>The left in USA has been convinced (or convinced itself) that identity politics is more important than human rights.

I disagree. I think we had torture so that a President could look tough on National Security as a re-election strategy. Not-torturing people and "identity politics" are not mutually exclusive, there is no reason that we couldn't have both. "Identity politics" is fundamentally about human liberty and the dignity of the individual, a.k.a. individualism, which is also the same moral foundation that most arguments against torture rest on. Advancing the rights of the individual advances the case against torture.

I'm not saying it's bad to have both. It's bad to have identity politics without first having human rights. Human rights are the foundation on which to build an equal society. Attempting to achieve equality before a even a right to life is secured is perverse and cannot work.

Is it no wonder that the police in USA murder black people, when the state also does so?

They'll probably have more time to concentrate on basic human rights soon with the Republicans sure to vote in an anti-gay, anti-abortion, racist, anti-women's rights SCOTUS judge. There won't be any "swing vote" anymore. Roe v. Wade is history unless the democrats win both houses and the Presidency and can add 3 more left leaning SCOTUS judges. Say goodbye to voter rights, minority rights, and anything even slightly related to queer rights.

Which human rights are being deprioritized and in exchange for what lgbtq rights?

If you say they put X above Y, I feel like you should quantify that with something.

As a leftist myself, I can't recall ever talking to another leftist who supported female genital mutilation, or called someone a racist for criticizing it. I think you're talking out your butt

They've developed a false argument. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a vocal critic of female genital mutilation, but many of her other positions are islamophobic. Positions like "we are at war with Islam and it must be defeated."

In reality, I can both oppose female genital mutilation and consider Ayaan Hirsi Ali racist.

Islam isn’t a race. Criticisms of religions are perfectly reasonable and valid positions to hold.

Calling for Muslims to be militarily crushed isn't criticism, its bigotry of some sort even if you don't consider it racist.

> In reality, I can both oppose female genital mutilation and consider Ayaan Hirsi Ali racist.

Of course you can. But became sufficiently famous doing so, and you will probably also find yourself on some list of "problematic" people.

In case I am completely wrong about this, the best way to convince me would be to provide a name of a recent famous speaker against female genital mutilation who is considered politically correct.

> course you can. But became sufficiently famous doing so, and you will probably also find yourself on some list of "problematic" people

This acts like people were out to vilify her, when she publicly holds incredibly offensive positions.

OK, I'll bite.

Former congressman Joe Crowley

Layli Miller-Muro

Nimco Ali

Comfort Momoh

Waris Dirie

Thank you! Never heard about them before, but they have a Wikipedia page each, so obviously other people did. That's a good news!

Just wanted to echo this. Have never seen anyone called racist for speaking out against female genital mutilation.

> Those who object to this barbarism, inflicted upon millions of girls every year, are actually, somehow, called “racists” for doing so.

I am vehemently opposed to female genital mutilation. Even with HN's overly large number of contrarians and trolls, I claim no one can write a convincing argument that my previous sentence is in any way racist.

Why is it okay to perform the similar procedures on males? It's an outdated , barbaric practice

I agree, end it all. Save the foreskins.

As long as you speak as if female genital mutilation exists in a vacuum, as long as you carefully avoid mentioning that some cultures are more supportive of this practice than others, as long as you do not point out that some girls are at much greater risk than the general population and that any meaningful prevention needs to focus on them... you are okay. This also makes it impossible to suggest any policy with a realistic possibility to actually reduce female genital mutilation.

Bingo.

> the “left”

Makes sense that you put this in quote marks, given that you're just inventing wild caricatures to argue against.

Does the USA have a left today? The right who voted for the new deal are left of today’s left.

Today’s left are more right than yesterday’s right.

They do, but it isn't represented in either of their two parties. The Liberal party and the Far Right party both do their best to ignore the leftists.

That said, at the local and house level there is an increase in left candidates getting elected. We'll see where that goes.

Yep, the two major parties are "center-right" and "far-right" politically. There are some leftists but they aren't represented, and because of the two-party system they won't be. Two parties ~= one party.

AOC and her squad are very far left and they're mainstream.

>> very far left

On what grounds? AOC, like Sanders, advocates for centrist policies like those in the UK. AOC is a left leaning centrist. The rhetoric in the US does label her and Sanders extreme left but that’s evidence in favour of my point - there is no left in the USA.

Who is the USA’s version of John McDonnell telling us all that there’s a lot to learn from Das Kapital?

AOC is centre left, somewhere between Canada’s ruling Liberal party and the NDP currently endorsing them (its a minority government this time). NDP is a little further left IMO but not far off.

Centrists.

Please go back and cite me some references where they defended black rights, women's rights, LGBTQ rights, etc. I'll be waiting with bated breath.

The indian reorganisation act? ...and breathe again

What does identity politics have to do with human rights, and why does one preclude the other? Your statement makes it out to seem that you simply don't like what you consider "identity politics" and wanted to bring that into the discussion, regardless of how irrelevant it is.

You're being uncharitable in your reading.

GP is rightfully pointing out that political discourse is far often centered on identity politics to the exclusion of more important topics such as human rights.

No one is saying that one precludes the other except you.

Like someone else said, which rights are being displaced by "identity" politics? Once again, this is nothing but white anxiety about the public discourse concerning race. Nothing more.

This is because there is almost no US left. What you call the left are liberals, and liberals have always been like this (See: Pete Seeger's song "Love Me I'm a Liberal".