Questionable Motives

December 29, 2018

Why is belief in Identity Politics a social form of inversion therapy?

Filed under: Uncategorized — tildeb @ 1:11 pm

To be clear, I’m not talking about Aversion Therapy (where causing a strong feeling of dislike or disgust stimulus is paired with an undesirable behavior in order to reduce or eliminate that behavior) but a striking similarity with Inversion Therapy (where one hangs by the legs, ankles, or feet at an inverted angle with the intention of gaining therapeutic benefits). Belief that group inequity is evidence for a social power imbalance causing hierarchical individual inequality – systemic discrimination – relies on the same kind of faith that therapeutic benefits will be achieved by policies aimed at inverting this power hierarchy through awarding inverted group privilege. But there’s a catch: you have to first go along with an inversion.

Confused? Well, you should be…

…if you’re used to having your feet on the ground and encountering the world from this perspective so let’s see how we as good little social justice warriors make the necessary adjustments. We have to flip everything upside down.. starting with the language. I’ll get to the reason for this in a moment. This language inversion is analogous to religious thinking, where to protect certain ideas from legitimate critical review arbitrated by compelling evidence from reality, we go along with this deeply dishonest obfuscation of linguistic meaning.

For example, consider Karen Armstrong’s deepity that ‘God is the God behind God’ or Tilliach’s ‘ground of being’ to get some idea of how language operates for religious apologetics: it turns descriptive claims about reality into a word game divorced from it. Compare that to the sophistry on display with the Sokal Squared Hoax, where in just one example ‘correct’ grievance study ideological GroupSpeak terms are substituted for Hitler’s own in Mein Kampf and accepted today for peer reviewed publication. The inversion of linguistic terms – where ‘white’ is another kind of ‘black’ and ‘up’ another numinous but nuanced term for ‘down’, where individual differences in outcome are due to systemic discrimination against the selected group membership  – is a necessary component in GroupSpeak to support GroupThink, the means by which reality itself – a world of diverse individuals – is inverted to fit with the upside down group ideology supposedly descriptive of it.

The same method of avoiding reality’s arbitration of claims made by those who promote an ideology fooled into believing it is descriptive of reality is just as active in today’s social justice proponents as it has ever been in the evangelical wing of religious promotion to ‘solve’ the problems of the real world we inhabit. It is a failed methodology because reality will not bend and adjust to the necessary inversion needed to create ‘evidence’ for the truth merit of the ideology: group inequity is not evidence for discrimination that supposedly causes individual inequality. Remove this cornerstone from the Guidebook for Social Justice Thinking and you dismantle the entire manufactured justification for these failed social policies based on it. And just like in regards to religious belief, let’s allow reality – and not our imported faith-based beliefs – to arbitrate our beliefs about actions that really do reveal discrimination against individuals on the basis of group stereotypes.


  1. You have to qualify that phrase: Group inequity (alone) is not (conclusive) evidence for discrimination that supposedly causes individual inequality.
    I see a few problems with the general idea because there are different methods for assessing evidence; Which is necessary because testing methods have to be adapted to available data.

    Comment by The Pink Agendist — December 29, 2018 @ 5:52 pm | Reply

    • It’s being used that way to promote and defend and justify social ‘justice’.

      GroupThink depends on assuming the disparity fallacy – that unequal outcomes in group comparisons is synonymous with inequality and that derive from discrimination – is not a fallacy. This is a starting position of faith contrary to and in conflict with reality. That’s why it’s like a religious belief.

      Comment by tildeb — December 30, 2018 @ 12:22 am | Reply

      • It can be used, as long as it’s accompanied by a range of other evidence to form a reasonable argument. In fact, outcomes have to factor into analysis – that’s how we know if a drug works. That’s how we test relative proficiency and so forth.

        Comment by The Pink Agendist — December 30, 2018 @ 4:54 am

      • When we do drug tests and use controlled group results, we don’t presume – as today’s social justice warriors do – that differences in results are caused by ‘discrimination’ or by a hierarchical power imbalance. Come on, Pink.

        Comment by tildeb — December 30, 2018 @ 10:02 am

  2. Can you articulate (or give an example) of what you think an ideal social contract would look like? I’m curious because I’m still struggling (but trying) to understand your position.

    Comment by john zande — December 29, 2018 @ 7:09 pm | Reply

    • It’s the inversion of GroupThink: the supremacy of the individual in law, which is predicated on classical liberal values.

      Said another way (Saul?), is that there’s a person sitting in a chair behind a curtain. That person could be anyone… including someone you love, someone you truly hate, someone of any sex, gender, race, whatever… perhaps even you. Your job (understanding your role in society at large) is to define the social contract you must grant to this unknown person by means of determining what rights and freedoms – without knowing who that person might end up being – you yourself are willing to award and constrain… meaning this is the personal recognition you offer everyone for the rights, freedoms, exceptions, and responsibilities that you yourself must be willing to both exercise and bear. In a nutshell, this is exactly what classical liberalism is: your skin in the game. And this is exactly what baseline you should expect from others in their treatment of you. This is why it is a ‘social’ contract based on every individual.

      The body politic – every franchised individual – then comes to understand that each of us shares the same baseline and it is then on this baseline that very real diversity can be socially built to flourish and even be celebrated. It is the polar opposite of what drives today’s group-based social policies and it is the foundation for Western liberal secular democracy (not yet fully realized). The individual is the base unit from whom all government (and the laws they represent) derives consent. We are the government; we are the law; we are a citizen. There is only ‘we’. We learn to see the Other as our self, and our self as the Other. Every individual.

      On a personal note (and to borrow a phrase from Jean Chretien, a former Prime Minister of Canada), I see myself as a ‘radical’ centrist where I can support social policies based on merit that do not break this essential shared social contract (‘we’ cannot derive from systemic rules that divide all into ‘us’ and ‘them’). This essential shared value of commonality for every individual in law for enlightened democracy to function means ideas that foster this value can come from anywhere on the political spectrum and from any source. A centrist can benefit from good ideas and can see partisanship for the idiocy it is (we can still learn from Lincoln on why dissent and criticism is essential for understanding our own positions). It is toward this enshrined value of the individual supreme in law that we have socially advanced and unquestionably reduced (but not yet eliminated) systemic discrimination and bigotry and misogyny through the ponderous legal application for the establishment of equal rights, equal freedom, equal dignity of personhood, for all. It is the law that is the means by which the individual is elevated to be socially recognized as fully franchised and active members of a civil society, as much as any other, and this must take precedence over and above any and all cultural or ethnic or religious or linguistic or racial or sexual differences that by law cannot impede or infringe on equality, on the shared dignity of personhood, the same dignity afforded to each and every franchised citizen. What we give is what we get.

      Group identity recognized in law is the antithesis of this shared value – this social contract of equality and dignity – and this is what we see going on all around us one small step at a time under the inverted term of social ‘justice’, a means by which privilege for some and victimhood for others is wedged between all of us as equal citizens and acts as a divisive and demeaning ideology guaranteed to fail its claim to advance ‘justice’, and it is a growing perniciousness that rots our Western liberal secular democracy to its core. This toxic ideology – like religious totalitarianism – must be defeated by those of us with skin in the game. As far as I can see, this means all of us, and we need more of us to blink from our ‘wokeness’ and realize far too many people do not see the danger group thinking and identity politics brings to the centre of our civilization – the essential value of the individual in law – nor the harm we allow it to do (again, to quote Lincoln) to this last great hope of mankind, this shining city on the hill, to you, to me, to every person who wishes to be a citizen.

      Comment by tildeb — December 30, 2018 @ 12:14 am | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: