Oh it was patently clear your discomfort was rooted far more in the fact that you are not comfortable acknowledging any passive relative benefit you experience as a white male in North America than it was rooted in concern that such a term somehow "harms" the advancement of social justice concerns. It's an irony that I used as an example in that discussion the differential levels of treatment, suspicion and force directed by police at black individuals just a matter of weeks before the Ferguson fiasco and you'd spent all that time denying that there's any use or meaningful purpose in recognizing these discrepancies.
Frankly though you're welcome to spit and hiss about how much you hate Critical Race Theory, it's pretty clear that you simply don't get that race is a daily reality for many people, but what's worse, you persist in that ignorance by declaring yourself some kind of arbiter of how others should view experiences you have never and will never have.
The only intellectual framework that can lead to the end of racism is one that acknowledges that it offers zero benefit for anyone including white males; that racism is not even a zero-sum game, but a negative-sum game. That's an intellectual claim, one you might try refuting if you actually engaged with it instead of waving it away as the product of some kind of short-sighted fear.
I dismiss Critical Theory, of race, of gender, and of any other sort because it
neglects the mutual disadvantage of such a phenomenon, and indeed implies there is an advantage to racism for white people, an advantage to sexism for males. What do you suppose would happen if critical theory actually fooled white people into believing this? Or fooled men into believing it? As I once pointed out to a "radical feminist separatist lesbian" 20 years ago when Critical ideas were already old and stupid; If you convince me that the patriarchy is real
and truly in my interest, why should I or any man oppose it?
The great part is the alternative to that nonsense isn't
nothing, but a return to the earlier focus on human rights and equality that is represented by everything from Martin Luther King jr. to the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, a whole body of thought from the middle of the century that pointed out how advances in equality for anyone
provided concrete advantages for everyone in society, a mode of thought that pointed out while inequality was a negative-sum game, equality was positive for all.
I'm not limited in any way by your misplaced imaginings about my motivations; the irony is that you are, and because of it you can't even consider anything outside your own intellectual niche. Even the marxists have demolished it, which is setting the bar pretty low; I shared a video to that effect which you declined to watch while repeating your own empty platitudes.
Contrary to what you pretend about me above, I don't object to anyone recounting their personal experience; any understanding of our progress on questions of inequality needs to be informed by those personal histories in the aggregate. But no discussion like that ever limits itself to a person's experience alone; it always extends to the broader implications, and in particular to discussions about the
relative experiences of people of different ethnicities, or people of different genders. Since I have an ethnicity and since I have a gender, I am 100% qualified, perfectly qualified, to join in that discussion despite your preference that I be excluded on account of my ethnicity and gender, or at least that I should be some kind of passive sycophantic receptacle for your theories. No thanks.
