identity politics is a different thing, really - it's the idea that you are not an individual, but a representative of an intersection of physical traits that define your experiences and ideas and feelings. as such, you are best represented by those that have the same intersection of physical traits. the history in critical race theory notwithstanding, i've argued previously that this largely comes out of the statistical reality of trying to analyze variables, and pull patterns out of the data, but it's an inversion of the process into pseudoscience: instead of looking at the data and trying to pull meaningful variables out of it, you start with a set of predetermined variables and then try to force reality into it. so, you're essentially breaking statistics by making it deductive instead of empirical. as you're operating on circular logic, your deductions follow trivially from your assumptions (they were picked for that reason). but, it's easy to see why the marketing people like this.

that's not actually what we're seeing in front of us, though, or at least not in the sense that it actually works.

i'll invite you to do your own research into how elections worked at the beginnings of the modern era, when the vote was extended past the landholding classes and first to white men without property, and then to white women without property (white women with property could always vote.), and then to a wide assortment of other groups that were initially excluded from the process. how did that work?

well, to begin with, you have to understand that the vast majority of these people, these white men without property, were unable to read. they had little understanding of who or what they were voting for, or why it would or would not be in their best interests. so, you had ridiculous things like candidates giving out free beer in exchange for votes, and you had to find ways to direct these people that you were giving free beer to to vote for you, because they couldn't read the names in the list. so, you'd give them detailed instructions: it's the third option from the top and looks like this symbol: (insert name). or, you'd tell them what colour to vote for.

so, while these people did not understand what they were voting for, they were able to participate in the process via a little bit of direction, a little bit of help.

i think what you're seeing in the media's forceful adoption of what people are calling "identity politics" has more to do with low information voters, and is essentially a continuation of this process that you saw in the nineteenth century. instead of instructions and colour codes, the media is trying to operate via identity, but it's not actually about identity so much as it's about training them to do what they're told.

the major flaw in the left's approach for years has been it's insistence on trying to use laws to restrict the power of money in politics, rather than to try and teach critical thinking so people can work it out on their own. and, we've essentially reverted to a more primitive era as a result of it. now, we're stuck scratching our heads wondering why people are so fucking stupid - but we should have seen it coming and tried to reverse it.

ok, i went through this in 2016 and i'm adamant about actually learning from the process rather than making the same mistakes.

you don't want to pay attention to media polls as a measure of public interest, not even if they have good methodology; there is a conflict of interest at play, and they've been clear enough about what they want. you need to take a gramscian analysis to this: the media is not an unbiased arbiter that has an interest in accurately measuring public opinion, but rather an active participant in the process that goes out of it's way to create public opinion for the purposes of maximizing profit.

and, the media has been clear that it thinks a candidate driven by what it is being called "identity politics" (but is too crude to even be that) will drive ratings. so, it wants a female candidate because it knows that gender rivalry is good for ratings, or it wants a black candidate because it knows that race conflict is good television. it doesn't care about actual policy.

so, i'm standing here saying "you know, a corporatist democrat like harris isn't really that different than trump on most things, may be a little better on some things, and may be a lot worse in a lot of important ways.", whereas the media is saying "sanders and trump are the same candidate because they're both white men, and that's bad for ratings. we need somebody that looks different than trump to maximize ratings."

so, they'll flat out publish fake polls to try and create what they want.

but, there's a caveat: what they do is actually effective on a large number of voters. that is, if the media decides that x candidate won the debate, and broadcasts it for days or weeks, you'll start to see that coverage reflected in real polling.

wait for polls done by non-media sources.

but, the media is being crystal clear on the type of candidate it wants to support, namely somebody that looks different than trump, and it's just another hurdle for the left to overcome - albeit a very substantive one.

but, there's actually a very serious question being raised here: just how long can the prime minister hold out for, here? and is this self-discipline futile or self-defeating in the end, in the sense that it's just building anticipation?

i mean, i think people are perhaps overstating the role and purpose of the g20.

i spent years arguing and protesting in favour of abolishing the forum as a waste of time, so i'm not going to pivot towards getting upset that the president's daughter is overstepping on a security clearance. you don't really think they talked about anything substantive there, do you?

the g20 is a series of pointless photo-ops, meaningless declarations and distractions and financial giveaways to causes that bourgeois charities consider in vogue. it's more like a celebrity gala than a serious policy meeting. and, in that sense, ivanka is perhaps better suited to attend than most of the heads of states.

so, my position has not changed: the g20 is a waste of time and money and should be abolished outright. i don't care if the president brought his daughter to this waste of time and money or not, or why she was there.

i'm actually more curious as to why the dutch sent their queen rather than their prime minister.

but whatever.

to be clear: now trudeau has to get past ivanka to talk to trump. and that may be a difficult task.

ivanka would actually appear to be a buffer state, erected between donald and justin.

she seems happy enough to play the part.