!@#% Around and Found Out

[Fan_of_Meehl]

---

Members don't see this ad.

The suggestion is that the poster is engaging in virtue signaling and has not come to their view authentically.

Fair enough. Use of that term went beyond the facts and did involve a degree of interpretation but let's be real--we all 'virtue signal' from time to time and in varying degrees depending on the context and the audience. Other words for it would be 'being polite,' or engaging in public speech influenced by the 'social desirability' (or lack thereof) of the expressed content.

The response of what constituted a 'personal bias' struck me as overly generic, full of slogans and generalities and not really addressing the specific 'error' that we're presumed to acknowledge as a 'bias.' Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. Hard to tell if all that are being 'shared' are generalities. And--if you reread my post carefully--you'll find that my 'attack' was directed against the content that was shared, not the person. Again, in a discussion it's fair game to 'attack' ideas or proposed hypotheses or claims.

I think that this is a genuine point of disagreement between the two camps.

 

[Pragma]

It would be nice to have an argument where I could always fall back on “if you don’t agree with me 100%, the problem is you” and on the further extreme, start insinuating or explicitly throwing out negative labels towards the other person. That is why these conversations don’t have legs for the long haul.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

It would be nice to have an argument where I could always fall back on “if you don’t agree with me 100%, the problem is you” and on the further extreme, start insinuating or explicitly throwing out negative labels towards the other person. That is why these conversations don’t have legs for the long haul.

What is really interesting is the effect that this is apparently having on professional psychology and discourse between psychologists. 'Attacks' on a person's 'view' (ideas) are now considered (by some) to be 'out-of-bounds' or 'offensive' or a 'personal attack' (but only if committed by one side, not the other). Such a worldview leads us back into a new 'Dark Age' where there are certain sets of ideas that simply can't be 'attacked' or subjected to criticism or skepticism. It results in the empirical literature on the topic being chock full of holes and shoddy arguments because it has been insulated from serious scrutiny.

 

[WisNeuro]

It would be nice to have an argument where I could always fall back on “if you don’t agree with me 100%, the problem is you” and on the further extreme, start insinuating or explicitly throwing out negative labels towards the other person. That is why these conversations don’t have legs for the long haul.

Just respond to any and all criticisms of your argument with "you're just being defensive" instead of addressing the critique. Particularly when you are shown actual data that disconfirms your assertion. That seems to be the way to go.

 

[Pragma]

Just respond to any and all criticisms of your argument with "you're just being defensive" instead of addressing the critique. Particularly when you are shown actual data that disconfirms your assertion. That seems to be the way to go.

Not saying I didn’t see other ad hominems flying around in the thread either, but over about 2 decades on this topic they come very reliably from one side in particular.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

It was more that the poster was not, in fact, listing biases, but rather viewpoints. It was a definitional argument, not 'to the person.'

It also struck me as a form of 'begging the question'

'We all have biases.'

'Okay, what are some of yours (and why do you consider them 'biases?')

'...{among other claims} systemic oppression is alive and well...'

The claim that 'systemic oppression is alive and well' is a whole can of worms that--depending on what you mean by the term--would be open to debate. Saying that statement/conclusion doesn't tell me anything about the specific experiences you had and data you observed and interpreted that led you to believe that conclusion.

Begging the question is a logical fallacy in which an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion. Arguments that beg the question work to obscure the actual points in controversy and can be looked at as a form of circular reasoning.

 

[WisNeuro]

Not saying I didn’t see other ad hominems flying around in the thread either, but over about 2 decades on this topic they come very reliably from one side in particular.

You mean the "your argument is wrong because you are a white man" one? Even when it's leveled at Sanman, hilariously?

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

You mean the "your argument is wrong because you are a white man" one? Even when it's leveled at Sanman, hilariously?

Yeah...I was kinda hoping that someone would fess up to that particular assumption/bias.

'Anyone who is critical of DEI or its implementation must be a white man.'

 

[Pragma]

You mean the "your argument is wrong because you are a white man" one? Even when it's leveled at Sanman, hilariously?

Well that’s a good example, but there were ad hominem statements in the other direction as well (albeit at a lower frequency).

 

[alice_in_neuro_wonderland]

The suggestion is that the poster is engaging in virtue signaling and has not come to their view authentically.

Thank you 😅 I’m glad someone else on here sees it.

