One of the leading points surrounding this discussion about debates is that if you're not affected by it, you don't have a right to talk about it (e.g. racism, sexism, etc.). How do you consider privilege while trying to have a conversation?

imo this tenet of identity politics is anti-intellectual at its core. it argues that truth and right to speech depend on WHO is saying it, not the merits of what is being said. i think the experiences of people directly affected by an issue should be given volume & honest, deep consideration. people not affected by them need to be self aware about how their lack of personal experience might affect their perception and do a better job of listening -- they should not be flippant or dismissive. but if we elevate the weight of experience so far as to imply certain topics can't even be discussed, what's the point of science and data? this implies the death of expertise generally, and degrades the value of scientific inquiry on social issues.

View more