Jordan Peterson thread

[ttaskmaster]

The problem is, the interviewers try to twist what he says into a negative, but never asks for the suggestion!

Oh, I ignore the interviews. They're just highly paid newsreaders and presenters talking over him, not listening to half of it and BSing around the other half. They do that to everyone.

I'm talking about all the lectures he has on YouTube. I'm hearing lots of Nail-on-the-Head about the problems and why we're all lobsters, but not much about what to do with it now I know it... unless I have to buy the book for that part?

 

[Irish_Tom]

My response covered bilateral elements on the assumption you had made either presumption regarding the irony.

However, the context of what he is portraying around the application of Marxism is about the totalitarian oppression of freedom of speech for disagreement with the gender politic ideology. Ergo, inadvertently they are removing freedoms of all groups including uncalculated self-inflicted consequence.

Yes its entirely respectable to call people out based on what political beliefs that they hold. Unlike sexuality, race, gender etc, it is not an immutable characteristic

I'll try and answer both of these in the same response: I would say it's entirely wrong to call people out on their political beliefs if you're going to misappropriate those beliefs and then argue against that misappropriated position. As I said earlier:

He calls them "Social Justice Warriors" and "Lefties" and I interpret that as Feminists, Black Lives Matter and similar groups (and because it's America, anyone remotely left of centre). These groups are asking for a reduction in the inequality in society (of which there is plenty of evidence). They are not asking for a Communist state, nor are they calling for "equality of outcome" as the Right so often put it. If he's referring to AntiFa then he has a point, but they are no more credible (and have no more chance of implementing their agenda) than Neo Nazis. And if he means that actual Tumblr SJWs then it's even more of a joke because no one takes them seriously.

Moving on to @francky's post:

Irish_Tom would you consider yourself left wing?

I would consider myself centre-left.

Do you feel that their is currently huge Inequalities in the world that need to be changed? (you've already pretty much answered this above).....do you feel women are oppressed in this country and in the West in general?

As I said above, if I was going to worry about anything, it would be inequality. I would not say that women (or ethnic minorities for that matter) are "oppressed" but I would say that there is still a way to go before we see true equality.

its just I'm reading your replies and comments and trying to see if you are being objective, or that your answers are biased based on your political views.

I no doubt have some bias which is probably why I'm challenging some of his assertions rather than just accepting them. It doesn't necessarily mean I'm wrong though. Also, I'm not against him on all fronts out of principle, I've said that as a psychology or history lecturer he would be great.

I personally feel that Peterson is rightly criticizing the far left and calling them out for their hypocrisy and the political pressure they are putting on society today..an example of which would be Vernon Mussington who was criminally charged in the UK for a hate crime for calling a trans person a "geezer"........if the far right were pushing their political view into modern society we would also be having similar discussions from similar intellectuals....its just because the Far Left cleverly wrap their dangerous views in empathy that nothing gets said.

I'm not defending the far Left and I agree that cases like Vernon Mussington's should never have made it that far. I just don't think the problem is as widespread as people like Jordan Peterson would like to make out. I don't believe that a small but vocal minority (and a few badly handled court cases) are going to result in the breakdown of modern society via a wave of "Cultural Marxism".

For me, I feel like the enemy of the far left as someone who would consider them self very much center of politics....a middle class, straight white man...the privileged oppressor....the bigot...the misogynist.

How much of you feeling that way is based on what you've seen in the media or on social media and how much is based on conversations with and/or reading material produced by feminist groups or those like BLM? I don't mean the AntiFa or Tumblr SJW groups.

I'm a middle class straight white male and I have never felt like I've been made to feel guilty about it. Equally, I've never been called a racist, bigot or misogynist…

The problem is, the interviewers try to twist what he says into a negative, but never asks for the suggestion!

This was certainly the case with Cathy Newman.

 

[Caracus2k]

It's interesting to play an inverse kind of Bingo game where 'House' occurs when someone can find a post by yourself that does not include the use of the word 'Marxism'.

