Deprogramming Identity Politics

Identity Categories

One way to reduce shame-based conditioning is to stop organizing the world primarily through identity categories. When identity labels become moralized or weaponized, they can distort perception—causing you to see people as symbols rather than individuals.

Stop Seeing Identity First

When you look at someone, notice whether your mind immediately sorts them into a category. This often happens automatically. Instead of reinforcing that habit, pause and redirect your attention.

Practice observing individual traits:

Their facial expressions
Their clothing or style
Their posture
Their tone of voice
Their behavior in the moment

Shift from category recognition to individual perception.

Interrupt Negative Labeling

If you have been conditioned to associate a particular label with shame, disgust, or moral inferiority, the mind may automatically apply that frame to anyone who fits it.

For example, if you have been taught to see “white” as synonymous with bad, embarrassing, or inherently flawed, practice not using that label when you see someone who would typically be placed in that category. Instead of mentally tagging them, notice their individuality. Observe their unique features, personality, or demeanor. Treat them as a singular person rather than a representative of a group.

Stop Centering Labels in Your Own Identity

Deprogramming also involves how you describe yourself. If a label has become loaded with hostility or moral condemnation, you are not obligated to define yourself primarily through it.

You can:

Describe yourself in terms of ancestry rather than abstract racial labels (e.g., “someone with European ancestry”).
Acknowledge specific cultural or mixed ancestry if that feels more accurate.
Or choose not to foreground ancestry at all.

The goal is not to replace one rigid identity with another, but to loosen the grip of labels that have become psychologically harmful.

Terminology and Socio-Political Discussions

The current lexicon of social justice often functions as a set of code words used to signal tribal loyalty rather than to communicate clearly. These terms often flatten the human experience into a binary of “oppressor” vs. “victim,” which erases the nuance of individual lives and creates a culture of perpetual conflict.

From "Privilege" to "Contextual Advantage"

In many modern circles, the word “privilege” has been transformed from a sociological term into a moral weapon. It is frequently used to shame others for increasingly small differences (such as debating whether an early or late autism diagnosis makes someone “more privileged”) simply to claim intellectual superiority or “more oppressed” status.

This creates a toxic culture where suffering (in alignment with the leftist political narrative) is used as currency and any beneficial circumstances are treated as a “sin” to be apologized for. To heal from this ideological pressure, we should replace the broad label of privilege with the more accurate concept of Contextual Advantage.

Why is this better?

The “privilege” framework assumes that if you have a certain identity label, or have more “privileged” labels than the other person, your life is automatically easier, and unfairly so. It ignores your actual material circumstances, your personal efforts, and your private traumas.
Labeling experiences (such as not being banned from public restroom use) as “privileges” implies they are something no one should have, (meaning everyone should be banned from public restroom use.)
A trait that is an advantage in one setting can be a massive disadvantage in another. For example, being highly literal and logical is a contextual advantage in a computer programming job, but a contextual disadvantage in a social environment that demands “reading between the lines.”
Acknowledging contextual advantage and disadvantage allows us to see the specific resources an individual has (like a stable home or a specific skill) without assuming they have every advantage just because of their race or gender. It recognizes that a wealthy person with a “marginalized” label often has significantly more power and safety than a poor person with a “privileged” label.

By shifting to this language, we end the “Oppression Olympics.” We stop scanning ourselves and others for “problematic” traits to avoid being attacked. Instead of a “Good vs. Evil” binary based on birth, we can finally acknowledge the reality of human life: we all have different tools, different hurdles, and different contexts. This removes the burden of unearned guilt and replaces it with an honest assessment of our actual lives.

Discussing Race

The terms “POC” (People of Color) and “BIPOC” (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color) are often used to create a false homogeneity. They categorize billions of unique individuals into a single block defined solely by “not being white.”

This binary reinforces the idea that “white” people are a unique, singular villain and that everyone else shares a collective, righteous victimhood. “BIPOC” even creates a hierarchy within itself, presenting Black, then Indigenous Americans as the most important, followed by everyone else, while still implying they are a unified group.

While identity politics often emphasizes large generalizations about identity groups, they somehow ignore the fact that different racial groups under “POC” have vastly different material and social outcomes in generalized data. “POC” also do not share a community or any group cohesion, and many people within the label are racist towards other races within the label.

The Shift: Instead of “BIPOC,” name the specific community or demographic relevant to the data. Grouping Asian and Black Americans under a single “BIPOC” label masks the $55,000+ average income gap and significant differences in culture, community, history, and opportunities.

However, more accuracy when discussing equity would be identifying specific communities and material conditions rather than simply racial labels. This allows us to see that a low-income person in a “White” rural area often shares more common struggle with a low-income person in a “Black” urban center than they do with a wealthy person of their own race.

Replacing Scripts

To heal from ideological trauma, we must stop using the “scripts” of the machine.

Instead of “Micro-aggression”: Use “Interpersonal Misunderstanding.” This removes the assumption of “aggression” (intent) and allows for a more curious, less defensive dialogue.
Instead of “Internalized Oppression”: Use “Self-Stigma” or “Critical Self-Talk.” This returns the focus to the individual’s psychology rather than blaming an abstract, unfalsifiable sociological force.

Why This Matters for the Neurodivergent

For those with autism, the “Identity Politics” framework is often a sensory and cognitive nightmare of “unspoken rules” and “moving targets.” By returning to specific, descriptive, and experience-based language, we reduce the need for hyper-vigilant social guessing and allow for genuine human connection based on reality rather than theory.