It is neither vacuous nor illogical to point out the inherent internal contradiction in someone&#x27;s proposal for how society ought to act. It only adds to the discussion to show that what seems on the surface like a nice idea is actually intrinsically illogical. That one dislikes the ramifications of the proposition being illogical is beside the point.<p>What seems appealing at first blush is the superficial &quot;just be nice to everyone&quot; aspect of the proposal. That sounds nice at first glance, and that&#x27;s why people ignore its inherent paradox to accept and promote it.<p>But not only is it intrinsically illogical, it&#x27;s not desirable. Should we not define and maintain social out-groups for, say, neo-Nazis or child molesters or (insert your favorite bad guy figure here)?<p>In-groups and out-groups are not intrinsically good or bad. How they are used can be. Encouraging people to get rid of them is not only impossible (as it embodies a paradox), but also undesirable in the soft sense that ignores rational analysis which you are calling for.<p>All human societies have always and always will have in-groups and out-groups, and that&#x27;s not inherently a bad thing. Being aware of them (the weakest possible formulation of the OP&#x27;s point) changes little except making a certain group of &quot;21st century intellectuals&quot; grow pompous and self-righteous, and weakening what little respect there is in society for reason and logic by advancing a paradoxical proposition as though it were a virtue.<p>It certainly won&#x27;t do anything to prevent the emergence of a future group like the Nazi Party. If anything, it makes it more likely by allowing the elite group of self-aware intellectuals to feel certain of their own moral superiority, and thus authority, over the supposed unrefined dullards who are less aware of their biases.