Why Does the Concept of “Universalist” and “Identitarian” Only Stops at Race, When There’s so Many Identities That Exist?
//Humans create words to describe things. Most words are not inherently divisive—universalists recognize the divisions that people make, We just don't prioritize them.//
^This didn't answer my question, but it does provides more for me to break word on. The fact that humans--people--create words to describe things is irrelevant. People also created words to name things, name feelings, ajoin sentences and even textualize sounds. That part is irrelevant to my question.
[1] Why does the concept of "universalist" and "identitarian" ONLY stops at race, when there's so many identities that exist?
[2] If you are the one calling people "identitarians" wouldn't that make you an "identitarian" by default, since you are grouping and labeling people?
[^I'm going to enumerate these questions, because there's going to be many and I want folks (and ourselves) to keep up.]
The interesting part is how you introduce the concept of "inherently" "divisive". I separated those two, because [3a] What makes something "inherent" when it comes to words? Who decides this? By what authority? Is that an absolute law , or an opinion? Is that fact based, or feelings based? [3b] Same goes for the concept of "divisive"-- Who decides this? By what authority? Is that an absolute law , or an opinion? Is that fact based, or feelings based?
To be transparent, I would argue that there is NO sufficient authority to talk as if these things are absolutes--applying the universalist logic here, the concept of "divisive" is just as real as race is; if race isn't real then calling things "divisive" is even less real than race. It is far more accurate to argue that calling something "divisive" is an "eye of the beholder" type of thing, not an absolute.
Strange point: you are kinda giving an "identity" to words, prioritizing "divisiveness" when that's subjective and not absolute... which is incongruent to the universalist logic... if the universalist logic is in fact, universal, that is.
//When I talk about identitarians, I don't demonize them in the way the worst identitarians demonize the people they consider "other".//
First and foremost, [4] Who, are the worst? Any names? [5] at what measure does criticism becomes "demonization"? [6] Do you think that all words from an "identitarian" (just using your language) are demonizations? If that's the case, assuming the worst in folk criticizing systems is in fact anathematizing them at worst, or a poisoning the well fallacy at least.
//If you're a Christian, you should recognize Galatians 3:28: "There are neither Jews nor Greeks, slaves nor free people, males nor females." Is the writer being divisive by rejecting the logic of people who essentialize tribe, class, and gender?//
Whether I'm a Christian or not is irrelevant, but the writer is Paul, and he was talking to, or wrote a letter to, Galatians in that passage, and his overall point is that everyone is one under Jesus and God, and he was making a case for not abandoning faith and observance of God and replacing faith with "laws", which is a very rich book, chapter of scripture concerning those who are "well laws are laws" when laws are unjust and calling themselves Christian at the same time.
I would most certainly argue that by your description, Paul is technically an identitarian by the fact that he observes (and respects) different identities that exist: nationality, regional, ethnic, or tribal. The very notion that the Book is called "Galatians" points to an understanding of identities, being that Galatians were Gauls or Celtic peoples, which is a tribal/regional/national identity in and of itself.
Paul never argued to pretend your not Galatian, as you argue for Black people to pretend they are not Black. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what a lot of your work seems to argue.
I'm just going to call you Will, because it's one syllable versus two.
I think you know me by now, so I hope you know I'm ridiculiously accustomed to folks dodging questions and adept calling that out, so yeah I want my questions answered. Please forgive my persistence. Now there's six.
