Wholly untrue. Inequality happens for a whole mess of reasons, including individual ability and interest, it's just not exclusive to that either.
> The belief that the fix for that perceived oppression is itself oppression, but the other way around.
We're probably going to disagree on the definition of oppression, but no, there should is no need for "reverse oppression", unfortunately, I can't control how people feel about aid fixes, but I think everyone should be able to pursue opportunity equally.
> The origin in the academic/(pseudo-)intellectual sphere. Communist revolutionaries claimed to speak for the working classes but didn't come from the working classes. Instead they were men of words, with their primary output being books, pamphlets and violence. Thus opposition to communism was sometimes identified as "anti-intellectual", because the arguments for communism sounded clever, whereas the complaints against it didn't.
This is taken too far in the other direction where I have to accept every single "DE&I Bad" Argument so as not to seem elitist. This is a complex issue and there are plenty of good arguments on both sides, the original article just didn't attempt to make them.
4. The use of the term "reactionary" to describe its enemies
"In Marxist terminology, reactionary is a pejorative adjective denoting people whose ideas might appear to be socialist, but, in their opinion, contain elements of feudalism, capitalism, nationalism, fascism or other characteristics of the ruling class, including usage between conflicting factions of Marxist movements."
Wow, that is way more involved than I meant it to be. If forgot reactionary was a loaded term, I just meant it to mean that his argument was in reaction to "wokeism" and wasn't independent of that. See item 3.