In the 'general discussion' threads you might not get that many posts from me that don't mention Marxism outside of the political threads or those about 'social justice issues'. Because I simply believe that a lot of what's going on with 'progressive' politics and social justice issues is essentially Marxist in nature

 

[Judgeneo]

I'll try and answer both of these in the same response: I would say it's entirely wrong to call people out on their political beliefs if you're going to misappropriate those beliefs and then argue against that misappropriated position. As I said earlier:

Yes its wrong to strawman someone's opinions. I don't see much evidence of this happening w.r.t. Peterson though.

 

[Cold Fusion]

BBC Radio 5 Live Interview conducted before the Cathy Newman Interview.

a much less hostile interview, and when talking about male suicide he actually starts crying....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhm4X3a2_kg

 

[Caracus2k]

@Evangelion

Caracus2k said: ↑
Third (and fourth) wave feminism are inherently Marxist in nature.......... (with feminisms in all its waves having had some aspects of Marxist theory involved to some level)

Evangelion said:
Evidence please. Can you tell me what was Marxist about first wave feminism?

Happy to oblige ........... 'Marxism and feminism'

'The first wave of feminist struggle is identified with the fight for women’s suffrage in the period leading up to the First World War. The Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU), which became known as the Suffragettes.'
'These included most famously Emmeline and Christabel Pankhurst.'
'When Emmeline and Christabel led the WSPU to split from its Labour roots the youngest Pankhurst daughter, Sylvia, who became more politically radical in the course of the struggle, went on to work with poor and working class women in her East London Federation.'
'For many working class women the fight for the vote was only one part of a struggle against poverty and slum housing. Many of them argued for universal suffrage—saying that to win women’s suffrage on the same basis as men would still leave many men and women disenfranchised. Sylvia eventually transformed the paper she edited in East London from the Women’s Dreadnought into the Workers’ Dreadnought. Inspired by the Russian Revolution of 1917 and all it achieved, she was for a time a member of the newly formed Communist Party

So there's the Marxist nature of 1st Wave Feminists **Please not I explicitly did not say that all first wave feminists were necessarily influenced by Marxism.... quite the opposite the big split in 1st wave feminism was between working class 'Marxist' feminists (along with some richer people who had sympathy with them) and the richer/ higher class first wave feminists who only sought better representation for their class of women comparable to that of men in the same socio economic group** I said earlier waves of feminism had some aspects of Marxist theory involved.

Caracus2k said:
They substitute the proletariat for women............. the bourgeoisie for men................. and class oppression for gender based oppression based on the supposed societally constructed patriarchy as a stand in for capitalism from 'classical' Marxism.

Evangelion said:
No.

Well there is nothing to respond to there now???... if that's the extent of your argument on the matter. There is a wealth of literature on the web about Marxism and Feminism and the crossover between them


Third/ Fourth wave 'Patriarchy' theory is inherently Marxist in its nature with the substitution as shown in my previous comment

Caracus2k said:
The deaths under Mao absolutely were the result of identity politics.... it was identity politics (that of the 'identity' of the struggle between the supposed Chinese proles vs the supposed Chinese bourgeoisie) that lead to Mao/the communists seizing power in China allowing them to install the totalitarian government that killed millions of Chinese as a result of its extremely oppressive nature and incredibly ill thought out attempts at forced collectivisation of the means of production and distribution.

The oppression was a necessary condition of the collective identity politics of socialism and the forced and disastrous collectivisation was directly mandated by the collective identity politics of socialism that state that a group (nominally the workers, in reality the state) should control and own all of the economy directly.........

Evangelion said:
No. Socialism is an economic system. It says nothing about society, or how people should treat each other. It has no relevance to identity politics. The political system enforced in China was Maoism, not socialism or communism. It was a complete disaster, but it wasn't identity politics.

What utter nonsense........the degree to which a country can accurately be described as Marxist/ Socialist is directly linked to the central tenet ...............

socialism
ˈsəʊʃəlɪz(ə)m/
noun
noun: socialism

1. a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

If the means of production, distribution and exchange are to be owned or regulated by the community as a whole this has profound polictical implications namely that the 'people' (in reality the state) must forcibly seize control of these things. Socialism says that the 'people' (in reality the state) should be allowed to steal all of the fruits of any person or groups labour and distribute it how they see fit. An immoral idea

***And you do not get to play the 'No true Scotsman's fallacy' (*Socialist/Marxist edition*) by claiming that Maoism (or Stalinism of Hugo Chaveism etc etc) are not 'true' Marxism/Socialism or not Marxism/Socialism unchallenged!!!!***

Maoism is a SUB SET OF SOCIALISM!!!