 

[PsyDWannabe]

Pot meet kettle. I fail to see how that last dozen posts were not ad hominem attacks on a poster's view. I fail to see how the alternative views presented here are not representative of a generalized, cooker cutter contrarianism. It must be nice to view oneself as above it all or representing the more moderated position.

Whew! You saved me some words, thank you.

#adhominem has GOT to be the word of the year on this forum, it just has to 😂. Whenever a person gets called out, they can just scream AD HOMINEM and automatically it absolves them of having to provide a relevant response.

Just like Michael Scott declaring bankruptcy on the office, thinking that simply by literally verbally declaring bankruptcy, he wouldn’t have to officially file nor make good on his debt lol!

The beautiful irony here is that the same deflective and willfully ignorant tactics being used on here are the exact ones used when the issue is broached in real life. What was that someone said about ‘groupthink’ again? Or are the ad hominem and groupthink labels only relegated to those advocating for a cause you don’t agree with?

 

[alice_in_neuro_wonderland]

I think I’ve realized why there seem to be more (very vocal and persistent) people on this thread who are against DEI compared to us minority (haha) who are in favor of it. I think they’re upset because out in the real world, they’re losing, and this is their refuge for outdated ideas to be propagated and supported. I feel as though I’ve quite literally stumbled into a hornet’s nest of bitterness and anger at the fact that the world is moving forward, and people are feeling left behind. Woooooo what a trip.

*cue defensive responses, projection, ‘ad hominem’ attacks, etc etc* 😂

 

[alice_in_neuro_wonderland]

Whew! You saved me some words, thank you.

#adhominem has GOT to be the word of the year on this forum, it just has to 😂. Whenever a person gets called out, they can just scream AD HOMINEM and automatically it absolves them of having to provide a relevant response.

Just like Michael Scott declaring bankruptcy on the office, thinking that simply by literally verbally declaring bankruptcy, he wouldn’t have to officially file nor make good on his debt lol!

The beautiful irony here is that the same deflective and willfully ignorant tactics being used on here are the exact ones used when the issue is broached in real life. What was that someone said about ‘groupthink’ again? Or are the ad hominem and groupthink labels only relegated to those advocating for a cause you don’t agree with?

I’m dead 😂🤣

 

[PsyDWannabe]

I’m dead 😂🤣

Laugh all you want, I’m putting it on a T-shirt! It’s the holiday season, perfect stocking stuffer. Got to strike while the iron is hot *shrugs* #AdHominem

 

[WisNeuro]

I think I’ve realized why there seem to be more (very vocal and persistent) people on this thread who are against DEI compared to us minority (haha) who are in favor of it. I think they’re upset because out in the real world, they’re losing, and this is their refuge for outdated ideas to be propagated and supported. I feel as though I’ve quite literally stumbled into a hornet’s nest of bitterness and anger at the fact that the world is moving forward, and people are feeling left behind. Woooooo what a trip.

*cue defensive responses, projection, ‘ad hominem’ attacks, etc etc* 😂

Ah, and a literal textbook definition of ad hominem. At least you are consistent in your lack of any substantive argument.

 

[alice_in_neuro_wonderland]

Laugh all you want, I’m putting it on a T-shirt! It’s the holiday season, perfect stocking stuffer. Got to strike while the iron is hot *shrugs* #AdHominem

I’ll take five, please. Been meaning to start on my holiday shopping. 🎁 ✨

 

[alice_in_neuro_wonderland]

Ah, and a literal textbook definition of ad hominem. At least you are consistent in your lack of any substantive argument.

Oh that one sure was 😉 I’m not denying it one bit.

 

[Pragma]

people on this thread who are against DEI

What a sad, inaccurate characterization.

 

[WisNeuro]

What a sad, inaccurate characterization.

What's more sad is that this is the exact type of behavior that hinders the end goal of DEI initiatives. WHo knows how much faster a realistic goal of equity could have been achieved with actual discussion and intelligent policy decisions.

 

[PsyDWannabe]

I think I’ve realized why there seem to be more (very vocal and persistent) people on this thread who are against DEI compared to us minority (haha) who are in favor of it. I think they’re upset because out in the real world, they’re losing, and this is their refuge for outdated ideas to be propagated and supported. I feel as though I’ve quite literally stumbled into a hornet’s nest of bitterness and anger at the fact that the world is moving forward, and people are feeling left behind. Woooooo what a trip.

