Third-wave antiracism makes sense, but it's a dead end
Our author seems to be quite drastically mischaracterizing the intentions of what he calls the &quot;contemporary left&quot;:<p>&gt;The contemporary left’s concern is with the underlying biases that bolster the racism that remains. It seeks, as a way forward, a society not only without racist structures, but without racist thought, which, for one, can foster race-based disparities that eerily parallel those conditioned in the past by overt segregation.<p>This, as someone who spends a lot of time both in a very liberal college and in lefty online &quot;safe spaces&quot;, is an ideology I&#x27;ve never encountered. Leftists generally  Subscribe to an ideology that explains material conditions as the force that causes struggle in a society. Those conditions usually being economic structures, but usually include specific things like the power structure of a police force, private ownership of prisons, the &quot;war on drugs&quot;, etc.<p>The author complains heavily about how &quot;SJWs&quot; call people White Supremacist too often, but doesn&#x27;t give any specific example of this happening and why the label was inappropriate. In fact, nearly every one of the &quot;examples&quot; of leftist speech seems to be your average dismissive &quot;laugh at the cuck cringe complication&quot; quotes attributed without context to nobody in particular:<p>&gt;The new normal is, “If you don’t like it, cry loudly and then louder, because you’re always right and they’re just bad.”<p>I don&#x27;t actually think anybody really thinks this. I&#x27;ve never heard this ideology espoused by anybody, except anti-sjws, as they&#x27;re sometimes referred to as, who are trying to strawman and discredit someone.<p>The times I have heard people call people White Supremacist is, for example, when a white person starts arguing about IQ scores, which is an explicitly white supremacist argument, and uncontroversially so unless you&#x27;re unfamiliar with WHY iq tests are inherently biased, in which case you might not see why the label is appropriate and will only see a lib getting mad for no reason.<p>I believe the author has simply collected a few instances of college liberals losing their temper on camera and extrapolated that into an entire incoherent worldview without any analysis of what the leftist cucks actually believe.<p>Additionally, the phrase &quot;virtue signalling&quot; is extremely sloppy. Is there any action done, aside from those done under the privacy of total anonymity that could not be motivationally attributed to wishing the signal virtue? Perhaps I&#x27;m virtue signalling for writing this reply. Maybe you&#x27;re virtue signalling for upvoting it. Maybe the author is virtue signalling for having written the article about virtue signalling. Even if what he says about progressives was true, why would wishing to change the psychology of percieved white racists be &quot;virtue signalling&quot;?