Decades of secular conservative, libertarian, reactionary, reasonable, humane responses to the insane evil of primary antiracism have been utterly futile.
Logical analysis, humane reason, appeals to decency and moderation, appeals to national or personal self-interest, satire and mockery, attempts to usurp antiracism with other secular Left ideals such as compassion, alleviation of suffering, equality... all utterly ineffectual.
After all this, antiracist witch-hunts are more frequent and more severe than ever before.
Any of us who have had to deal with anti-racist arguments know how it works- the discussion, normally, is about something else- I don't know about you, but I am not going to have a discussion about whether or not I am racist- and suddenly your interlocutor is accusing you of thought crime.
Well, Charlton has been known to accuse Christian of thought crime too: Hard hearts and literalism in Christianity - using Christianity as a transcendental justification for hatred.
It's a long post, but in the comments he points to one of the things going on here:
(Leaving aside Mormons); there is a gleeful viciousness in the way that mainstream Christians refer to some self-identified Christians in smaller or newer churches as 'cults', and utterly reject their status as Christians. I regard this attitude as self-refuting.
Guess why my comment are no longer there?
Because I provoked the exact sort of attack the anti-racists pull on us from Charlton himself. I didn't do it on purpose because I thought he was smarter than they are- I still think he is smarter than they are, but I accidentally proved to myself my own point.
How did I do it?
First I pointed out how we very likely need to start calling out the idiots and not be particularly afraid of offending people, which I followed up by suggesting that if we can clean house, Christianity could be the bulwark against stupidity. Charlton picked up on my statement about cleaning house and said I have it exactly backwards.
So I illuminated my point by pointing out to him that if Trinitarians suddenly ceased to make distinctions between themselves and Mormons, it may well be a fortunate thing for him personally, but it would be a further sign of societal decline. Additionally, I pointed out the early church was full of contentious argument, even depressingly so to our minds, but those arguments served as a forge for something that has lasted until now, however damaged she may be.
Charlton responded by asking if I was for Christians persecuting and killing Christians, and some additional unkind words about me quite likely not being a Christian- all things, of course, that anti-racists, progressives, etc... say.
So I pointed that out to him and he's gone and yanked the entire exchange out.
Pity. This is why we can't have nice things. The progressive virus infects everyone who could be my ally. I have caused feelbads, and Charlton behaved in classic social justice warrior fashion. Charlton's religion appears to be highly ineffective against this destructive force. Of course, everyone's religion currently seems to be ineffective against this force, because most of the idiots in charge appear to think it is a Christian idea.
So if I had to guess it would take deposing an awful lot of people and sticking around long past normal human aging limits until there was a generation able to think again, and who were more or less accustomed to honing their ideas. David Snowden is a management consultant I found on youtube- in one of his videos he introduces the concept of 'ritualized criticism'- essentially he suggests organizations should have some ritual via which much needed criticism could be delivered without the individual taking it personally. This is desperately needed all over the place- probably even in kindergarten- and is very obvious in committee meetings. You simply cannot come up with good plans if you don't have someone capable of poking holes in whatever it is you dream up first, and this is precisely the problem with antiracism in the first place. The 'black lives matter' utter a truism, but call for policies that will make things worse, because they always make these issues about racism and not about the principles of governance.
One last point- some of the arguments that I have found most compelling on the internet were arguments that, at least initially, made me feel bad, uncertain, or like I had vertigo. It doesn't happen much anymore, and it may have be a transient thing, like pushing through the looking glass, and now there's not much chance of it. This is why I think being willing to risk offense in the name of truth is probably a good thing. In any case, trying to go out of our way to not offend has failed miserably. Feeling offended may be a prelude to learning, for all we know.