> Just look at any minority who doesn't buy into identity politics. They're labeled as traitors, haters of their own race

I really don't think they are. Look at Kanye West. People aren't objecting to him because he "doesn't buy into identity politics", they object to him because he says stupid, ignorant things like "sounds like slavery was a choice".

Yes, but that's one example. Now look at men like Thomas Sowell and Denzel Washington and many other people who've been criticized from within minority communities.

Black conservatives, even if they're barely conservative, are called Uncle Toms. This really isn't that uncommon.

Edit: Oh look, this thread was flagged. What a surprise.

And is Denzel Washington an outcast, shunned by Hollywood for his views? Er, no. He's a solidly working, exceptionally well-paid actor.

This is the thing I don't get about this argument. You're implying that Denzel Washington should be free to say whatever he wants, but that no one should be free to criticise what he says. I don't understand how those two things are supposed to go together.

True, but I wouldn't really expect someone like him to be pushed out of his industry for his views precisely because he's black. But if someone who is considered to have privilege said the exact same things he did, they'd have bigger problems.

> You're implying that Denzel Washington should be free to say whatever he wants, but that no one should be free to criticise what he says.

Not at all.

>Now look at men like Thomas Sowell and Denzel Washington and many other people who've been criticized from within minority communities.

Fair enough, but what's wrong with criticism? That's an essential part of intellectual debate, and it doesn't exist in an environment where all participants agree on every issue. It's not as if the entirety of criticism against black conservatives amounts to name calling and "identity politics" as TFA identifies it.

> Fair enough, but what's wrong with criticism?

Nothing, that's exactly what I want. I want criticism rather than blind outrage that leads to event organizers, colleges, etc caving to their demands.

Here's another issue I have with identity politics: it's a lens that can be useful for examining certain situations. However, it's not the only one. Yet subscribers to the I.P. framework seem to insist that it's the only one that matters.

Alternatives include individualism/bootstrapping, family oriented politics, skill/job oriented (labor used to be a massive political influencer), etc.