Read on Twitter
This is called an ad hominem, attacking the person rather than the argument. (It’s our privilege and our unwillingness to work through negative feelings that are the real culprits). This plays well for ppl who already agree with you but doesn’t tend to convince others. https://twitter.com/mikemchargue/status/1260748241898835968
Of course, I don’t know if Mike read my thread/argument or listened to our @badchristianpod episode or is otherwise even aware of my argument. But either way, his thread assumes the problem is with us, invokes the MLK trump card (ignoring his LBJ legislation compromise), etc.
One I haven’t heard this time but am looking forward to: “Western logic is another tool of white supremacy”
Consider this other argument from the left, espoused as I understand it by Cornell West and others: an overly narrow focus on identity issues (race, weight, sexuality, etc, all of which make us feel SO GOOD about our “justice work”)...
...hit those pleasure centers hard enough that we let ourselves off the hook for addressing economic inequality at either a personal or systemic level. They distract from economics, the truer source of suffering for marginalized people.
My point isn’t that this other argument is right (although it rings true to me), but that it’s another legitimate progressive option that would have its own reasons for disagreeing with the “*always* center marginalized voices” principle...
...namely that this principle elevated the identity politics issue to the front of the discussion, taking attention away from the greater injustice. How does an identity politics centered liberal know their approach is better than Cornell West’s approach?
They can’t know. We all need intellectual humility. This is why I have stuck to both:
1) I do want to hear more voices from the margins. They are usually overlooked and unheard.
2) I’m uncomfortable with a rule or principle that says this must ALWAYS be so
1) I do want to hear more voices from the margins. They are usually overlooked and unheard.
2) I’m uncomfortable with a rule or principle that says this must ALWAYS be so
Yet another dimension, if you’re broadly in that West camp:
1) a Marxist perspective calling for new economic systems (even more liberal bonafides!)
2) coalition building and compromise with moderates to get legislation passed and elections won.
Again: intellectual humility.
1) a Marxist perspective calling for new economic systems (even more liberal bonafides!)
2) coalition building and compromise with moderates to get legislation passed and elections won.
Again: intellectual humility.
