Yeah the polls seem pretty silly but that's kind of the point. And as the article mentioned, white males is the only group that doesn't have to engage in identity politics, so it makes sense that you wouldn't like it.
White men bridle at the notion of being part of a tribe or engaging in identity politics. (Ahem.) Alone among social groups, they are allowed the illusion that they have only their own bespoke identity, that they are pure freethinkers, citizens, unburdened and uninfluenced by collective baggage (unique and precious “snowflakes,” if you will).
No one else is allowed to think that — at least not for long, before they are reminded again that they are, in the eyes of their country, little more than their identity, their asterisk. No one else gets to pretend their politics are free of identity.
Right, I saw that in the article. And I'm not sure I understand it. A lot of white people
do engage in identity politics. Richard Spencer and his ilk certainly do. The 82% who responded to his poll did. Racist cops and politicians and whoever else do. People who look sideways at a black guy who walks into a store do. You get my point.
I think what the author is implicitly getting at isn't merely "white people should be engaged in identity politics," but rather "white people should be engaged in identity politics
and adopt identity political views with those of non-whites." which are two very different things that lead to two very different outcomes. from a game theory perspective, i think it's a bad idea to encourage more identity politics -- particularly from white people.
I think the more direct solution is for us to treat everyone as if they have their "own bespoke identity, that they are pure freethinkers, citizens, unburdened and uninfluenced by collective baggage." maybe that's naive, but i think it's a more realistic remedy than the one the article seems to suggest.
