4 ms·

>The entire purpose of the exercise is to have honest conversations with people, and to not question their morality, or their wisdom just because they don't vie

>The entire purpose of the exercise is to have honest conversations with people, and to not question their morality, or their wisdom just because they don't view the world exactly the same way that you do. Isn't the entire thesis of this article questioning the morality and wisdom of the mainstream left? Accusing somebody of refusing to have honest conversations and forcing their views on others is an accusation of immorality. Is this quote that "hits the nail on the head", at least according to the article, not a way of deflecting from the actual question being asked ("Identity politics is just simply questions of justice, right?") and shutting down discussion? Sounds like instead of acknowledging any honest disagreement about what "identity politics" means, the author just goes ahead and matter-of-factly gives his definition and implies that anybody who disagrees is a racist who can't consider a member of any ethnic group as a "free-thinking individual". Calling your opponents closed-minded, refusing to take certain kinds of disagreement as "honest disagreement", and then labeling yourself as "free thinking" and "intellectually honest" smells like horseshit and doublethink. Ben Shapiro and his "Intellectual Dark Web" (lol) seems exhausting.

rhapsodic 8y ago
>Isn't the entire thesis of this article questioning the morality and wisdom of the mainstream left? Accusing somebody of refusing to have honest conversations and forcing their views on others is an accusation of immorality. That's the meta-argument. But if there are any implied accusations of immorality, the immorality is associated with actions (e.g. "forcing their views on") rather than opinions held or ideas expressed. >Sounds like instead of acknowledging any honest disagreement about what "identity politics" means, the author just goes ahead and matter-of-factly gives his definition and implies that anybody who disagrees is a racist who can't consider a member of any ethnic group as a "free-thinking individual". I think that's a fair observation, to a point. But if you watch the video, Joe Scarborough was reacting to when the guy said "let me help you think about it then." The woman was trying to respond to his point about identity politics, and that's how he cut her off. Then Scarborough jumped in.
otakucode 8y ago
>Accusing somebody of refusing to have honest conversations and forcing their views on others is an accusation of immorality. No accusation need to be made. From how I understand it, the IDW was created because when there are attempts made to have honest conversations in other venues, they are actively destroyed. The point is to be able to have the conversations, not to condemn those who shut the conversations down elsewhere. If you see censorship and shutting down conversations instead of engaging rationally as immoral, that's a bit separate (although obviously closely related) issue from someone trying to create a place where such conversations can exist.
- rhapsodic 8y ago
  > From how I understand it, the IDW was created because when there are attempts made to have honest conversations in other venues, they are actively destroyed. Precisely so. And it's unfortunate that HN is one of those venues where many honest conversations, such as this one, are destroyed through flagging. The person(s) who flagged this article are actually illustrating one of its points.
rhapsodic 8y ago
>Sounds like instead of acknowledging any honest disagreement about what "identity politics" means, the author just goes ahead and matter-of-factly gives his definition and implies that anybody who disagrees is a racist who can't consider a member of any ethnic group as a "free-thinking individual". What specific passage of the article led you to that conclusion? I don't see how it's supportable, but I could be wrong.

rhapsodic 8y ago

>Isn't the entire thesis of this article questioning the morality and wisdom of the mainstream left? Accusing somebody of refusing to have honest conversations and forcing their views on others is an accusation of immorality. That's the meta-argument. But if there are any implied accusations of immorality, the immorality is associated with actions (e.g. "forcing their views on") rather than opinions held or ideas expressed. >Sounds like instead of acknowledging any honest disagreement about what "identity politics" means, the author just goes ahead and matter-of-factly gives his definition and implies that anybody who disagrees is a racist who can't consider a member of any ethnic group as a "free-thinking individual". I think that's a fair observation, to a point. But if you watch the video, Joe Scarborough was reacting to when the guy said "let me help you think about it then." The woman was trying to respond to his point about identity politics, and that's how he cut her off. Then Scarborough jumped in.

otakucode 8y ago

>Accusing somebody of refusing to have honest conversations and forcing their views on others is an accusation of immorality. No accusation need to be made. From how I understand it, the IDW was created because when there are attempts made to have honest conversations in other venues, they are actively destroyed. The point is to be able to have the conversations, not to condemn those who shut the conversations down elsewhere. If you see censorship and shutting down conversations instead of engaging rationally as immoral, that's a bit separate (although obviously closely related) issue from someone trying to create a place where such conversations can exist.

rhapsodic 8y ago
> From how I understand it, the IDW was created because when there are attempts made to have honest conversations in other venues, they are actively destroyed. Precisely so. And it's unfortunate that HN is one of those venues where many honest conversations, such as this one, are destroyed through flagging. The person(s) who flagged this article are actually illustrating one of its points.

rhapsodic 8y ago

>Sounds like instead of acknowledging any honest disagreement about what "identity politics" means, the author just goes ahead and matter-of-factly gives his definition and implies that anybody who disagrees is a racist who can't consider a member of any ethnic group as a "free-thinking individual". What specific passage of the article led you to that conclusion? I don't see how it's supportable, but I could be wrong.