The best argument from Sam Harris:

He is entirely correct. There are no grounds to reject this argument without appealing to emotion.

I reject identity politics entirely.

You should too.

Phrases to look out for as being entirely irrelevant to all debates:

"As a black man"
"As a white man"
"As the parent of a child with autism"
"As a woman"
"As a gay man"
"As the child of a catholic "

These are basically foul plays. Irrelevant information. Appeals to emotion.

I need to ensure I am more vigilant in my own argumentation to ward against ever doing these things.

I agree with Harris and you. The tribal nature of politics in the USA has existed as long as I can remember. Not sure if it has become more intense or not. Seems like it.

Harris provides two excellent examples:

1. In the case of vaccines causing autism you don't get to say "as the parent of a child with autism, I believe X, Y and Z." Whatever is true about the biological basis of autism cannot depend on who you are.

Ding ding ding.

2. When talking about violence in our society, again, the facts are whatever they are. How many people got shot? How many died? What was the colour of their skin? Who shot them? What was the colour of their skin? Getting a handle on these facts doesn't require one to say "as a black man, I know X, Y and Z" The colour of your skin simply isn't relevant information.

Ding ding.

Just talking truth.

Okay, so this is what, like Round 11?

I think this is an important separate topic from other discussions that affects everyone.

Are you pro identity politics?

No, I am not pro identity politics. I think Clinton wasted a lot of campaign energy on it. She used as her final rebuttal in the second debate about Ms. Piggy. I think that showed wrong-headedness and a lack of priorities. There are more pressing matters to discuss than identity politics. She missed the mark entirely. She imagined waves of people who would identify with Ms. Piggy that did not translate into votes into swing states. She also ran ads on "locker room talk" during MLB playoffs. I don't think that is good marketing either. People watching the ballgame are either already feminists, or not going to turn into feminists while watching a ball game.

I do think this is an instance of yetanotherthread.jpg though, and can fit into the SJW thread. But, we'll have to agree to disagree.

The reason I want it to be a separate thread is because identity politics is not entirely in the domain of SJWs. No one would call Trump an SJW, for example, and yet he did his fair share of identity politics.

A lot of pressure groups from feminists to Black Lives Matter use identity politics at the core of their reasoning.

In many ways this is a much more important topic. Also, bear in mind, I did not create the SJW thread, it was a split off. This is the thread I would have made.

On Clinton specifically, she imagined that her just saying she was the candidate for Mexicans would mean that all latinos would come out and vote for her. 30% of them didn't.

She imagined that by saying she was the candidate for women, all women would vote for her, they didn't.

Not only is it a damning indictment on identity politics, it is an indictment on thinking about people in that way.

The data talk was dominated by talk of "whites" and "blacks" and other such racialised demographics.

How about imagining a picture in which everyone is just a person who votes on the issues rather than because of their race or sex?

It was really wrong-headed I thought.

It really was. I still think there some denial about how effective this strategy is, and what it actually accomplishes. Not that I care. I don't. I'm neither/nor left/right. I do enjoy chess though, and strategy games, and politics is a strategy game.

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect"

-Mark Twain

Most "identity politics" are a result of a response to societal discrimination. When gay people can't get married, it's not "foul play" to agitate against such restrictions.

Taking a bold stance against meaningless alt-right buzzwords ITT.

Sam Harris is wrong on this one, imo. If someone believes freedom is more important than safety then that will affect a lot of their views and you will see a lot of positions that correlate because of it.

There are some issues--like climate change and guns, for example--that are not exactly related. But the right wing denial of climate change science is arguably linked to their fear of large governments and especially global influence on government. A similar fear also manifests itself in a desire to own guns and close borders.

Most individuals who are against Trump are "never Trumpers". Those who think this way are doing a major disservice to the office of the Presidency and more importantly the American people. I have to believe that folks with common sense and objectivity will eventually flush these goons down the drain.

Not sure precisely what Harris means by "identity politics" here, but the obvious problem is that an electorate of tens of millions of people can't actually have a fully mediated conversation on every issue. Joining a movement means banding with people with whom you agree somewhat closely on some specific issue(s) important enough for you to want to effect change.

The "movement" then squabbles internally to identify its goals and applies pressure through whatever political avenues to achieve them. This involves, lobbying, protest, raising awareness, and even forming political parties funding candidates for election. It's a practical compromise for the fact that it is impossible to express the views of every individual.

If Harris wants to hold some Skype calls with the entire electorate and figure out what everyone individually wants, then he can give it a shot, but I'm guessing he doesn't have a good enough ISP for that.

Appeals to the nation-state/democracy, etc. Seriously, I don't care how much you think we all ought to revere the president's chair, because 1) to be honest, I doubt you stood up for Obama in the chair. 2) I'd prefer an empty chair, 3) Lol, if I have to listen to this whole "wheels of democracy working" crap, lol. I'm going to start using brown while I dump on American democracy as a delusional paradigm.

How to tell when some people want to lord over some other people's identities with supremacy?

Is this how Jews get left out of mention in statements about the holocaust?

lol dude. when obama took office, the republican leadership publicly stated that their overriding priority would be to block every single thing he tries.

I highly doubt you were talking about giving obama a chance and deriding this republican effort.

regardless, the reason that ppl are against trump is bc his views are atrocious and his policies are not only dangerous and blatantly unfair but also economically costly.

The facts of the holocaust are the facts. There's no need to slip in "as a Jew ...", it is irrelevant information.

So human identities are non-factual and you are in charge of them?

They just aren't relevant to arguments. If you bring them up, it is an appeal to emotion, not to reason.

The Holocaust was about killing Jews. That was the overriding goal. White supremacists desperately want to whitewash history of that fact.

One-third of the Jews on earth died in the Holocaust. There were more Jews alive in 1939 than today.

Your arguments serve the white supremacists of the world and ignore history. The fact that you find it irrelevant that Jews were the primary target of the Holocaust is, frankly, sickening.

It is irrelevant if someone talking about it now is or is not a Jew, they do not change the facts, which are the facts.

I never said it was not relevant that the holocause twrgeted Jews. I said it is irrelevant if the speaker now in 2017 is or is not Jewish.

What does the qualifier "as a Jew" really mean in that context? I mean most people care about the holocaust and think it was an atrocity. The identity of the speaker is not information that adds to the argument in any way.