The Insidious Lie That We Can’t Understand Each Other

It seems to me that there are some valid points in this essay. The most extreme versions of the position that they are arguing agains, that it is completely impossible for the majority to understand the experience of the majority, is likely both false and harmful.

However, it seems to me that the writer makes a mistake by attempting to evaluate a political strategy as though it was an academic philosophy position. That is to say, he's likely right that "identity synthesis" is not completely intellectually rigorous; however, it was never intended to be, it was intended to be a pragmatic political strategy.

For example, "identity synthesis" was likely never intended to suggest that there is literally a set of shared experiences shared by literally every member of a given minority group. It is just meant to suggest that in general a given group more or less shares a set of experiences.

Similarly, "identity synthesis" most likely is not concerned with whether, from a philosophical perspective, it is possible for groups to have knowledge of experiences they haven't had. Rather it is concerned with the fact that in practice the majority does not prioritize experiences they do not share with minority groups.

in taking a pragmatic political stance and argue that it is not intellectually rigorous; when I don't think it was ever intended to be.

For example, I don't think the point of

Also, folks need to appreciate the role that govt has in our lives (or that we want it to).

I don’t want the gov’t to implement my personal moral worldview. I want the gov’t to assure a basic level of law abiding and morality (I.e don’t kill or steal), and stay out of the rest.