Thread by @ClaireBerlinski

Let's denote that list of policies as q.
Let's call the group of people disproportionately affected by q, S.

What you're saying is--logically--the same as saying, "If you weren't affected by q, you're in no position to tell people in group S to vote *against* Biden.

Your view is that only people in group S have the requisite information or experience to urge people to vote for or against Biden.

This seems a strange view, because we're facing a federal election in which Biden and Trump are the only viable candidates for the presidency.

One of them will win. One of them will then be president of *all* 330 million American citizens. One of them will have the sole power to launch nuclear weapons, command the American military in combat, and wield the power of the executive branch over every American citizen.

This will affect every one of us. But you're saying--am I right?--that only members of group S are in a position to suggest that Biden would be a better choice. Or to say that he would not.

More broadly, your argument suggests that unless you've had exactly the same experiences as the person to whom you're speaking, you ought not urge them to vote for Biden--and perhaps, that you ought not have political discussions with them at all.

But there's no two people who have had exactly the same experiences of anything, no less a given political policy. So your argument seems to militate against *all political discussion.*

That seems an odd way to run a democracy. It would make the exchange of political ideas impossible.

There are other implications of your comment that I don't quite understand. What if I *was* affected by those policies? (Negatively or positively?)

Am I then in a position to speak to others who were?

If not, why not?

Are you suggesting I possess, inherently, a group identity that puts me in a position to speak about certain things but not others?

If so, what group is that, to whom am I in a position to speak, and about what? Is it "white people?" If so, I think you're wrong. I think we should try to *reduce,* not increase, racial segregation in the US. Racial segregation is a failed and immoral policy.

There have been and are, of course, societies where it's either an informal taboo or a legal principle that one may not to speak to members of a different ethnic group, race, tribe, caste, or class. The US has itself been this kind of society.

But the word I'd use for such societies is "oppressive" and "retrograde."

If this is the kind of society you admire--why?

(Also: Why members of group S, as opposed to members of other groups who have disproportionately borne the burden of policies Biden has supported or might support?

What would you say to someone who said, "I'm in the military--group Y--and *we* bear the burden, more than any other member of our society, of bad presidential judgment." I'd say that's a truism, wouldn't you?

Does that mean only the military is in a position to talk about Biden? I don't like where the argument leads, do you?)

I would offer the following, instead, as the proper organizing principles for a democratic society:

1) Are you a citizen of that society?

2) If so, you're in a position to speak to other citizens of that society.