AirWorthy99 wrote:mbmbos wrote:AirWorthy99 wrote:
You define the term you wish to define it, if this an euphemism for civil rights according to you then thats your way to see it. Fine
I know this is a very delicate and complex subject, one can easily turn the tables and blame the person who bring this up as racist or whatever. I dont honestly care you all can believe anything you wish to believe.
Disagree that this isnt an issue, ok then.
...which is why you refuse to define the term. It's all on you and this rancid threat you started.
I defined it like 5 times already, dont care if none of you believe thats the definition or believe is another one. Most of you defined it your own way, therefore it was a debate nonetheless.
"That's not identity politics.
Identity politics is to say vote for me because I represent your gender/race etc.... or vote for me because I will be better for your race/gender etc...
Right wing who use identity politics are bad too. But Democrats have been proud in using it more forcefully over the years. Remember "I am with her" slogan?"
So this is your definition? Who says "vote for me because I represent your gender?" People celebrate female candidates. People encourage candidates of color. But you don't interpret it that way. You immediately pivot to some mindless narrative they are pandering to their gender or color. That says a whole lot more about you than it does for those who are running for office or encouraging said people to run for office.
And you use "I'm with her" as an example? Wow, that's weak. When only one woman in the race, "I'm with her" makes a lot of sense. But you see it as an appeal to voting specifically for a woman, and that twists your shorts into a bunch.
Very telling. This entire thread - your responses - are a Rorschach test of who you really are.