I'm not really sure what you are looking for. I generally avoid sourcing opinion/editorial content unless the situation specifically calls for it, which is the type of content which PJW posts. If you are involved in an online discussion, posting someone else's argument doesn't really benefit anyone. If I have previously heard an argument that I agree with, I will just make the argument myself, providing sources as necessary. When sources are called for, I attempt to provide primary sources (ex. Scientific articles or specific pieces of legislation being discussed) and fact based sources (ex. Reuters is usually pretty good about avoiding editorializing). Sometimes it is difficult to find strictly fact based sources, so I will highlight the specific areas of a source that I am utilizing which deal in the facts instead of editorializing. When doing so, I favor print sources over video sources as it is far less time consuming for someone to read it over and parse the relevant information from the whole. 

Immigrants children held in Obama/Trump temp cages because their parents broke the law (while being fed and care for) vs children who are gassed to death. 

I'd say it's too out there and it's extreme, not to mention, trivializing the reality of what happened in those Nazi concentration camps just to push political agenda is unethical. In a vacuum, his tweet is hilariously dumb and can be perceived as offensive, and by the left standards, should be apologized for. The hell I care how it compares to another dumb Hollywood idiot posts and holocaust comparisons, my original post specifically said these are misused and overused to dumb down issues, I don't understand why I am being explained which comparison is worse. 

As for the rest of your post, I am not sure I want to indulge because "which comparison is more comparable to Gina's" was never the point, but genuine question, do American conservatives really demonize Hispanics and middle easterners? is that a thing? Examples on each? 

Besides the point, @JWeinCom but which posts of Pedro's were far more troubling? 

My original point was that identity politics is what fuelled the Russian Revolution and all of the chaos and mayhem that ultimately occurred in it's wake. The Ukrainian famine, the death and suffering of tens of millions of people. And nearly a full scale nuclear war, thus the end of life as we know it. That's the end game. Death, destruction and suffering. Someone with little knowledge of history said that my claim that identity politics almost ended the world was wrong and I posted about an event that proves I was correct.

The reason I posted the PJW video is because he's making the exact argument I've been making. He's saying the exact same thing I've been saying in this thread and provides examples of each of his points in the video. I don't really feel the need to re-write the script of his video and post it here, because in the end, it's the exact same argument. In my opinion, this is a situation that does call for it, because the man is simply right. lol I'd actually be interested in hearing you refute his point(s), if you disagree after hearing them. I think what you're doing is detrimental to yourself, by simply refusing to listen to someone because they've had bad takes in the past. As I said earlier, even a broken clock is right twice a day. There is no one, no matter how good or bad they are as a person, who is right or wrong 100% of the time. What have you got to lose?

https://www.rt.com/usa/449368-disney-producer-threatens-maga-kids/

No, you didn't prove that identity politics almost ended the world. Because you proved neither that the world almost ended (it's quite possible that anyone viewing the warning would have identified it as a false positive), that identity politics were the primary cause of the Bolshevik Revolution, or that a nuclear arms race would not have occurred without the Soviet Union. 

Even if we were to grant that identity politics however you define them were a motivator in the Bolshevik revolution, it does not follow that they themselves are proximate causes for any particular event that followed. The end of the Romanov dynasty was undeniably a factor in the Bolshevik Revolution, but it would be pretty weird to say the fall of the Romanov dynasty leads to nuclear disaster. Nationalism was a key part of the rise of the Nazi party, but it does not logically follow that genocide is the "end game" of nationalism. America was founded by puritans, that doesn't mean puritanism caused the my lai massacre. Etc.

you've mentioned the broken clock thing a couple times but this doesn't seem to apply. I know a broken clock is right twice a day because I have working clocks to compare them to. If all you provide is a PJW video you are giving me a broken clock and saying we should just trust it because it could be right, but if you have a trustworthy working clock that you are using to know that PJW isn't wrong again here it would be more useful to tell us the trustworthy source you are using to decide that PJW isn't full of shit like usual. 

The entire Russian revolution was grounded in identity politics. The proletariat vs the bourgeoisie. The oppressed vs the oppressors. Sounds an awful lot like modern ideas such as white privilege, doesn't it? Identity politics sows division and promotes tribalism. The "end game" of tribalism is intertribal warfare, as it has been for all of human history. Find me one place on earth where identity politics has contributed in a positive way to the lives and well-being of the populace. I'll wait.

If, as you argue, "the oppressed vs the oppressors" is identity politics, then by definition, every revolution is based on identity politics, since I doubt very much any group rebels without arguing they are oppressed. So, any revolution that you think was legitimate is an example of identity politics contributing positively to the well being of the populace. If you believe the American revolution benefitted the populace, then we can go with that as an example. 

The end of segregation is another example of identity politics making a positive contribution to society, unless you'd like to argue that segregation was a good thing. Gay people being able to openly be gay without (or with less) fear of violence is another example. If you support Israel, then the formation of Israel was definitely motivated by Jewish identity, so there's another one. The repeal of laws preventing atheists from holding offices is a positive development driven by identity politics, unless you think atheists shouldn't be able to hold office. Women being able to vote was undoubtedly driven by identity politics and is a positive change, unless you'd like to argue that women should be unable to vote. The end of apartheid in South Africa is undeniably steeped in identity politics, so unless you'd like to argue in favor of apartheid, that's another example.

