-level and individual-level analysis without really explaining what I mean. There are two primary ways to view people: as individuals or as groups. It’s important to note that, just like the political dialogue, you must have a degree of both individual-level analysis and group-level analysis. We all live in a society, so for an individualistic society to work, individuals must have responsibilities. For a collectivist society to work, well, individuals must have responsibilities. The question is, which level of analysis should be used to view the world? We should use whichever helps people the most.
There are a lot of abstract-interconnected concepts at play here, so bear with me. Within this topic lies identity politics, diversity, equity vs equality, political correctness, freedom of speech, etc. I have already demonstrated how group-level analysis has been used in identity politics for wars, genocides, and murder. Murder, of course, still happens with an individualist level of analysis. Consider school shootings, where the focus is on the individual, and the victims are irrelevant to the shooter. Schools usually aren’t shot up because of a group identity; however, they absolutely could be. I’ve neglected to point out massive murderous events caused by individual-level analysis because there aren’t any. Please, if you can find a genocide where it is individual-level analysis at fault and not group-level analysis, inform me. Now, let me continue to destroy this notion of group-level analysis that is at the core of identity politics.
Diversity and Inclusivity
To begin, diversity can benefit people in all sorts of ways. The question is, diversity of what? To many who buy into identity politics, they want diversity of race, sex, sexual orientation, gender, and or economic class; however, they will often ignore diversity of political belief, skill, or frankly any characteristic that they do not deem as essential for determining who you are as a person. The reason for this is they are holding a group-level analytical view of diversity. When it comes to groups of people, are members of one group more similar to each other than to members of a different group?
If members of one group are more similar to each other, that means that the group is an entity unto itself; the differences between groups outweighs their similarities, making them more different than alike, which makes them unique. Under this assumption, the way to achieve diversity is to get as many groups represented as possible. This means we should have equal numbers of individuals based on their group affiliation. This is the assumption made by identity politics; recall Stimpson’s quote:
Identity politics is contemporary shorthand for a group’s assertion that it is a meaningful group; that it differs significantly from other groups.
If humans are more alike, despite their different characteristics, then groups are merely a tool to categorize people, rather than the basis of an identity. To achieve diversity when groups are more alike than different, you must ignore group all together and select based on individual uniqueness. It is the individual that is presumed unique and important, not the group. Consider sex: are men and women more alike or different? Well, genetically, men and women share the vast majority of their genetic material. The only genetic difference between men and women is a single chromosome out of 46; moreover, this chromosome takes a few weeks to become active, so we all begin development as females. Geometrically, we take virtually the same shape with minor deviations. When it comes to skin color, the only concrete difference is the amount of melanocytes and melanin within the skin.
Fundamentally, we are all members of the same species. No matter which arbitrary characteristics you decide to put weight behind to construct a group identity, no matter what, the individual differences within one group will be similar to that of another group. It is that capacity for individuals to be unique that makes any group non-unique. The only way to achieve diversity is to select based on individuals, not arbitrary group identity.
Equality of Outcome vs. Equality of Opportunity
This analysis of equality of outcome (equity) vs. equality of opportunity is derived heavily from Jordan Peterson’s talks, so I must give him the credit for this argument. Let’s begin by explaining these concepts. Equality of outcome means that, regardless of characteristics, people will have the same outcome. Equality of opportunity means that, regardless of characteristics, people will have the same opportunity to achieve the outcome. When people talk about equality of outcome, they mean it in terms of groups. For example, feminists will frequently bring up the wage gap, where they want women and men to have the same earnings. They neglect numerous factors as to why the averages differ, but that is an article for another time. This is an example of equality of outcome: men and women being paid the same on average. An example of equality of opportunity is an unbiased hiring process where only the person with the most skill or experience is hired. These concepts are mutually exclusive; you cannot ensure both equality of outcome and equality of opportunity.
Consider punishment for misbehavior in schools. Under equality of opportunity, every student has the same chance to behave. Those who do not are equally punished. However, there is an equity problem: boys misbehave more on average. Just because there are unequal outcomes does not mean there is discrimination at play. Suppose we enacted equality of outcome to attempt to get rid of this supposed discrimination. Then, in order to reprimand boys and girls equally, some boys will have to be let off despite acting up, and some girls will have to be punished for minor infractions. On average, boys and girls will be treated the same. However, we will have created discrimination by moving to equality of outcome.
Notice how many “activists” are only concerned about unequal outcomes one way. Feminists will often complain that there are too few women in STEM, but has a feminist ever complained that there are too few women in garbage collection? The vast majority of people in prison in the US are male. Do feminists want equality of outcome for arrests? I’m sure many do, but it doesn’t seem to be the popular opinion. Suboptimal positions are usually ignored in arguments over equality of outcome.