Mao Tse Tung
Quotations from Mao Tse Tung

Socialism and Communism


"The socialist system will eventually replace the capitalist system; this is an objective law independent of man's will. However much the reactionaries try to hold back the wheel of history, eventually revolution will take place and will inevitably triumph. "

- Speech at the Meeting of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR in Celebration of the 40th Anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution" (November 6, 1957).


"We Communists never conceal our political views. Definitely and beyond all doubt, our future or maximum program is to carry China forward to socialism and communism. Both the name of our Party and our Marxist world outlook unequivocally point to this supreme ideal of the future, a future of incomparable brightness and splendor."

On Coalition Government" (April 24, 1945), Selected Works, Vol. III, p. 282.

And of course Maoism was identity politics because socialism is identity politics with the relevant 'group idenity' in Maoism's case being the Chinese working class... the proletariat

Caracus2k said:
This is the very essence of identity politics i.e pitting one group against an other ............ be that proles and bourgeoisie.............men and women................or people of different ethnic backgrounds

Evangelion said:

No. Identity politics is not about pitting one group against another.

identity politics
noun
noun: identity politics

1. a tendency for people of a particular religion, race, social background, etc., to form exclusive political alliances, moving away from traditional broad-based party politics.

The whole point of identity politics is to sort people into groups, as above, which inevitably brings them into completion/ conflict with one another!

 

[Irish_Tom]

Yes its wrong to strawman someone's opinions. I don't see much evidence of this happening w.r.t. Peterson though.

That’s what I believe he’s doing in that Tyranny video — admittedly not explicitly, but implicitly he presents the idea that SJWs / Lefties are leading us to Soviet Union-style collectivism and the associated deaths that resulted from it.

@Caracus2k‘s last post can help me explain:

socialism
ˈsəʊʃəlɪz(ə)m/
noun
noun: socialism

1. a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Now, feminists and civil rights activists may well be engaging in identity politics, but not towards the goal of “the means of production, distribution and exchange owned or regulated by the community as a whole”.

 

[francky]

@Irish_Tom thanks for the response.....and unfortunately its the issue with discussing the problems of the day, as people let their biases and political way of thinking cloud their views....myself included, hence why I try my best to listen to other points of view, which is why I asked you political way of thinking.

My point of view around feeling like the enemy is solely from Social media, traditional media, online forums, mainly I will admit from the extremes of the far left, but its the extremes that seem to be driving the narrative.....not a day goes by it seems where I don't see feminists on the Good Morning Britain for example pushing the female narrative (I exaggerate to some degree of course)......twitter if full of extremest feminists who hate men....and lets be frank...if they wanted equality, you wouldn't call it feminism today in the west, you would call it egalitarianism and look at issues on both sides and try to resolve them to suit both, but all they are interested in is destroying masculinity and promoting female empowerment.

Just to add as well....I dont think its a threat the west and I dont think we will become a Communist utopia, while the straight white man is sent off to the Gulags.....but you have to keep a watch on extremists on both sides.

I'm a middle class straight white male and I have never felt like I've been made to feel guilty about it. Equally, I've never been called a racist, bigot or misogynist…

I havent either......but Identity politics makes me one, even if Im not.

 

[Judgeneo]

That’s what I believe he’s doing in that Tyranny video — admittedly not explicitly, but implicitly he presents the idea that SJWs / Lefties are leading us to Soviet Union-style collectivism and the associated deaths that resulted from it.

@Caracus2k‘s last post can help me explain:

Now, feminists and civil rights activists may well be engaging in identity politics, but not towards the goal of “the means of production, distribution and exchange owned or regulated by the community as a whole”.

They aren't classic marxists, thats for sure. They are though, signed up to an ideology which is heavily influenced by marxist power dynamics. Its not the group identifier of proletariat vs the group identifier of bourgeoisie - but instead the oppressed vs the oppressors. Economic and political revolution has morphed into cultural and societal revolution.

Men oppress women, high melanin peoples are oppressed by low melanin ones, islam is oppressed by other religions, heterosexuals oppress LGBTs.

