Just to humor @Mick, I listened to the whole “Curb your postmodernism” discussion. It wasn’t too dull, but overall I found it a bit silly. 
And then she basically says everything is fine as long as evidence triumphs over faith.
Could it be, perhaps, that the Enlightenment project was a step in the right direction but really only a baby step, because humans just aren’t as smart as they think they are? (No offense to y’all…)
I think she gives too much credit to the “sort of rule”. Humans have been coming up with rules for a long time, without changing their nature very much. What’s become unsettled is to a large extent what was under the surface the whole time.
They go on to say that this type of thinking (uncovering power imbalances and so on) causes the exact opposite of its goal (fairness). They don’t quite use the word inevitable, but he says,
Absolutist much? 
Around 20:30, she says people on “the far left” don’t want to be seen as anti-this or anti-that ergo they don’t address problematic thinking about this or that.
That is apparently what Mick wanted me to listen to before responding to his characterization of Mr. Sanders as “classical far left”. It’s not that the guest on the show said it. And there is nothing in the whole discussion to explain how Mr. Sanders would supposedly fit in with classical Marxists, Leninists, Stalinists, Maoists, Trotskyists, KR, etc. (compared to which the Scandinavian model is basically centrist). For (I hope) the last time: he’s far left by current mainstream American standards, and he’s classical left by current mainstream American standards, but classical far left is something else, even in America.
Around 24:00, he (I mean the guy on the show — sorry I didn’t catch their names) describes the phenomenon as a “mind virus”, “cult-like” and “religious in a negative sense”, and people who are caught up in it can’t be persuaded through face to face conversations but rather need to be “deprogrammed”, be “thrown out of the cult” or “hit a brick wall” before they can rejoin the world of the sane. Gosh, that sounds familiar. (And yes, I know some identity politics people are exactly like that…)
“But maybe there are other ways of going about that.” She responds that people who can’t be reached through conversation “are a much smaller proportion of society than we perceive them to be”. She then cites a survey in which 8% of respondents
She then explains that liberals need to label social justice supporters as “extremists” in order to save liberalism.
My first problem with this is, if a survey asks you whether or not you support “identity politics approaches”, how is that supposed to measure your level of extremism without presuming that identity politics can only exist in an extremist form?
My second problem with it is, if anything that sounds vaguely like “identity politics” is presumed to be “extremist”, people who understand that intersectional analysis can be used in non-extremist ways – as an analytical tool rather than an ideology – need to go into the closet and have no way of overtly supporting the non-extremist use of these ideas.
Example: Acme Corp. wants the state to spend a pile of tax money and/or authorize the violation of private property rights and/or some other thing that Acme can’t do on its own simply through “free market forces”. (This type of state action would normally be labeled “socialism” by anti-big-government types, but if it’s being requested by a large corporation, maybe it’s not so bad. 
) Acme promises to “create 1000 jobs for the benefit of economically marginalized people” or some such promise.
The state has a reasonable obligation — morally if not legally — to analyze that promise instead of accepting it at face value. A simple analysis would say, “Oh gee, we need jobs here, yeah, let’s do this!” An intersectional analysis would try to predict the extent to which the economically marginalized would actually benefit. Are these full-time, permanent jobs? Do they require the creation of “man camps” in remote communities without any appropriate planning for the effects those camps will have on the communities? Will they pollute land and water that aboriginals depend on for both economic reasons and the survival of their culture? And so on…
The more people associate those questions with “extremism”, the harder it will be for anyone to find the courage to ask them.
Note that this is not the ideology of equality of outcome. It’s not about requiring corporations to hire 1:1 male to female or sending people to pronoun gulags. It’s about economic planning – which the state is going to do anyway, one way or another – based on the actual needs of the population.
They have these words that are quickly becoming meaningless, identity politics, far left, extremist, you know…
…how to do that without being called extremists…
Around 32:30, she says humans don’t need an alien invasion to bring them together. That’s a relief! 
Around 40:00, they talk about making the left “respectable” again to win back swing voters. She says,
Who is actually saying to swing voters, “you’re dead to us”? 
I think she overestimates the significance of identity politics in mainstream discourse and underestimates the general crappiness of… mainstream discourse. I mean, imagine identity politics not being a thing, in mainstream terms, in the past decade. Would the leftish parties not still have plenty of crappiness to deter people from voting for them? Would the swing voters who said, “I know how bad Trump is, but Hillary’s worse. It’s that simple. It’s that simple!” not still have said that?
She seems to be British, and I’m thinking mostly of the situation in the US and Canada. Maybe she overestimates the effect of postmodernism in the mainstream because she’s an academic herself. 
Today’s substitution drill: replace “epistemology by identity” with your favorite echo chamber concept. 
That reminds of something that happened recently in the Open forum. In a discussion of Martin Scorsese’s films, a member known for his outspokenness described the man as “one of the most OVERRATED directors of all time”.
I took exception to that, even though (I now confess) I haven’t seen all of the films that created the context in which the comment was made. I have seen Casino, and I stand by my characterization of it as a ~3 hour film that never gets boring. Strangely, despite his outspokenness, Gain didn’t respond to me.
Wow, I haven’t heard that one for a while. I also haven’t hung out with any Scientologists for a while. Maybe that’s got nothing to do with you, but I can’t think of anywhere else I’ve ever heard that.
That claim keeps coming up. The problem is that the individuals and groups who do make those “calls” don’t get much attention in the MSM, because why would they?
If you really want to explain Islam to us, would you mind taking JP’s advice and getting your own stuff in order first? You can start by clarifying your definition of Protestant (or protestant?) to something intellectually consistent.
Mandate of heaven, divine right of kings, Dieu et mon droit, nation-religion-monarchy… the name changes, but the concept stays basically the same. You’re talking about real world results here, not pure theology, so please explain the cause and effect to me, from your Christian perspective.