*cue defensive responses, projection, ‘ad hominem’ attacks, etc etc* 😂

Oh I peeped this way way way back, at this point I’m very familiar with all the tricks. I think we all know by now that we’re not dealing with anyone who is willing to be talked out of their stance, all we are doing is listing points for consideration for whomever may be interested in posterity. That’s why I refuse to shut up about it.

My favorite part of this go-round was someone calling me “frustrated“ and “overwhelmed“, only to spew the very same frustration and overwhelm in my direction because I called them out 😂😂😂 You can’t make this up. The speed with which they went from benevolent all-knowing therapist projecting their emotions onto me, to exhibiting the exact same frustration and overwhelm they just had accused me of one breath ago was record-breaking.

But the funniest part is that they thought discrediting me by labeling me with random negative emotions was going to stop anything lmao. As the young ones say, “you thought”. It would be funny if it weren’t so sad.

 

[Pragma]

Oh I peeped this way way way back, at this point I’m very familiar with all the tricks. I think we all know by now that we’re not dealing with anyone who is willing to be talked out of their stance, all we are doing is listing points for consideration for whomever may be interested in posterity. That’s why I refuse to shut up about it.

My favorite part of this go-round was someone calling me “frustrated“ and “overwhelmed“, only to spew the very same frustration and overwhelm in my direction because I called them out 😂😂😂 You can’t make this up. The speed with which they went from benevolent all-knowing therapist projecting their emotions onto me, to exhibiting the exact same frustration and overwhelm they just had accused me of one breath ago was record-breaking.

But the funniest part is that they thought discrediting me by labeling me with random negative emotions was going to stop anything lmao. As the young ones say, “you thought”. It would be funny if it weren’t so sad.

Well that’s a good example, but there were ad hominem statements in the other direction as well (albeit at a lower frequency).

I had that one in mind earlier.

 

[alice_in_neuro_wonderland]

Oh I peeped this way way way back, at this point I’m very familiar with all the tricks. I think we all know by now that we’re not dealing with anyone who is willing to be talked out of their stance, all we are doing is listing points for consideration for whomever may be interested in posterity. That’s why I refuse to shut up about it.

My favorite part of this go-round was someone calling me “frustrated“ and “overwhelmed“, only to spew the very same frustration and overwhelm in my direction because I called them out 😂😂😂 You can’t make this up. The speed with which they went from benevolent all-knowing therapist projecting their emotions onto me, to exhibiting the exact same frustration and overwhelm they just had accused me of one breath ago was record-breaking.

But the funniest part is that they thought discrediting me by labeling me with random negative emotions was going to stop anything lmao. As the young ones say, “you thought”. It would be funny if it weren’t so sad.

#support✊ Also, love your razor sharp analysis of the process, and couldn’t agree more. Also, “you thought” has entered the chat ahaha 😂🤣🤣 Love.

 

[PsyDWannabe]

#support✊ Also, love your razor sharp analysis of the process, and couldn’t agree more. Also, “you thought” has entered the chat ahaha 😂🤣🤣 Love.

Back in the early pages (clearly I’ve been here a while 😂) a couple of folks felt my posts were causing them to feel like they were not intellectual enough to engage in conversation with me. Mind you, not a single phoneme to that effect was stated by me. They read my posts and apparently automatically felt their intellect being under attack. Yikes! I don’t even want to attempt to label what complex that is. My point is, the projections are nothing new and I’ve gotten very comfortable with them. But there’s always a humorous undercurrent, because I was like wait a second, so of all the times you expect me to abandon intellectual conversation, it’s when discussing such a profound issue??


The jokes write themselves lol!

 

[alice_in_neuro_wonderland]

Oh I peeped this way way way back, at this point I’m very familiar with all the tricks. I think we all know by now that we’re not dealing with anyone who is willing to be talked out of their stance, all we are doing is listing points for consideration for whomever may be interested in posterity. That’s why I refuse to shut up about it.

My favorite part of this go-round was someone calling me “frustrated“ and “overwhelmed“, only to spew the very same frustration and overwhelm in my direction because I called them out 😂😂😂 You can’t make this up. The speed with which they went from benevolent all-knowing therapist projecting their emotions onto me, to exhibiting the exact same frustration and overwhelm they just had accused me of one breath ago was record-breaking.