There are a few fundamental problems with equality of outcome:
- There are infinitely many characteristics to define people by. If not infinite, there are an extremely large amount: height, weight, age, sex, personality, hair color, skin color, ethnicity, economic class, blood type, shoe size, happiness level, relationship status, eyesight quality, intelligence, etc. If we are going to ensure equality of outcome, we have to decide which outcomes. However, who are you to determine which of these characteristics matter more day to day than others? If you only ensure equality for some, you are neglecting infinitely more, and you have become an oppressor over infinite groups. So, the only fair system under equality of outcome is to ensure infinite outcomes. However, consider the consequences.
- Given all of these outcomes, nothing but a tyrannical system could possibly ever ensure equality of outcome. Not only that, but given infinite characteristics, many of which cannot be changed, it is technically impossible for even a tyrannical system to ensure equality of outcome. This tyrannical nature has been seen in every country that has practiced communism; it is an inevitable feature of equality of outcome.
It is important to note that equality of opportunity is also impossible to completely achieve. No matter what, people will be different, and any difference means that people will not be equal. Some people will always be better at math than others. However, the goal is not to fight natural differences; it is to fight discrimination in our systems. Discrimination is not inherently bad; we all discriminate in dating, for example. If you were undergoing brain surgery, would you want the experienced brain surgeon, or someone who has never performed a brain surgery? It is necessary to discriminate based on characteristics that matter in a given scenario.
For a job, you should discriminate based on the skills to do that job, so that the job has the highest success rate and quality. If you are discriminating based on race when hiring a doctor, you are implicitly saying that race affects competence, which is self-evidently incorrect — which you understand, because you had to go the extra mile and discriminate based on race, rather than just competence. If it were true that certain races were less competent, you could simply discriminate based on competence and those races would be excluded automatically. To choose to discriminate based on race is then an admission of the falsehood of your belief. In another context, however, discriminating based on race might not be racist. For example, it is okay to discriminate based on race if you are trying to hire an actor that matches the appearance of a historical figure. The only reason to bring up race is as a subcomponent of general appearance in this context. Certain races are more pre-disposed to certain medical conditions, since race is intertwined with ethnicity and genetics. It is then discrimination, but not unfair, for a doctor to prescribe treatments to individuals on the basis of race. In fact, doing this saves the lives of people of all races.
The goal of equality of opportunity is to discriminate only on characteristics that matter given a context. The structure should not be discriminating on irrelevant characteristics because that is unfair. Everyone should have the same opportunity, given physical and mental differences, to achieve a goal if they are able. Not everyone is able to do everything; this is nature’s discrimination, not societies. Thus, societal equality of opportunity need not attempt to fight it. However, because equality of outcome necessitates ensuring all outcomes are equal, that can only occur by fighting natural differences between people. It essentially aims for a utopian hive-mind of identical clones. Only then can people be truly equal.
Intersectionality
Before, I mentioned that people have infinitely many characteristics. One thing to note is that characteristics overlap. For instance, men are on average taller than women. So, sex and height overlap to an extent. This means if you discriminate based on height, you are implicitly discriminating against sex. This brings us to intersectionality. Intersectionality focuses on the idea that people belong to more than one group. In order to determine how oppressed someone is, you must consider the different groups they belong to. Who has been more historically oppressed: someone who is black or someone who is white? What about a black man and a white woman? What about a gay black man and a single white mother?
Intersectionality aims to figure out the effect of these overlapping characteristics. However, it stops short of discovering an internal contradiction. In order to consider these characteristics, one must perform a factor analysis. Consider probabilities. What percent of people are male? Approximately 50%. What percent of people have brown hair? Approximately 20%. Thus, because they do not overlap significantly, approximately 10% of all people are brown-haired men.
As you add characteristics, the proportion of the population you are describing shrinks. If approximately 1/10 people are brown-haired men, how many are tall gay middle-class brown-haired men with math skills? Approximately 1/1,000,000,000. Once again, this is only considering six characteristics: height, sexual orientation, economic status, hair color, sex, and math skills. However, there are infinitely many characteristics. We can then take the limit as the number of characteristics approaches infinity, and we get zero. Meaning, the probability that any one person exists with infinitely many characteristics is virtually zero. We must consider every characteristic to determine if someone is historically oppressed, or else we are privileging certain characteristics over others; the entire point of intersectionality was to avoid doing so. In order to do so, we must look at people as individuals. This is a contradiction of the group-level analysis inherent to intersectionality. The only way to truly handle group oppression is to ignore groups and look at the individual. Otherwise, you are ignoring infinitely many characteristics that affect who a person is, which is a form of oppression. The end result of intersectionality is individualism.
