Do you mean you want examples? Like if a black person who doesn't know about critical race theory "corrects" someone of a traditionally advantaged background who has actually read the material. If a woman "corrects" wage disparity information from a man who actually knows how the wage disparity falls in different places. If a Native American "corrects" a geneticist about the origin of the original peoples of the American continents. You can find examples all over the place of actual experts in an area being ignored and told they're wrong by people who assume that their identity makes them more of an expert than people who have studied the (non-obvious) phenomenon extensively.

It doesn't always happen, of course. I'm particularly interested in John's take, though, because he had quite strong language about people who assume their ignorance is better than someone else's studied expertise, but also gave a defense of identity-as-means-to-know-things.

Well, sometimes those two sentiments collide! So, what does he do then?