But the funniest part is that they thought discrediting me by labeling me with random negative emotions was going to stop anything lmao. As the young ones say, “you thought”. It would be funny if it weren’t so sad.

I also just want to wholeheartedly agree with this here and add something….I went into this thread sort of expecting for it to go the way it went, but still trying hard to present my view in a way that would facilitate some consideration rather than immediate seemingly-blind defense. I tried. I didn’t even expect to convince anyone of anything. I just hoped I could present some food for thought in as non-threatening of a way as possible. But evidently, from the responses I received, unsuccessfully so. 😬

 

[WisNeuro]

I also just want to wholeheartedly agree with this here and add something….I went into this thread sort of expecting for it to go the way it went, but still trying hard to present my view in a way that would facilitate some consideration rather than immediate seemingly-blind defense. I tried. I didn’t even expect to convince anyone of anything. I just hoped I could present some food for thought in as non-threatening of a way as possible. But evidently, from the responses I received, unsuccessfully so. 😬

Some here, have tried to engage in good faith discussion with you, and would still do so. This seems somewhat disingenuous as you never responded to actual questions of your assertions and instead resorted to name calling when questioned on factual, verifiable, information.

 

[alice_in_neuro_wonderland]

Some here, have tried to engage in good faith discussion with you, and would still do so. This seems somewhat disingenuous as you never responded to actual questions of your assertions and instead resorted to name calling when questioned on factual, verifiable, information.

Whoa when did I ever name call anyone? Receipts please, sir

 

[WisNeuro]

Whoa when did I ever name call anyone?

The many instances of textbook ad hominem responses.

 

[alice_in_neuro_wonderland]

The many instances of textbook ad hominem responses.

Please enlighten me on my many instances. I’d genuinely like to know.

Side note, can we put #textbook on a shirt too? 😂😂 #2 word of the year for sure

 

[WisNeuro]

Please enlighten me on my many instances. I’d genuinely like to know.

Side note, can we put #textbook on a shirt too? 😂😂 #2 word of the year for sure

Calling someone's argument invalid because DEI makes then uncomfortable and that their views are due to bias without any backup to the assertion to come back at a point are a few recent. You haven't resorted to it as frequently or as basely as others, to be fair.

 

[PsyDWannabe]

I also just want to wholeheartedly agree with this here and add something….I went into this thread sort of expecting for it to go the way it went, but still trying hard to present my view in a way that would facilitate some consideration rather than immediate seemingly-blind defense. I tried. I didn’t even expect to convince anyone of anything. I just hoped I could present some food for thought in as non-threatening of a way as possible. But evidently, from the responses I received, unsuccessfully so. 😬

You and I have very different (almost opposite) approaches towards the same goal, and I think what recent conversations have shown is that the approach is irrelevant so anyone trying to make it about the approach is gaslighting and manipulating their way out of whatever it is they’re trying to avoid. Fortunately, I didn’t just start having these conversations yesterday, and the above has played out so often in the real world that I can see it coming in my sleep.

They chastised me for being too zealous and then you came in with a more tempered approach. Yet here we are 🙂

p.s. I highly and strongly admire your approach!!!!!!

 

[PsyDWannabe]

Please enlighten me on my many instances. I’d genuinely like to know.

Side note, can we put #textbook on a shirt too? 😂😂 #2 word of the year for sure

I was already going to add #projection, for the sake of fairness!! We are running out of T-shirt real estate!

 

[Sanman]

As this conversation is devolving I will repeat this thought here. One bias I am seeing a lot of is assuming negative intent of anyone who disagrees with you. That does not need to be the case. Like it or not, people will have different opinions. One of the wonderful things about SDN is that anonymity allows one to be honest with those opinions.

 

[WisNeuro]

As this conversation is devolving I will repeat this thought here. One bias I am seeing a lot of is assuming negative intent of anyone who disagrees with you. That does not need to be the case. Like it or not, people will have different opinions. One of the wonderful things about SDN is that anonymity allows one to be honest with those opinions.

Pssh, you're just saying that because you're white 😉

Also, some of us are not all that anonymous, really. I know more than a handful of people here in real life. When are we doing our SDN conference/bar crawl?

 

[Sanman]

Pssh, you're just saying that because you're white 😉

Also, some of us are not all that anonymous, really. I know more than a handful of people here in real life. When are we doing our SDN conference/bar crawl?

