I return your claim of an infamous intellectual fallacy with another. The 'Motte-and_bailey'. IE. A large sub-section of the community advances this exact straw

I return your claim of an infamous intellectual fallacy with another. The 'Motte-and_bailey'. IE. A large sub-section of the community advances this exact strawman, while retreating to a conventionally accepted meaning of racism when truly challenged. I'll address the biggest names that have risen during this new movement. Kendi's and DiAngelo's books are written exactly as McWhorter puts it. Coates's is more heartfelt, but ends on an incredibly nihilistic note. Kendi and DiAngelo are the Beyonce and JayZ of the diversity training world. They are the ones moving indefensible goal posts. The common reply to my claims is that Kendi and DeAngelo are media faces and that 'real' academics have more principled approaches. However, these same academics fall in line when the media faces conjure a mob movement without a word of dissent. Any critics are immediately labelled as conservative/racist and bigots. Part of the reason John can say the things he can, is because he is a black academic and has established a long history of goodwill towards the black community in the US. Else, he would have been character assassinated twice over. > anyone who says that we have, particularly when they say it in such a condescending way, is part of the problem. Aren't you strawmanning John now? He never claims that racism is over. He has also seen every institution cover in fear towards this new prescriptive dogma without so much as whimper. He gets talked down to and is increasingly put under greater scrutiny than his intellectual opposition. I find it entirely fair that his tone is colored with condescension.