Let's say somebody says "I don't like [feminism/intersectionality/BLM] because [some non-sense far-right strawman /something done by random people like nonpolical-celebs/corporations/democrats], things should just be [the non-strawman version]".
Is there a better way to phrase the following sentance:
The thing you don't like is called "Liberal Identity Politics".
idk this is usually either bad faith or very confused, but a few suggestions:
- pinkwashing, rainbow capitalism, intersectional imperialism
- grifting, careerism
- celebrity culture
- clickbait, ragebait
- co-optation
If you're talking to someone who is unhappy with the status quo and simply has brainworms (i.e. not bad faith). Co-option is the key thing to point out. Co-option is a phenomenon which occurs within every social movement from environmentalism to BLM to pride to disability rights to labor and so on. First, it must be understood that the best method for disarming social movements is to embrace them and redirect them towards goals which do nothing to fundamentally undermine the elites. The transformation of BLM from burning down police stations to suburban lawn signs and parliamentarianism, or the transformation of the environmentalist movement from blowing up pipelines to cap and trade incrementalism and Tesla subsidies.
Second, it must be understood that the state of co-option is not a binary thing. *cough* dialectics *cough* Co-option is something any movement will need to overcome to be successful, and it is counterproductive to discard the cause at the very moment the elites are trying their hardest to assume control of it. That is the exact moment when it is most important to reinforce its most radical elements.
I might go for "bourgeois identity politics" The differences between say bourgeois feminism and radical/revolutionary feminism are well written about and I think those ideas are easily extrapolated to the greater struggle of identity and oppressed minorities.
