On Identity Politics & Correcting Misconceptions with Feminism

The following clip is from Sam Harris' long form podcast* from 10/27/17 and delves rather deftly into an issue that I've had a hard time articulating but which I've felt for a while has been a growing issue. This video will likely get under most people's skin at some point given his range of views here, but I feel it's a fairly and logically constructed view holding EVERYONE accountable for their actions and reactions. My own thoughts will follow.

To continue with my own thoughts, first on feminism:

I believe in equality of treatment of all people, in raising women up when they are "down" and in treating people with respect and dignity. This is the essence of feminism's origins. Feminism is humanism. It may be "too late" to take the name back from those that pervert it nowadays, diluting it with with regressive identity politics and vitriol, and return it to its more moral and ethical roots. I think it's important to try, though. This is what I meant when I suggested in an earlier post to get to the core of the views of the self described feminist you think you're arguing with; you may be surprised to find out that you actually DO agree in principle. Take note: Feminism and intended is not about attacking men or pushing them down but about elevating women where they are lacking in equality. This is not a No True Scotsman fallacy but an attempt to return this philosophy and positive agenda to where it was intended from a perception standpoint.

Let's turn to his views on identity politics next, a subject I've also tried to touch on before with varying degrees of success:

An original likely-legitimate complaint of any self-labeled victim group has often led to a war of increasingly strident actions and reactions and regressive tactics on BOTH sides. That back and forth escalation continues until today we have the dynamic of watered down labels, the inability to LISTEN, and hypersensitivity to any perceived slight or offense. This has given rise to terms like "whitesplaining", "mansplaining", and many other slurs of oversimplification (again, on BOTH sides) and the creation of the term "kafkatrap", wherein denial of a "charge" traps you in the guilt of it.

Kafkatrap/ing:

A sophistical and unfalsifiable form of argument that attempts to overcome an opponent by inducing a sense of guilt and using the opponent's denial of guilt as further evidence of guilt.
It's often employed by those seeking no REAL conversation but instead to "win" some sort of victory of public opinion by shutting down conversation: the shutting down and silencing of opposition being the goal. As an example: "You're a racist for saying that." "I am not a racist" "Only a racist would say that." This is demonstrably bad argumentation because it does not seek to continue a conversation but rather attempts to silence, shame, and drown out the NOW victim by illogic and bullying. The use of shaming, "doxing", and doubling down on hypersensitivity when you receive push-back are bullying tactics not intended to change minds but to shut down discourse and freedom. It's authoritarian and morally reprehensible I believe. If you feel you must resort to these types of tactics or violence to "win" a non-violent exchange then I submit your position or articulation of it needs to be reassessed.

Now, there usually IS a nugget of truth to the origin of a now-hyperbolic complaint. That nugget and complaint is then followed by resistance to that truth or a lack of understanding in how that complaint was presented. The reaction by the victim is then MORE extravagant to attempt to get the point across....and the escalation continues back and forth with a regression in intellectual honesty and patience until we have such a violently divided societal discourse style that nothing gets accomplished and no one is convinced of the other's point of view. The confrontations are grandstanding for bona-fides to their own "side" with no intent to have a real conversation. There are still those that want to have a REAL dialogue sans-fallacy and sophistry but they are often doxed and/or shouted down.

If we as a society cannot lay down our verbal "arms", shut up, and LISTEN to each other with intent to understand and hopefully empathize instead of listening to respond then we MIGHT be able to find our sanity and dignity again as a WHOLE. Get off social media and TALK to each other outside of your echo chambers. Learn patience again. The collective blood pressure needs to be lowered or we are just going to devolve into chaos.

Hopefully I've struck a chord with you, without incensing, and caused some introspection. It's not an easy subject to talk about given the violence in today's "discussion" tactics but it's one that desperately NEEDS to be talked about. I'm interested in your opinions on this and other articles and in visibility if it pleases you. Until next time,

-Ronin

*Mr Harris shouldn't need an introduction but in short he "..is an American author, philosopher, neuroscientist, blogger and podcast host. He is a critic of religion and proponent of the liberty to criticize it" (from his Wiki) He's as deep a thinker as I know of. I don't always agree with him but his absolute near-obsession with truth and fact and delivering his views with a zen-like calm and precise manner are traits that I greatly admire. He rejects the label of atheist these days given his deep interest in meditation and self guided spiritual journeys. He's the author of books such as "Waking up", "End of Faith", and "Letter to a Christian Nation" and runs a powerful YouTube podcast called "Waking Up With Sam Harris".