This is a gaslighting the argument a little bit. 1) "You confuse the idea that your freedom to express your mind with the idea that your expressions have no co

This is a gaslighting the argument a little bit. 1) "You confuse the idea that your freedom to express your mind with the idea that your expressions have no consequences. " There is no confusion. This is a straw-man - nobody is denying that 'speech should have no consequences'. Pinker and others are being attacked for making very reasonable, civil claims, not any kind of fanaticism which deserves 'consequence'. 2) "Do you deny the fact that those concepts and systems are not inherently racist". Are you implying people can't disagree with your Orthodox Truth? I'm not an academic, but I would. Guns are far more disproportionately likely to kill young black men, does that make guns racist? Juvenile systems and such problems exist basically all over the world, there are racial elements but that doesn't make them racist. It's a complicated problem. 3) "Sure trying to cancel Pinker is wrong but the proponents of racial justice are approaching the problem in the only way they know how." The 'only way they know how' is to crush ideas, dismiss facts, destroy individuals, the Truth, our most trusted institutions in pursuit of their Orthodoxy? That's 'the only way they know how', and a defence of the approach? 4) "The only way to pursue justice is to find those cornerstones that uphold the system and remove them. " Yes, this is the scary zealotry we're concerned about. First, it's entirely possible that systems can achieve reform without fanaticism, and second, it's also fair that there is debate, consternation, dialogue, experiments. Fanatical ideas are great, fanatical movements are not.