Okay Will, (Is it okay if I call you Will?) My next question is this: why does these concepts stop there?
To me when I hear "universalist" it applies to more than race relations, and when I hear "identitarian" is applies to more than race relations. Why do these concepts (which actually can be group identities) stop at "how someone observes race relations"? Doesn't a concept with the root word stemming from "universal/universe" infers more than race?
And also, if YOU are the one calling people "identitarians" wouldn't that make you an "identitarian" by default, since you are grouping and labeling people? Because the way I'm seeing it, the whole concept of "universalist" is the antithesis of calling people "identitarians" in the first place. It's kinda ironic, or hypocritical. Calling people "identitarian" is incongruent with the logic of calling yourself a universalist. You understand what I'm saying?
I want to ask you, what is a "universalist", from your perspective? Because you use this term to describe yourself (or your position) against others. The "others" seem to be "identitarian" which is ascribed by you onto other people devoid of their say-so.