It is a style of collectivism that isn't that dissimilar from what led to the disasters of the Soviets, whether the activists themselves realise it or not.

The cis-normative white heterosexual patriarchal capitalist power structures must be otherthrown, comrade.

 

[crinkleshoes]

That interview was hilarious

This was certainly the case with Cathy Newman.

Go on, it's a safe space, you can admit that she's your BFF in here... we already know it.

 

[Amp34]

Yeah... You're just wrong about that one. He was campaigning against the issue of compelled speech in relation to the transgender issue - i.e. being forced by the state to use a specific pronoun. The state having the power to compel speech is much more dangerous than the state having the power to restrict speech, for a whole host of reasons.

Yet the legislation didn’t actually cover that which was the primary point about misrepresentation. Don’t take my word on it, it’s what the Canadian Bar Association and most lecturers agree on.

Here’s an article from the Canadian equivalent of The Telegraph explaining the misunderstanding. To be fair to Peterson, it’s not just him that doesn’t understand it properly.

https://www.google.ca/amp/nationalp...l-c-16-and-gender-identity-discrimination/amp

C-16 added gender identity and expressions as a category for what counts under Canada’s hate-crime laws, which include calling for genocide or wilfully inciting hatred toward an identifiable group. The categories of colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation and mental or physical disability were already on the list of identifiable groups.

The threshold for a conviction under these laws is high, and charges can only be laid with the approval of a province’s attorney general.

The bill also added the targeting of gender identity and expression as an aggravating factor in sentencing. This means that if you’re convicted of an offence such as assault, the sentence can be made harsher if there’s evidence you were motivated by hatred or prejudice on this basis.

The legislation is not, and never was about, compelling ordinary people to have to use pronouns.

Perhaps he was campaigning against it, but the bill was completely unrelated to it... He’s very obviously not a fan of the idea of transgender and gender identity, fine. But rather than making an argument up based on that, he decided to bring in a piece of unrelated legislation to try and reinforce his argument.

Further, the bill enshrined into the Canadian legal code the idea that gender identity and biological sex vary independently, which is flat out wrong. There is a variance, but they are intrinsically linked.

That’s very much you’re opinion. Sex and gender are different, but this is has been debated to death on this forum multiple times.

A number of lawyers have since backed up Peterson's view that some of the content of his lectures (and other academics' lectures who look at evolutionary biology and gender) should be considered illegal. Some of these lawyers want to repeal the legislation, others want it enforced against such people.

Got any links to that. I’d be interested to know what he’s teaching. A quick google couldn’t find anything. It’s also intriguing because the legislation does not apply to Universities.

C-16 added gender identity and expression as grounds for discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act, but this applies to people employed by or receiving services from federally-regulated industries, such as banks or the public service. In other words, not a university.

“The faculty member who first says that it is now contrary to Bill C-16 fails to understand the reach of the federal human rights act,” said University of Toronto law professor Brenda Cossman, who has extensively studied the legislation.

(National Post)

So if we ignore the fact the legislation is irrelevant when he is lecturing, what is he teaching that would pass the high bar regarding incitement of violence or genocide against transgender people? Alternatively he’s misrepresenting the case as discussed earlier.

Peterson is flat out wrong. There isn’t really a debate to be had regarding this. The vast majority of Legislators, Lawyers, Lecturers, most mainstream media sources and a whole host of other organizations very clearly point this out. Just a quick google brings up dozens of examples. The only people still wittering on about this are people with an agenda and people who don’t understand the law.

I did come across this in my travels however. Definitely worth a read.

https://www.google.ca/amp/www.macle...an-peterson-the-stupid-mans-smart-person/amp/

Nice bit of satire on him and also explains dislike of “post modern”.

 

[Amp34]

You've just unironically Cathy Newman'd him

In what way? Bearing in mind he was the one that integrated the C-16 bill into his argument. All I’m pointing out is not everything he says is correct.

 

[Amp34]

And that's what really grinds my gears about those groups. The media makes them out to be the true representatives of whichever group they claim to be a part of.

Don't assume you know me because of the way I look. Engage in dialogue. And then make a judgement.

It’s not just the media. How many threads do we have on here where some outspoken twitterati is used as evidence that an entire “group” of people have a viewpoint?

If identity politics is really a thing. It’s used equally on both sides.