The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.
- Ayn Rand
It is this idea that Western culture — and many other cultures in the world — have figured out centuries ago. Fundamentally, the only way to fairly view all people under an equal light is to view us all as unique individuals with a set of characteristics that prescribe to us historical advantages and disadvantages as individuals. Group-level analysis that categorizes individuals into one or maybe two groups at a time could never be sufficient to handle this problem; there are simply too few variables considered. How could an entire genetic tree of suffering and triumph possible be simplified by “black man”?
One last quick idea is that people overly privilege modern history. We can view Adolf Hitler as a horrible person, but we have lost the same contempt for Genghis Khan. It is also crucial to recognize that before recorded history, our species has spent millions of years oppressing one another. Who are you to privilege events of the last two hundred years over the millions of years before recorded history? Every human being, regardless of race or ethnicity, has ancestors who were oppressors; if your ancestors were not ruthless murderers, they wouldn’t have survived. And everyone has ancestors who suffered, were oppressed, and inevitably died a painful death. The only reasons to ignore that simple fact is out of naivety, or out of malice.
Political Correctness and Inclusivity
I’m going to keep this section short, as there is only a little overlap with identity politics. As talked about in the diversity section, diversity is a good thing, and so it is good to include people in many things. One way people achieve this is to attempt to avoid insulting or offending people. This is not inherently bad, but doing so solely based on a group-level analysis is bad. Again, if you are only inclusive on the level of racial groups and sex, you aren’t actually inclusive. If you want to be inclusive, you must attempt to include everyone without discrimination against the individual. Political correctness will bleed over into the next section about freedom of speech. However, the main problem is that people act as though being politically correct is a virtue, and they solely do it to convince themselves and others of how virtuous they are. This policing of political correctness as well is extremely concerning. People are verbally attacked for simply choosing to not virtue signal. This brings us to freedom of speech.
Freedom of Speech
Everything can be interpreted as offensive. Please read that one more time. No matter what you say, even if it is an objective fact, someone could be offended by it. In fact, as your audience and the topic’s importance grows, the probability that you will offend someone is almost guaranteed. There is no position on any important question that is not offensive to someone. The more people you talk to, the more likely you’ll offend someone. This is why the very nature of stopping offensive speech is pathological. You simply would have to ban all speech; especially all speech about important issues. If you disagree with me that not all speech is offensive, then that offends me. Of course, it is not always nice to offend people. However, it depends on the individual person’s choice whether to do so, and it especially depends on the motivation. If the offense is made strictly to hurt someone, that is simply cruel and not good; however, if the offense is made to discuss an important issue, that is necessary. It has to be a person-to-person agreement about what is allowed and what isn’t, not the decision of social media giants or governments. The problem with banning intentionally-offensive speech is that proving intent, especially in written form, is virtually impossible.
As previously mentioned, the political dialogue keeps our system functional. Without discussion on important issues and without diversity of opinion, our society will stagnate and fall apart. We need a varying body of ideas to find the best solution to problems. From a liberal point of view, the dispossessed need a voice so they can speak up about their troubles. The problem with any form of discussion is that we all have unique experiences in life, and so we all take certain things for granted as self-evident. The only way to truly discuss is to express all assumptions you are making; this is what makes mathematics so much easier to prove and argue. In math, all of your axioms are laid out. The problem is real life is significantly more complex than mathematics. It would be an extremely hard task to express all the implicit assumptions I have made in my article. But that is what discussion is for; so two individuals can discuss and attempt to narrow down the disagreement. Usually, the disagreement has nothing to do with the actual claims presented; they’re usually disagreements about basic assumptions made that were never expressed. That’s why, even with two rational critical thinkers, an argument isn’t a simple task. It’s also why it’s impossible to argue with someone who refuses to perform an introspective analysis and ask themselves if they are truly wrong. If they refuse to truly consider your ideas, they won’t attempt to understand them.
Identity politics creates a massive problem. Many people take this group-level analysis to the extreme, and they no longer view discussion as two individuals attempting to work out an idea. They view individuals as pawns for their group who speak only to further their group’s goals. They believe that the person isn’t an individual at all, but only another member of the homogenous group. As such, they view conversations as nothing more than a battle between two groups for power. If you don’t believe me, go on Twitter some time. This is why ideologues will bring up race in random conversations. If you want to have a logical conversation, they will point out your race or sex and claim that makes you unable to understand. They will refuse to argue in points and only argue in characteristics because, to them, it is self-evidently the case that it makes you unqualified; moreover, they believe you aren’t being genuine about wanting to help. They believe you are simply using language to push your narrative of oppression and no doubt, someone is reading this article thinking just that. This belief is why they are against freedom of speech and in favor of censorship. They don’t believe people can think critically beyond their arbitrary characteristics, and so it is dangerous to let people express controversial ideas.
