>> It's not harmless if it's confused with politics.
>>
> Can you explain the harm?
1. It takes a lot of time, money, and effort from well-intentioned people that could be put to better use. 2. It leads people to bring the weird, cultish outlook expressed in the text I quoted to whatever actual progressive politics they do engage in, reducing the appeal of that politics. 3. By framing every harm as a racist harm, it gives those who don't see themselves as victims of racism the impression that they have no interest at stake in the issue.
> (assuming this site is representative of anti-racism and not say Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, or Charles Brown).
Why Sharpton or Jackson? If I understand correctly, the cutting-edge definition of anti-racism is now anything that fights the perpetuation of racial disparities. Since 95% of the things progressives fight against perpetuate racial disparities, that would mean practically all progressive groups/leaders/institutions are "anti-racist." This would include Dissent Magazine, Michael Pollan-type food critics, the Economic Policy Institute, anti-smoking campaigners, etc.
In your view, is there any difference between anti-racism and plain progressive/left politics? Can you explain the difference?
SA