If any group making a claim that they are being oppressed is an example of identity politics, then LITERALLY EVERY EXAMPLE where a group is being legitimately oppressed and that oppression ends as a result of the group and its sympathizers uniting against the oppressors is an example of identity politics contributing in a positive way. Which of course is not to say identity politics cannot also have negative consequences.

Of course, I can't give you an example of a particular place, because in every place large enough to examine there would be a wide variety of factors interacting, and it would be absolutely absurd to try and attribute the place's overall wellbeing solely on identity politics.   

Now with that answered, you have a nasty habit of completely changing gears when flaws in your argument are pointed out, so lets get back to the point.

Your argument is...

Premise 1: Identity politics drove the Bolshevik revolution.

Premise 2: The resulting regime was involved in a potential near nuclear disaster that could have lead to the end of the world.

Conclusion: Identity politics almost ended the world and leads to death and destruction.

If your argument is sound and valid, then would the following argument hold?

Premise 1: Nationalism drove the rise of the Nazi party.

Premise 2: The resulting regime committed genocide on a massive scale.

Conclusion: Nationalism's end game is genocide.

Yes, identity politics does lead to death and destruction. Glad we agree on that. As for your second premise, there's a difference between being proud of your country and/or culture and thinking that all other countries/cultures are inferior to your own, though there is obviously some overlap between the two. Unchecked nationalism to the point of vilifying and identifying the "others" as your enemies does indeed lead to genocide, yes. It's just another form of identity politics. Identity politics are not exclusively used by the left - the right has and does use them as well, though the left uses them far more currently.

I take it you agree that I've provided valid examples of positive contributions to society resulting from identity politics, since you had no objections. If so, you're in kind of a tricky position since apparently the endgame is death and destruction.

And, no, I didn't agree to that. Read again.

Apparently the fact that a regime driven by nationalism committed genocide does not mean that nationalism inherently leads there. Logically then, the fact that a regime driven by identity politics (which is debatable) led to nuclear disaster does not mean that identity politics inherently leads there. Your argument has been defeated.

Identity politics is the idea of placing one's group identity over their individual identity. The civil rights movement was a movement AWAY from identity politics. It's the idea that black people should be judged as individuals rather than as a collective. Identity politics is collectivism. And it runs rampant through the modern left. Joe Biden's infamous "if you vote for Trump, you ain't black" comment comes to mind immediately. It was really cute of you to declare yourself the winner tho. LOL

Yes, identity politics does lead to death and destruction. Glad we agree on that. As for your second premise, there's a difference between being proud of your country and/or culture and thinking that all other countries/cultures are inferior to your own, though there is obviously some overlap between the two. Unchecked nationalism to the point of vilifying and identifying the "others" as your enemies does indeed lead to genocide, yes. It's just another form of identity politics. Identity politics are not exclusively used by the left - the right has and does use them as well, though the left uses them far more at the moment.

As soon as I see identity politics become a major component of the modern right in the Western world, I will happily take a stand against that too. And it will happen. If you think the dominant populace (the benefactors of so called "white-privilege") are going to stand for being vilified and demonized forever simply for being white and/or conservative, you're very mistaken. The shit show you saw at the capitol on January 6th was just an appetizer of what's to come. And it's a real shame, because it's totally unnecessary. Everyone should be moving toward the centre and finding some common ground, yet every day both sides drift further apart. As I said earlier in this thread - I wish it didn't have to be this way, as any non-sociopathic person would. Sadly, no one is taking the warnings seriously.

You said "oppressed vs oppressor" is identity politics. The civil rights movement was definitely about the oppressors vs the oppressed. Now that the flaw has been pointed out, your definition has changed. And, many civil rights leaders definitely believed that uniting under a black identity was key to fighting against segregation.  

I declared your argument defeated, because that's where logic leads.

Premise 1: Nationalism drove the rise of the Nazi party, which committed genocide.

Premise 2 (yours): Despite this, the endgame of nationalism is not genocide.

Conclusion 1: If an ideology leads to the rise of a particular regime, then it does not follow that any particular action of the regime is the "endgame" of that ideology.

Conclusion 2: Therefore, it does not follow, even if the USSR was the result of identity politics, that the potential nuclear disaster is the endgame of identity politics.

The logic is what it is. Feel free to show how the argument is either not valid or sound.

So... people rioting about an allegedly stolen election is also because of identity politics? 

Apparently the things that are caused by identity politics include...

The Bolshevik revolution.

Everything the Soviet Union did.

The vast majority of decisions made by CEOs.

People rioting over allegedly fraudulent elections.

The box office results of Star Wars movies.

Kind of just seems like anything you perceive as negative is a result of identity politics at this point. Stubbed your toe? Identity politics. Overcooked burger? Fucking identity politics.