Thank you for your response. I watched that section, and I offer a rebuttal. My summary:The speaker here argues that post-modernism's great illogical flaw is

Thank you for your response. I watched that section, and I offer a rebuttal. My summary:The speaker here argues that post-modernism's great illogical flaw is that it invites all individuals to assign themselves labels of victimhood, and argues that if one were fair and listened to everybody, everybody is a victim. Firstly, that argument doesn't appear very insightful - the individual's narcissism is incompatible with fairness. On a separate note, the speaker uses self-identifying label as a call for victimhood when many individuals (which is the perspective he is using) would never see it that way, so he is revealing a prejudice about the labels he is referencing. Either not self-aware or a deliberate choice. But that's not the point here - this argument has it backwards. It's not about a black person saying 'I am disadvantaged because I am black'. It is about statistical facts showing that black people are disadvantaged, and historical laws showing that this is due to decades of policy and laws which were a result of another bucket of people (whites) saying, 'These people are black, let's disadvantage them'. The segueway about LGBTQIAK label is I think parallel/tangential to this and is itself super interesting with a whole bunch of complications that societies have to unravel, but let's not conflate the two, because they are not analogous. edit:grammar and clarity