Not going into the merits of any particular point of view, but it's amazing to me how few people talking about identity or diversity work to ensure that their a

Not going into the merits of any particular point of view, but it's amazing to me how few people talking about identity or diversity work to ensure that their arguments aren't perceived as naked self-interest. In most areas of political life factions work to recruit seemingly nonpartisan entities to advance their agendas. They go to great lengths to compellingly demonstrate how what they want is really good for everyone. Saying "I was elected by X so I'm doing Y" is only used as an argument of last resort. But on diversity issues people get up on soap boxes and unabashedly advocate for their side. Arguments for diversity as a broader virtue are seldom advanced forcefully, and when they are there's usually not much of an effort made to reconcile that virtue with specific policy prescriptions. It's bizarre. The end result is that you have a game of tribes and quislings, where facts don't matter and nobody agrees on what appropriate steps are to deal with diversity issues because the only thing people agree on is that everybody else is acting selfishly. So here you have a guy who wrote a thing advocating for guys. The rest of the world views him as a sexist. Sundar fires him. The guys who agreed with the author of the manifesto view Sundar as a quisling. The rest of the world still views Sundar with suspicion as a member of Tribe Guy. Nothing improved, but lots of anger was generated. Eventually there will be something from Tribe X, and more or less the same thing will occur with roles reversed. Is it so hard to consensus build on these issues that even bothering to frame the discussion better is a waste? Or is it just easier and more cathartic to be angry and build support that way?