You guys and your elitist hangouts. I hear a bunch you used to get together a few times a year. Some of you even made people interested in hanging out with you interview and pledge servitude for two years. I will have none of it!😉😛

 

[SomeGreatNotion]

I’m reading a lot of congratulatory back-patting posts here. Good job distilling the DEI message promoted by myself and others as “white man is bad”. We all have learned so much.

 

[WisNeuro]

I’m reading a lot of congratulatory back-patting posts here. Good job distilling the DEI message promoted by myself and others as “white man is bad”. We all have learned so much.

I wholeheartedly agree.

 

[SomeGreatNotion]

Is this a public forum or have I stumbled into a friend group chat?

 

[PsyDWannabe]

I’m reading a lot of congratulatory back-patting posts here. Good job distilling the DEI message promoted by myself and others as “white man is bad”. We all have learned so much.

That’s been the refrain throughout. Always been that way. It’s embarrassing, but ultimately sad.

And FYI, it’s not embarrassing because we don’t agree, it’s embarrassing because of the continuous yet thinly veiled intentional misstating of points being made just because folks love trying victimhood on for size lol. I have found that in a lot of cases, there is no one more thirsty for extra ‘victim points’ than those who have never really experienced historical systemic oppression. Folks see marginalized individuals persevering through adversity, and delude themselves into believing that being a member of a marginalized group is all about the perks.

 

[Sanman]

That’s been the refrain throughout. Always been that way. It’s embarrassing, but ultimately sad.

And FYI, it’s not embarrassing because we don’t agree, it’s embarrassing because of the continuous yet thinly veiled intentional misstating of points being made just because folks love trying victimhood on for size lol. I have found that in a lot of cases, there is no one more thirsty for extra ‘victim points’ than those who have never really experienced historical systemic oppression. Folks see marginalized individuals persevering through adversity, and delude themselves into believing that being a member of a marginalized group is all about the perks.

Damn and here I thought all of those times I had racist remarks hurled at me, people get into physical altercations with me, cops follow me home, etc I was facing oppression. Please tell me more about how only people with your point of view have been oppressed.

Not for nothing, the only members of a racial minority group still living that were all unilaterally held against their will are Japanese Americans during WWII. A group not included in DEI initiatives.

 

[PsyDWannabe]

Damn and here I thought all of those times I had racist remarks hurled at me, people get into physical altercations with me, cops follow me home, etc I was facing oppression. Please tell me more about how only people with your point of view have been oppressed.

Not for nothing, the only members of a racial minority group still living that were all unilaterally held against their will are Japanese Americans during WWII. A group not included in DEI initiatives.

I never said you have never faced oppression. I have no idea what exactly you’re responding to. If the shoe didn’t fit you, why did you squeeze your foot into it just to justify an angry response?

 

[Sanman]

I never said you have never faced oppression. I have no idea what exactly you’re responding to. If the shoe didn’t fit you, why did you squeeze your foot into it just to justify an angry response?

You generalized about the group disagreeing with you "trying on victimhood" to get points. I'm not angry. I am pointing out you also have no idea what the people on the other side have experienced. You're making assumptions about their motives.

 

[PsyDWannabe]

You generalized about the group disagreeing with you "trying on victimhood" to get points. I'm not angry. I am pointing out you also have no idea what the people on the other side have experienced. You're making assumptions about their motives.

As opposed to asking each stranger on here for a detailed personal history and then commenting on each one individually? If that was generalizing, then every single poster since the beginning of this thread has been generalizing so I guess that’s already being controlled for. Make sure you tag each person and let them know how you feel, since that’s your preferred approach.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Why do you think that is? This comment touches a cord.

The same reason someone would pull the pin on a hand grenade if you had a rapier to their throat.

 

[Pragma]

That’s been the refrain throughout. Always been that way. It’s embarrassing, but ultimately sad.

And FYI, it’s not embarrassing because we don’t agree, it’s embarrassing because of the continuous yet thinly veiled intentional misstating of points being made just because folks love trying victimhood on for size lol. I have found that in a lot of cases, there is no one more thirsty for extra ‘victim points’ than those who have never really experienced historical systemic oppression. Folks see marginalized individuals persevering through adversity, and delude themselves into believing that being a member of a marginalized group is all about the perks.

Wow, could not be further from the truth.

 

[PsyDWannabe]

Wow, could not be further from the truth.

