
I'm not a big fan of identity politics and sort of picking one
I'm not a big fan of identity politics and sort of picking one thing and defining yourself with it.






The words of Andreja Peji?, “I'm not a big fan of identity politics and sort of picking one thing and defining yourself with it,” resound with the cry of freedom against the chains of narrowness. To be bound by a single identity, chosen or imposed, is to diminish the vastness of the human soul. For each person is not one thing but many: a river of experiences, desires, contradictions, and dreams. To reduce this richness to a single banner or label is to flatten the infinite into the finite, to turn a living being into a symbol.
The ancients understood this danger. In Athens, though citizens were divided into tribes and classes, the true ideal of the polis was that each person could contribute in many ways: as soldier, thinker, craftsman, and speaker. To confine a man to one role was to rob him of his full humanity. In Rome too, the Stoics taught that we are not defined by outward status—slave or free, citizen or foreigner—but by the universal logos, the divine spark within. Peji?’s words echo these ancient lessons: that the soul should never be imprisoned by one definition alone.
History gives us many examples of those who transcended single identities. Consider Leonardo da Vinci, who refused to be only an artist, or only a scientist, or only an engineer. He embraced all these callings, resisting confinement to one title. Had he accepted a single definition, the fullness of his genius would never have flourished. In his life, as in Peji?’s words, we see that the richness of existence lies in refusing to be limited by one label.
Yet there is also caution here. Identity politics, though often born of the desire to honor one’s heritage or struggle, can become a prison when it demands that a person reduce themselves to one element of their being. Pride in roots is noble; enslavement to a single identity is stifling. To “pick one thing and define yourself with it,” as Peji? warns, risks losing sight of the wholeness of life—the ability to grow, to change, to embrace many facets of the self.
Let the generations remember: the soul is too vast to be reduced to one banner, one label, one tribe. Honor every part of who you are, but do not let any single part rule over all the others. For the true power of humanity lies not in singular identity, but in the fullness of being. And he who refuses to be confined by one definition walks in freedom, becoming not just one thing, but everything he is meant to be.
GHgia han
Online life seems to harden identities because algorithms nudge us into tidy clusters. Follow one account and suddenly every recommendation assumes a monolithic self. That dynamic makes single-issue branding seductive—and brittle. What design changes could encourage multidimensionality? I’m thinking user-editable interest maps, temporary tags that expire unless renewed, visibility into why you’re being shown content, and prompts that inject cross-cutting perspectives. On the human side, what conversational habits—asking context questions, steelmanning—help us resist turning people into avatars?
LNLy Nguyen
As someone who’s seen friends navigate healthcare, housing, and safety, I worry that discomfort with categorization can unintentionally serve the status quo. Clinics, shelters, and civil-rights law hinge on explicit definitions. If we prefer fluid self-description, how do we still guarantee access when gatekeepers demand checkboxes? Maybe the answer is layered identity: legal categories for rights and resource tracking, personal narratives for dignity and nuance. What safeguards prevent the legal layer from colonizing the personal one over time?
GNGiang Nguyen
From a movement-building angle, broad human appeals can scale, but targeted identities often mobilize faster because they translate pain into policy asks. The tradeoff is balkanization: splintered demands, dueling priorities, fatigue. Is there a structure that honors specificity without trapping people inside one box—issue coalitions with rotating spotlights, perhaps? Yes or no: would you back a platform that requires every campaign plank to show both a universal benefit and a concrete remedy for a named, disproportionately affected group?
VNDang van ngu
I’m torn. On one hand, reducing a person to a single axis feels like bad philosophy and worse friendship; people are mosaics. On the other, social categories are how protections, funding, and study samples get allocated. If we ditch labels entirely, do we risk making inequities statistically invisible? I’d love a rule of thumb: use identifiers when they unlock care, safety, or voice; resist them when they police personality or taste. What tests would you apply to decide which context you’re in, practically, day to day?