I'd be curious to hear what the pro-Identity Politics camp in this thread think about this:

To me that is a perfect example of just how harmful identity politics has become. An entire race of some 750-850m people worldwide being demonized for the color of their skin. Like one of the top replies to that tweet says, if that same statement "Dismantling whiteness, and not allowing whiteness to reassert itself" was applied to any other race expect whites it would be seen as calling for mass extermination and cultural annihilation. 

Yikes. And you were the one who accused me of making a great leap earlier.

you've mentioned the broken clock thing a couple times but this doesn't seem to apply. I know a broken clock is right twice a day because I have working clocks to compare them to. If all you provide is a PJW video you are giving me a broken clock and saying we should just trust it because it could be right, but if you have a trustworthy working clock that you are using to know that PJW isn't wrong again here it would be more useful to tell us the trustworthy source you are using to decide that PJW isn't full of shit like usual. 

You won't know if he's full of shit (on this particular topic) or not until you watch it, now will you? If you're not interested, that's fine. Be as close-minded as you see fit. All I'm saying is that it's a terrible way to view the world and it's the primary reason why we're in such a divided state where one side refuses to even speak to the other. It's just two opposing extremes seeing who can yell the loudest over one another. Sad to see, to be honest. I remember when people used to be able to discuss their differences in opinion in a civilized manner, which actually led to problems being identified and addressed. It wasn't that long ago.

I remember when people used to not be lazy and actually make their arguments instead of linking a youtube video. You don't want to discuss differences in opinion in a civilized manner, you want to give me homework to watch a youtube video of someone I have no respect for to try to lean the pearls from the shit oyster. Don't whine about how noone wants to discuss things until you put in the work on your end. 

No, of course not. We should stand against injustices and always work to improve our society. However, just because a society isn't perfect, doesn't mean it should be torn to the ground and rebuilt from ashes. If your society functions 80% of the time, I don't think a total restructure is required or wise. You have to draw the line somewhere. Essentially, I'm in favour of gradual, progressive improvement. I am strongly against radical, revolutionary transformation.

The civil rights movement was a fundamental and necessary step towards betterment of society. Trying to enforce measures of equity (equality of outcome) just because not all groups of people are represented exactly equally at all levels of employment, etc. is not going to benefit society in anyway. The west was built on the idea of meritocracy, though I am perfectly fine with admitting that we have not always adhered to these standards (which is why the civil rights movement was necessary). Using the model of meritocracy is something we should not throw away, because it's why the Western world has managed to achieve all of the good things that it has. If you work harder than other people, you DESERVE an unequal outcome. Your race / gender / religion / sexual orientation should never even enter the equation. Can we at least agree on that?

Stay in your safe space then. I honestly don't care. If you want to live in a safe space, that's totally fine with me. It's not what I would recommend, but only you can control who is granted clearance to your echo chamber.

I am not aware of any Democrats in government who are advocating for out society to be torn to the ground. Some small bits need some pretty significant redos, but not the entire society. As such, I feel as if you are largely creating a strawman here. That said, one of the best examples of "radical, revolutionary transformation" I'd say was the civil rights movement. It sought to change a lot of things that are foundational to our society and do it real quickly, yet we both support that.

As per your latter claim, "Trying to enforce measures of equity (equality of outcome) just because not all groups of people are represented exactly equally at all levels of employment, etc. is not going to benefit society", again, it seems like a strawman. I don't believe there is much concern that not all groups aren't represented equally at all levels of employment until the question of "why" is answered, which is a question you seem to be ignoring. If the reason for this is sexism, that should be stamped out. If the reason for this is racism, it should be stamped out. If the reason for this is decades of underfunding of schools in black and brown communities have led to these communities producing fewer individuals who are able to participate in higher education, causing a lack of representation of individuals from these communities at certain levels of employment, that should be stamped out. A meritocracy only works if we truly create a meritocracy. That also means that if you spend 100 years holding back a community, removing those restrictions won't create equitable outcomes, as they are competing with communities who have been running full speed for 100 years. Equality of opportunity can only exist if we not only remove the barriers of the past, but also alleviate the consequences of those barriers. 

I am not aware of any Democrats in government who are advocating for out society to be torn to the ground. Some small bits need some pretty significant redos, but not the entire society. As such, I feel as if you are largely creating a strawman here. That said, one of the best examples of "radical, revolutionary transformation" I'd say was the civil rights movement. It sought to change a lot of things that are foundational to our society and do it real quickly, yet we both support that.

As per your latter claim, "Trying to enforce measures of equity (equality of outcome) just because not all groups of people are represented exactly equally at all levels of employment, etc. is not going to benefit society", again, it seems like a strawman. I don't believe there is much concern that not all groups aren't represented equally at all levels of employment until the question of "why" is answered, which is a question you seem to be ignoring. If the reason for this is sexism, that should be stamped out. If the reason for this is racism, it should be stamped out. If the reason for this is decades of underfunding of schools in black and brown communities have led to these communities producing fewer individuals who are able to participate in higher education, causing a lack of representation of individuals from these communities at certain levels of employment, that should be stamped out. A meritocracy only works if we truly create a meritocracy. That also means that if you spend 100 years holding back a community, removing those restrictions won't create equitable outcomes, as they are competing with communities who have been running full speed for 100 years. Equality of opportunity can only exist if we not only remove the barriers of the past, but also alleviate the consequences of those barriers.