For you.

 

[Sanman]

As opposed to asking each stranger on here for a detailed personal history and then commenting on each one individually? If that was generalizing, then every single poster since the beginning of this thread has been generalizing so I guess that’s already being controlled for. Make sure you tag each person and let them know how you feel, since that’s your preferred approach.

You don't need to ask all of them. Though you certainly can ask the 3-4 responding you currently. You want others to be sensitive to systemic oppression that those included in DEI face, but you don't want to ask about the adversity faced by the other side? Though I have already mentioned several specific groups overlooked, including one in my last response. If you don't want to concern yourself with the individuals speaking directly to you, how about addressing the issues of those groups?

 

[PsyDWannabe]

You don't need to ask all of them. Though you certainly can ask the 3-4 responding you currently. You want others to be sensitive to systemic oppression that those included in DEI face, but you don't want to about ask about the adversity faced by the other side? Though I have already mentioned several specific groups overlooked, including one in my last response. If you don't want to concern yourself with the individuals speaking directly to you, how about addressing those the issues of those groups?

I honestly have no clue what you’re requesting of me. You want me to speak to the adversity faced by interned Japanese Americans during WW2? Is that a joke or are you being serious?

I am describing my observations about an issue that is much more widespread than this particular online community, as I have stated multiple times. As much as you would prefer whatever you prefer, I have no desire to individually interview strangers on an anonymous forum. If the message did not apply to you, kindly step out of the way so others can do with it as they see fit just like you did. As I have made abundantly clear, I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything, but what I will do is continue to state my opinion.

 

[Sanman]

I honestly have no clue what you’re requesting of me. You want me to speak to the adversity faced by interned Japanese Americans during WW2? Is that a joke or are you being serious?

I am describing my observations about an issue that is much more widespread than this particular online community, as I have stated multiple times. As much as you would prefer whatever you prefer, I have no desire to individually interview strangers on an anonymous forum. If the message did not apply to you, kindly step out of the way so others can do with it as they see fit just like you did. As I have made abundantly clear, I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything, but what I will do is continue to state my opinion.

So your argument is your are right and anyone that does not think you are should step out of the way because you did not mean them, you meant random other people not taking part in the conversation? That makes no sense to me.

I want you to speak to the fact that you are for a policy that specifically discludes some minorities that have also faced adversity in this country. Why should we be for putting some minorities ahead of others?

 

[PsyDWannabe]

You don't need to ask all of them. Though you certainly can ask the 3-4 responding you currently. You want others to be sensitive to systemic oppression that those included in DEI face, but you don't want to ask about the adversity faced by the other side? Though I have already mentioned several specific groups overlooked, including one in my last response. If you don't want to concern yourself with the individuals speaking directly to you, how about addressing the issues of those groups?

And besides (trying to glean as much as I can because I’m still a little confused as to what point you’re trying to make): who has stopped anyone from speaking on their personal experiences with adversity? If you’re refusing to disclose your own experience with adversity because you’re afraid of what people will say or because you don’t want to hear folks response to it, that sounds like a personal problem, and has nothing to do with me or anybody on here. Nobody is censoring you.
Everybody is free to share whatever they want to share, as we’ve all been doing this whole time. If you (or anyone) is waiting for me to ask you before you speak, that is purely nonsensical.

 

[PsyDWannabe]

So your argument is your are right and anyone that does not think you are should step out of the way because you did not mean them, you meant random other people not taking part in the conversation? Yhat makes no sense to me.

I want you to speak to the fact that you are for a policy that specifically discludes some minorities that have also faced adversity in this country. Why should we be for putting some minorities ahead of others?

What policy am I for? What policy are you referencing? Because I feel like I’m getting further and further away from your point. When have I ever said we should put one minority ahead of others (and which minority group would that be)? I specifically said, and I am paraphrasing, ‘progress is often uneven and stepwise, but incremental steps in the right direction across all groups is better than sitting on our hands until somebody magically comes up with a perfect solution to host everyone to the finish line at the same time, because with that approach, the only people benefiting are those who are currently benefiting from the status quo (and who understandably are more passive and lackadaisical in efforts to shift the status quo).

So, once I again I implore you, please direct me to these policies I endorsed that are intended to advance one minority group while keeping the other minority groups down, because you keep referencing it. And don’t forget to specify which minority group I am championing above and beyond the others.