Perhaps to emotions of people who think they are supreme over other people's identities.

I don't know what you are trying to say about the speaker being Jewish or not, so maybe we have a misunderstanding.

Trump's statement on the Holocaust left out any mention of Jews when Jews were the target of the Holocaust. White supremacists and Nazis applauded this.

I don't understand where you are getting that part of it from.

Reason is reason. It knows no hierarchy.

A statement about the holocaust that denies that Jews were its target is not factual.

The exact same statement with "As a [whatever]" in front of it is still not factual.

You don't need "as a whatever", it's not relevant one way or the other.

Do you have basic problems comprehending arguments and words? Don't mean that in a nasty way, but this isn't a difficult point.

That which can be observed, like human identities, doesn't need argument. That which is just is.

Of course humans don't always handle what can be observed very well...

Oh c'mon, nobody's saying someone's human identity is not a fact. The argument is whether it's a relevant fact. HELLO

The title of this thread may as well be "for erasing people's identities in the name of politics".

Consider these two statements.

Coca Cola manufacture carbonated drinks.

As an American, I know that Coca Cola manufacture carbonated drinks.

In the second one, the identity of the speaker was completely irrelevant information to the facts of the matter. There's no need to introduce it.

This is becoming a waste of time.

Easiest corporations are people too my friend ever.

It's only irrelevant if you don't wanna know people in their own words.

I identity politics and intersectionality specifically is just a new twist on Marxism. One group holds the power and oppresses all the others by virtue of the latter simply being in existence.

Of course, the way to take down the oppressor, the bourgeoisie or cis gendered white men, is to force equality through law and violence.

I can understand articles when I read them, if that's what you mean.

Not sure how your point here is relevant. Of course saying "as a Jew" adds nothing to the facts of an argument. It does, however, add a great deal of context. If someone who is Jewish is offended by something, then people should consider that information. It's simply a matter of looking at an issue from another person's perspective.

I would also say that many people who insist on "identity politics" being a problem do not see the value in seeing an issue from another perspective.

Tell me more about your liberal views.

This is where I find the whole segment by Sam Harris to be mundane, because he goes on to introduce areas in which personal experience and identity can be relevant to falsification and the establishment of facts. His example being "Catholics don't believe in hell" and retorting with "My mother's a Catholic and she believes in hell".

And since politics frequently involves consideration of the experiences of demographics (the impact of policies, the need for intervention, judging progress etc.), Harris hasn't really told us anything remotely insightful here. All it gets us to is "Sometimes identity is relevant and sometimes it's not".

The only time it is relevent is as a data point.

His mother in the example is a data point. Although clearly he needs more data for the point to be persuasive. Not that it's hard to disprove that Catholics don't believe in hell.

Well, again, that's enough to reduce his point to something utterly mundane. We need to consider the perspective of actual Catholics when we want to talk about the perspective of Catholics (where Catholics can be replaced with any demographic) is the only point anyone really cares about. And since we're in agreement that that's entirely acceptable, I don't get what profundity we're supposed to be seeing here.

Is anyone saying "I have a special insight into life as an Iraqi because I'm Mexican"? Or are they talking about when their identity matters with regard to some related issue?

somehow identity politics is something the party that's 50-60% white and includes all the minorities does, but not something that the all white, all christian party does. the second one is an actual identity.

It's not relevant to verifiable facts, but it's sometimes relevant to opinions, experiences, analyses and interpretations.

Incorrect, both parties do it. Trump did it a lot.

Identity politics is identiy politics whoever is doing it.

In fact, Sam Harris launched into the thing I posted after talking about Milo and the alt right.

I get really sick of these pernicious "your arguments help X group" assertions. You know what? That makes zero difference. If the argument is sound, then it should carry the day.

If a White Supremacist argues water is wet, and you deny that it is, then, (assuming that water isn't well below freezing) I'll probably argue alongside him because I'm more interested in what is true, not who that truth "serves".

Thinking along identity lines actually "serves" the White Supremacists much better when it makes them look rational and you look like a fool.

Your first and last sentences are somewhat at odds.

If your arguments serve the goals of white supremacists, you should think carefully about making them. That's all.

Some people in this thread really hate logic.

The identity of the speaker is relevant to the credence we should give their statements. For instance:

As a Coca Cola employee, I know that Coca Cola manufactures grape-flavored drinks.

The only time I see a legit reason for beginning a statement with "as a woman" or "as an environmental scientist" or whatnot is when trying to combat the sorts of presumptions your audience would make by your statement. In other words, it's often used to try to disarm the biases (irrational or rational) of the audience. But you're correct that it makes zero difference to the truth of the argument who makes it.

If a white supremacist steps on a bunch of ants, lifts his foot to reveal E=MC^2, his being a terrible person has not disproved Einstein's theory.