One note on this almost-conversation, as @EricRWeinstein dubbed it:
Sam and Ezra clearly define “identity politics” totally differently.
Sam and Ezra clearly define “identity politics” totally differently.
Ezra says, “we all do [it.]” But when @SamHarrisOrg mentions identity politics, it *isn’t* the simple fact that identity shapes perspective.
It’s the idea that we should—on the basis of a person’s gender, skin color, religion, etc.—accept or reject their ideas on related issues.
It’s the idea that identity shapes *reality*—that one’s identity alone is enough to reveal facts to some and conceal them from others…
…and that no amount of education or communication can render a person with the “wrong” identity capable of making a valid judgment.
(Unless, of course, they categorically adopt the dominant narrative of those with the “correct” identity in any given situation.)
It’s *this* understanding of “identity politics” that so many are worried about—not the fact that our experiences influence our perspective.
At Westboro, “identity politics” manifested as the idea that women are fundamentally incapable of interpreting Bible—*just* bc of their sex.
I reject that idea as fully as I reject its opposite. A speaker’s identity doesn’t make their ideas right/wrong. Evidence, facts, reason do.
The @SamHarrisOrg/@EzraKlein podcast frustrates bc they’re talking past one another. This “identity politics” confusion is just part of it.
Loading suggestions...