Consider the lab-leak hypothesis for Covid-19. For months, social media would censor anyone who attempted to even discuss the idea that it may be true. However, all of a sudden, the mainstream media began discussing it, and suddenly it is allowed to discuss. This is absolutely pathological. Consider if the claim is actually true and these mega-colossal corporations prevented anything from happening for months. Consider all of the discussion about the safety of the vaccine. We have never produced a vaccine this quickly and people are extremely skeptical. It is crucial that we ensure the vaccine is truly safe, and it is crucial that we convince people that it is as well. You wonder why there are so many people so wary of the vaccine? It is because of censorship and propaganda. Rather than allow free discussion and treat people like sentient adults who can make decisions for themselves, these governments and companies have decided to censor people who are concerned about the vaccine and push a narrative of it being completely safe when, in reality, any vaccine has some level of risk to it. The worst thing you can possibly do to paranoid people is to censor them and push them away into an echo chamber. All you do is prove them right.
What are they so afraid of happening with free discussion, anyway? Do they think that people are that stupid that, when presented with two sides of an argument with one side being clearly more logical, that they won’t pick that side? If you don’t allow people to speak misinformation on social media, then you prevent smarter people from debunking it. Instead, incorrect information will spread among an echo chamber without any discussion present. You would have to have a truly arrogant view of yourself to think that everyone else is naive and unable to make decent decisions for themselves. If you treat adults like children, they will behave like children. Hence, the anti-mask and anti-vaccine behavior. Some of it is the handful of people who cannot think critically, but most of it is people who are fighting against the censorship, the dictatorial practices, and the soviet-like propaganda. But handling reality is far too complex for politicians and ideologues, so it is much easier to simply box up everyone who disagrees into the category of naive idiot and everything they say into the category of misinformation. It is a classic soviet tactic, and it has no place in any modern science-founded society.
Science as a principle, not to be confused with academia, is pure. The scientific community is full of arrogance and hypocrisy, so let’s clear up what science actually is. Science is a method of deduction and reasoning. It requires you create an idea after having witnessed something — as opposed to finding evidence to support a preconceived notion. Then, after constructing the hypothesis to answer a question, you attempt to falsify it. It took me many years to realize this, but the scientific method is primarily about falsification, not proof. A single experiment does not prove a hypothesis to be true; however, a single experiment can falsify a hypothesis. If the experiment fails to falsify your idea, then you have evidence to suggest you idea may be true. Your experiment must be objective, and repeatable by others. You then refine your idea and continue trying to falsify it. Once you fail after trying your hardest to prove yourself wrong, your idea is subject to the scientific community, where fame, money, and rivalry drives other scientists to prove you wrong. If they reproduce your results and fail to falsify your theory, then it is considered to be most likely true. It is still not proven, but nothing can truly be proven objectively from our subjective experiences. So the distinction is not really that important. This is how science refines ideas and discovers the truth — through an introspective attempt to falsify your belief, and through public discussion, so others may do the same. Attacking freedom of speech is inherently anti-science, as freedom of speech is one of the pillars of science itself. The motivation to do so is spawned out of ideology and arrogance. Be wary of anyone who attempts to censor ideas.
Summary
Let me now attempt to summarize all that has followed before. Group-level analysis leads to discussions of equality of outcome, which is mutually exclusive with equality of opportunity, impossible to implement, and results in a tyranny; it also leads to a breakdown of the concepts of diversity, inclusivity, and political correctness; it manifests an internal contradiction in the form of intersectionality, which results in individualism when considering that people have more than eight characteristics; speech is inevitably censored in an anti-science way; the individual — the ultimate minority — is oppressed and crushed into a box; and it is predicated on a short-term view of history, an ironically western-centric and white-centric viewpoint of society, and on a failure to recognize the infinite complexity of the universe.
Identity politics is a belief predicated on a group-level view of people that views the world as a power game between arbitrary groups of people, where there are only a handful of groups people belong to. It views individuals as pawns of their group that should do nothing but serve the goals of their group. Under this notion, genocides have been committed and wars have been fought to further the goals of one group over another. It believes people cannot fundamentally have discussions and that any attempt to convince someone is nothing more than a dishonest tactic to gain power. This is why both the Nazis and communists banned criticism; all criticism can only be seen as a direct attack on their identity. All history must be seen through their lens, hence the book burning/censorship and rewriting. When you study these historical regimes, it becomes extremely evident how they continue survive in modern day.
