>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

>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.