I object to "anti-racist" advocacy which has been shown to be actively counterproductive. It's not a firefighting method if it makes the fire worse. I don't c

I object to "anti-racist" advocacy which has been shown to be actively counterproductive. It's not a firefighting method if it makes the fire worse. I don't claim we should never confront racism. I claim we should do it in an evidence-based way. I went through the public education system in the 90s and 00s, in California's Bay Area of all places, and the discussion around race was very different than the discussion today. The idea that we should treat people the same regardless of race has switched from being a liberal position to being a conservative position. It seems to me that whatever was being done in the 90s and 00s "worked" in a way that what we're doing today does not. Probably because what we're doing today is very different, and is the product of an ideological conversation on social media rather than a conversation informed by data or reasoned discussion. >But then Trump comes in and welcomes the far right renaissance that was happening around the world, a world-wide renaissance that had nothing to do with the NY Times posting articles that upset you, to the US. Generally speaking the rest of the world takes their cultural cues from the US much more than the US takes their cultural cues from the rest of the world. Hollywood movies are viewed globally. The entire world follows news from the United States closely. Much of the rest of the world uses American social media websites. Etc. It's a common observation that the current rise of wokism started in the US and then spread elsewhere in the world, which fits the general pattern. So the overall hypothesis that NY Times left-wing extremism is the root cause of the current worldwide far-right renaissance is pretty plausible to me. As you said -- treat the root cause. >Since you seem to take their rhetoric seriously, you can find plenty of far right leaders and ideologues saying just that, that Trump is "their guy" and that he opened the door to mainstream their far right ideas and rhetoric. I don't claim otherwise.