 

[Skunkworks]

Old Man Peterson is an interesting guy. There's plenty I disagree with (his rants about 'cultural Marxism' are as cringeworthy as they are deranged) but his critique of third wave feminism and related issues is fundamentally sound.

Oh, and the deaths of millions under Mao had absolutely nothing to do with identity politics. Just putting it out there in case anyone didn't know.

He’s the guy that came to prominence by completely misrepresenting the Canadian C-16 bill* and claiming he could get arrested for what he says in his lectures if it were passed.

Now considering the law is protecting people from workplace discrimination and advocation of genocide against groups you have to wonder. Either he’s intentionally misrepresenting the case for personal motives, he’s happy to quite vocally publically talk about things he doesn’t understand properly, or his lectures are dark.

Unfortunately that means you basically can’t trust anything he talks about without fact checking it first, but he’s eloquent so if he talks about things that fit your narrative then I’m sure he’s a great guy to listen to.

*A bill adding gender identity and gender expression to an existing act (the Canadian Human Rights Act to be precise) protecting people from discrimination on certain grounds, which already included race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, and sexual orientation.

Watch out everyone, the intermellectuals are here now!

This video is a great example of how painful it is for normal people to deal with you 2 and the other dogmatic Leftists.

 

[Sankari]

Happy to oblige ........... 'Marxism and feminism'

I don't see any evidence in that article to show that Marxism was an element of first wave feminism. I see that one woman was inspired by the Russian Revolution, and that she was briefly a member of the Communist Party. That's all.

I said earlier waves of feminism had some aspects of Marxist theory involved.

I'm still waiting to see the evidence for this.

Well there is nothing to respond to there now???... if that's the extent of your argument on the matter. There is a wealth of literature on the web about Marxism and Feminism and the crossover between them.

So let's see some.

Third/ Fourth wave 'Patriarchy' theory is inherently Marxist in its nature with the substitution as shown in my previous comment

Your previous comment showed no such thing. You're merely drawing arbitrary comparisons.

What utter nonsense........the degree to which a country can accurately be described as Marxist/ Socialist is directly linked to the central tenet ...............

If the means of production, distribution and exchange are to be owned or regulated by the community as a whole this has profound polictical implications namely that the 'people' (in reality the state) must forcibly seize control of these things.

Or they could buy these things, and compensate the owners appropriately. This is called 'nationalisation', and it's common to many Western democratic nations.

Socialism says that the 'people' (in reality the state) should be allowed to steal all of the fruits of any person or groups labour and distribute it how they see fit.

No it doesn't.

Maoism is a SUB SET OF SOCIALISM!!!

No, Maoism is a Marxist-Leninist subset of communism.

The whole point of identity politics is to sort people into groups, as above, which inevitably brings them into completion/ conflict with one another!

No, identity politics is not about sorting people into groups. Identity politics is about different groups associating themselves with certain ideologies on the basis of common identities. People self-select.

 

[Sankari]

This video is a great example of how painful it is for normal people to deal with you 2 and the other dogmatic Leftists.

I'm not a leftist, I am stridently opposed to modern identity politics and third wave feminism, I'm anti-SJW, I think the interview was a train wreck and Cathy whatsherface is intellectually dishonest, and I've already pointed out that I agree with a lot of what Peterson says.

If you'd bothered to read any of my posts in the last 12 months, you would know this already.

 

[Sankari]

No, Peterson has described himself as a "Liberal" or "Classical Liberal"

'Classical liberal' is a position commonly held by conservatives. For example, it is the default position of the Australian Liberal Party, which is a conservative/classical liberal party. Peterson might shy away from the 'conservative' label, but his political views are strongly shaped by conservatism.

he is against the extremes on both sides of the political spectrum.

That does not make him not a conservative.

If he were to run for office(which he has no interest in) the Canadian Liberal Party would most closely align with his beliefs.

I'm not so sure about that. Peterson takes a conservative position on many issues that the CLP treats very differently (e.g. immigration, and abortion). His position on marriage, trans issues, and Islamic issues is strongly conservative.

Watch his YouTube videos on whether he's alt right (which he's also very against).

I agree that he's not alt right. But he's sure as hell no modern liberal.

