The essence of these arguments from the right is an opportunistic appropriation of liberal identity politics. Liberals already misunderstand identity politics, often flattening them to “minorities are right about everything” when minorities say something liberals agree with. Of course, this gets reduced to “all perspectives are valuable” when minorities say something liberals disagree with, if not just censorship. The reactionaries are just as capable of reading that pattern as anyone else, so they’re just taking it and running with it.

Smarter liberals might be able to recognize that “minorities are right about everything” is clearly incorrect and obviously not a valid framework, so they’ll argue against these reactionary tactics by making “all perspectives are valuable” universal. The problem for them is that reactionaries might be armed with examples of liberals shutting down discussion by pointing to identity (e.g. shutting down antizionists by saying Jewish voices are important, then flipping backwards when Jewish antizionists speak up)

The dialectical approach is to recognize that identity politics is only useful as it pertains to understanding a part of an individual’s or group’s perspective on an issue, but it must be held in conversation with everything else that’s going on, the context of the conflict being discussed.