Modern Day and Historical Perpetuation
I’ve been formulating the arguments in this article for many years now. One of the first things I came to realize was that our language describing race is a remnant left over from segregation. While we may have stopped physically segregating people — despite some members of both the right and left who want to change that — we still verbally segregate people using the terms “white” and “black”. While we can't pretend that skin color doesn't exist and especially cannot pretend that it didn't have historical meaning, we cannot continue to live as if it has any meaning. As previously mentioned, this is the wrong level of analysis. If you want to solve historical oppression, you must view people as individuals. So, race should be treated just as height is; it's something that exists that certainly has an effect on daily life - consider dating as a short male in our society - but fundamentally doesn't mean anything about who you are. If someone said "Hey, this is my tall friend" you'd question why they felt the need to point out their height. In certain contexts, it may make sense, such as when you are trying to find someone in a crowd. Having a visual description of someone in a crowd is necessary to find the individual. Yet, many people frequently bring up race in contexts where it doesn't matter, likely because they hold some level of identity politics and believe it does implicitly matter to an extent. This is the perpetuation of racism and segregation through speech.
Sylvia Wynter has studied colonialism in the context of Jamaica. She has developed this concept of epistemes, where she believes that Jamaican’s can never truly be free of colonialism while they continue to use language, traditions, and other things developed by colonists. While she would likely disagree with my article, her point is fundamentally the same as the one I am making. People who wanted race to matter created race-based language to make race matter. If we continue to blindly use that language, we can never be free of racism. It was Hitler who construed Jews as being an ethnicity rather than a religion, and that concept has perpetuated as well. It is an absolute travesty that we continue to use language developed by pathological people solely for the goal of dividing people into arbitrary groups to execute identity politics. As I have made myself clearly a proponent of freedom of speech, I wouldn’t suggest any of the traditional methods to remove this speech. What I suggest is we argue logically that, if your goal is to end baseless discrimination of race, sex, etc., then you must make the personal decision to change your speech. It should be viewed through a practical lens and no one should be canceled for making their own decision on this. That would just be more tribalism, which is what we’re fighting.
This is the part that matters most of all — recognizing modern-day identity politics. Kamala Harris was elected primarily because she was a black woman, not because they believed she was the best candidate for the job. The emphasis was always on her being a black woman. The same was true for Hillary Clinton; the main reason she gave for you to vote for her was that she was a woman. That isn’t to say these candidate lack reasons to vote for them; this is simply to state that they ran on their group identity above their individual qualifications. Groups like Black Lives Matter may seem like caring, compassionate individuals; however, the movement is predicated on identity politics. It views the world as police vs black people. Please read carefully because this topic is emotionally charged and ignoring the nuance of my argument is not a good idea. Clearly, there are many issues with police brutality in this country. Obviously, there are many racists in this country. However, these issues can be solved without adopting a pathological view such as identity politics. There are also many examples of BLM protesting justified shootings of people who, if they had not been shot, would’ve killed officers or civilians. Officers die all the time, and those videos are absolutely horrifying to watch. Stop oversimplifying the world to fit your narrow ideology. Choosing to perpetuate segregation and division creates more racists and will inevitably lead to more police incidents. If you truly want people to stop dying in the streets because of their race, then take personal responsibility and stop perpetuating racism through your speech and beliefs. How come you demand accountability of others and judge everyone else for their flaws when you cannot do the same of yourself?
Please, I beg you to look inwards at yourself and determine how you are perpetuating identity politics through the use of group-level analysis. Look at politicians and “activists” and watch their actions intently. Note when people advocate for equality of outcome (equity) and when they push an oppressor-oppressed narrative between two arbitrary groups. The world is infinitely complex, and you need to try to recognize that. Learn how to think critically, learn how to argue, and participate in civil discussions. This is a major battle in society and politics right now. Identity politics always pops up again time after time, and it is crucial for us to have logical, sound reasons to explain the danger of adopting such a belief that is founded in resentment. Avoid intellectual oversimplifications, and take personal responsibility for your actions and inactions. We all ask how something like the Holocaust could’ve happened. It happens because individuals adopt resentment for a group, and they turn a blind eye to the actions of themselves and those around them. If you were in Nazi Germany, you probably would’ve been a Nazi. You probably would’ve worked in a death camp. Understand your capacity to commit evil, and understand that this is a part of human nature itself. Once you understand that, you can begin to respect yourself and others. You can begin to keep your eyes open and prevent events like this from ever occurring again.
