Yes, there is still only one fact being established: Coca Cola manufactures grape-flavored drinks. The "as a Coca Cola employee" phrase is meant to affect the credence given to this claim by the listener. This is very common in ordinary life, where it is important for us to know how much confidence the speaker has in their assertions.

In politics, which is often a matter of deciding how much you trust someone, being able to give your listeners this kind of credence is often very useful. "As the son/daughter of an x, I know what it is like to experience y" said every politician everywhere.

But he spent a lot of words doing it!

Judging by the arguments many of you make in this forum, you should read Harris' arguments very slowly, and then re-read them. Maybe you will find the insight you desire.

I was gonna go with 'choice'

But in the terms of classical rhetoric you are shifting from logos (logic, reason) to ethos (trust in character of the speaker).

This is a foul move in argumentation.

Attack the argument not the man.

It works both ways, make an argument don't appeal to authority.

A fact, of course, is just a fact, so other information isn't even needed.

**** ἔθος and λόγος, take me right to the μύθος

Context is as important as text depending what you're talking about.

Today I asked in reference to healthcare:

Is your body a product? What is the brand?

Is human identity a product? Can it just be re-called by the bosses and re-packaged?

lol. No it isn't.

Yeah I don't agree with this either. Backgrounds and anecdotes are still evidence. I can see the case that too much value is placed on it or some place more value on background/anecdotes, but to say there is no value, and no relavency is simply wrong.

Learn more.

I've studied logic and argumentation. My statement is correct. Background can be considered evidence depending on conTEXT.

Yes. I've made a similar point to that somewhere. Anecdotes for example can become data points in an argument.

But they are still standing in for establishing facts. And still do not something that requires "as a black man".

Identity policing is much less required.

Ethos and logos are often used in the same argument. There is no rule that you can't shift from one to the other.

If you engage in rhetoric, but if you want your reasoning to be valid, ethos is neither here nor there.

If you try to control other people's identities and that is foreseeable to likely fail, it may reflect some of your identity.

How is insisting on reason in debate controlling the identity of others?

Some identify with it being a bad thing to be reasonable in debate

all politics are identity politics.

I'd like to see some justification for this statement.

In what way? Give me some examples.

All politics is channeled through one's identity and when no identity is mentioned in politics it's because a common identity is usually assumed. The how, why, when, and where topics of political importance is brought up, dismissed, accepted, etc are all predicated on one's identity in a time and place. For instance, in the US a lot of economic libertarian arguments get brought up and are bought into by a lot of the population because the US has an identity of being pro capitalism but in other countries that arguments would get no purchase because being "pro market" isn't important to them. Those arguments may seem logical and objective, but they are filtered through identity.

The basic criticism of the trivia of the statement 'as an X-person' speaks for itself. It is reasonable for a person to both be and state they are an X-person as an X-person.

Your whole angle is basically unreasonable about people. Get to know more X-people better and hearing or seeing that trivia may become easier.

Unless it really needs to be controlled by an argument in face of it being stated?

The identity of the speaker is not and should not be relevant to the argument.

If it is, you are doing it wrong. The strength of the argument rests on its own merits, not on who is making it.

It's not your identity to argue about.