An addendum to the idpol is cancer post

 So recently I expressed that my distaste with SJWs has reached a critical level and I will no longer even try to consider those who espouse such politics as allies. I've had a strained relationship with that part of the left for a while, and while I still retain that academically, those politics have validity, I've come out against them in actual politics. Mainly because of the common complaints I have against them.

The fact is, I believe these politics are cancerous, and that the proponents aren't always acting in good faith. However, I do want to clarify something, after listening to Andrew Yang talk on Krystal, Kyle and Friends. Andrew Yang, much like me in recent months, expressed the fact that he tends to struggle with categorizing his belief system. I settled upon indepentarianism given my strong UBI and anti work views, but Yang might be a little different. Anyway, he mentioned looking back at political thinkers that influenced him, he said Martin Luther King Jr., the civil rights leader. This is pretty well known in UBI oriented circles, but King actually came out in favor of UBI late in his life, and advocated for building a coalition with poor white voters to achieve common goals. 

And this made me think if I was too harsh recently, and painted too broad of a brush. Here's the thing. I'm not necessarily against the aims that a lot of those activists are for, and I think some of them are good people. And previously, I believed we could build coalitions with each other to achieve common goals. And as long as we can do that, I'm willing to work with them. It's why come election time I end up voting green. They do idpol too, but they aren't so self righteous about it they push away white voters who want progressive change. My problem with modern idpol really boils down to the fact that it seems to be attempting to undermine my goals. It pushes things I'm for in such a corrupted, divisive, watered down way, that it actually just alienates me. It insists that I have to be on board with their agenda, when they're not on board with mine, where they constantly talk down to me and engage in bullying behavior. I ain't taking those peoples' crap. I'm sorry, I'm not. Like Hillary Clinton saying that breaking up the banks doesn't solve racism. Sure, maybe it doesn't, but economic reform isn't a good thing? I'm willing to work with others on goals I'm not necessarily super hardcore or enthusiastic about, as long as they are willing to work on mine. A lot of my burning bridges with the idpol crowd really comes down to a lack of reciprocity and bad faith arguing. So I do want to make that clear. I'm fairly neutral on a lot of these issues. If I lean one way or the other, it depends on the issue, how its framed, and how it fits in my larger philosophical framework. I might be against affirmative action and hiring quotas, but very sympathetic toward, say, Colin Kapernick's free speech rights. And I can even compromise on stuff I don't like that much, if I get something in return. The problem is these politics are used in bad faith to make the entire discussion about them, explicitly at the expense of my politics, and that just doesn't fly with me. If you don't care about my issues why should I care about yours? I just wanted to clarify that.