 

[RDM]

It seems if you views match his, he is great, if they don’t, he isn’t.

At least he sold a few more copies of his book.

 

[Amp34]

Watch out everyone, the intermellectuals are here now!

This video is a great example of how painful it is for normal people to deal with you 2 and the other dogmatic Leftists.

And your response explains why the “dogmatic rightists” jump on people that can actually debate.

How about you start again, without the personal attacks, and actually debate the points being made?

 

[Caracus2k]

I don't see any evidence in that article to show that Marxism was an element of first wave feminism. I see that one woman was inspired by the Russian Revolution, and that she was briefly a member of the Communist Party. That's all.

..........I'm still waiting to see the evidence for this.

..................So let's see some.

​

You were provided with a link which showed a particularly well know first wave feminist who was inspired by Marxist/ socialist ideology. If your just going to play a silly game which is the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears saying "cant hear you... cant hear you" there is very little point conversing with you further.


Here's another reference talking about Marxist first wave feminism in a wider sense....

One leading figure in the feminist movement, Sylvia Pankhurst, challenged the male dominance of Socialist politics. Although remembered for her part in the women's social and political union (WSPU) she concentrated her efforts on the poor in the east end of London – where she lived and campaigned from 1912-24. She insisted on grass roots democracy. She, along with other nascent Marxist feminists, argued for the collectivisation of housework and condemned marriage


Here's a link for second wave feminism ...................

Because the second wave of feminism found voice amid so many other social movements, it was easily marginalized and viewed as less pressing than, for example, Black Power or efforts to end the war in Vietnam. Feminists reacted by forming women-only organizations (such as NOW) and "consciousness raising" groups. In publications like "The BITCH Manifesto" and "Sisterhood is Powerful," feminists advocated for their place in the sun. The second wave was increasingly theoretical, based on a fusion of neo-Marxism

Like I said not all first wave feminists/Second wave were Marxists/Socialists but some of them most definitely were

Or they could buy these things, and compensate the owners appropriately. This is called 'nationalisation', and it's common to many Western democratic nations.

But this isn't how socialist countries end up working now is it......... see here and here and here............they compulsorily seize private assets...its ok starting with the odd bit of nationalisation here and there but the more you nationalise the smaller the tax base gets and capital flight sets in further reducing the tax base.... the state very quickly cannot raise the funds to consensually purchase businesses at a fair market rate so resorts to theft.......like that good old socialist Corbyn who thinks its Ok on national TV to suggest or 'occupying' private property (i.e taking it without compensation as he also mentioned compulsory purchase)

Hell even you previously stated that Socialism involved the state prohibiting the private ownership of the means of production and distribution........

Under a socialist model, there would be no private medical care whatsoever. All services would be owned and run by the state, and privatisation would be prohibited. The economy would be centrally planned, there would be no private ownership of property, and capitalism would be something that foreigners did.

Notice that this is not the system currently extant in the UK.

Which is what I said........

Caracus2k Said:

What utter nonsense........the degree to which a country can accurately be described as Marxist/ Socialist is directly linked to the central tenet ...............

If the means of production, distribution and exchange are to be owned or regulated by the community as a whole this has profound polictical implications namely that the 'people' (in reality the state) must forcibly seize control of these things.

No it doesn't.

Yes it does like the examples I have shown you where socialists states steal from individuals or companies without compensation......

No, Maoism is a Marxist-Leninist subset of communism.

Communism is the utopian end goal of socialism as the definition and Mao and Lenin amongst many knew/ know ​

Quotation from Mao Tse Tung
We Communists never conceal our political views. Definitely and beyond all doubt, our future or maximum program is to carry China forward to socialism and communism. Both the name of our Party and our Marxist world outlook unequivocally point to this supreme ideal of the future, a future of incomparable brightness and splendor.
"On Coalition Government" (April 24, 1945), Selected Works, Vol. III, p. 282. *

​

socialism
ˈsəʊʃəlɪz(ə)m/

noun

in Marxist theory a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism​

No, identity politics is not about sorting people into groups. Identity politics is about different groups associating themselves with certain ideologies on the basis of common identities. People self-select.

Its exactly about sorting people into groups ......... If you are black in America he is BLM, if you are white here the 'Alt' right, if you are woman here's feminism etc etc ​

​