> Unless you mean that the attempts to make people feel worthless are done on the basis of immutable things

Yes, I do mean that. If you are white or a male you are told to "check your privilege", and that you "are not allowed to speak about issues". (Is a white male allowed to have an opinion about abortion? Ask yourself what you think, and ask others as well, and that will help you understand.)

Go watch some campus talks and see how bad it gets. Or just read this: https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/24/politics/march-for-our-lives-...

Notice the narrative that the white students don't matter unless they deprecate themself? It's framed in an inclusive way of course ("they include others"), but the subtext is quite obvious.

And that's a CNN article, the real world is much worse.

The pendulum is swinging, and instead of making everyone important, now those who were marginalized before are gaining status by marginalizing others.

The point of my sentence you quoted was more in the part that said

> but are done in response to "not towing the line"

Like, your previous comment was about "towing the line" and I was asking about the connection between the "immutable properties" thing mentioned in the original comment I responded to, and the "towing the line" that you mentioned.

I wasn't asking "are people speaking against other people's immutable properties?" (which seems to be the question you responded to).

I was asking, "By talking about 'towing the line' when the context was 'immutable properties', did you mean that the treatment based on 'immutable properties' is targeted at those who don't 'tow the line'? If not, what is your meaning in bringing up 'towing the line' in the context of people speaking against others' 'immutable properties'?".

I am not trying to make a point about who is or is not treated badly. I'm trying to clear up what was meant to be communicated.

That's why I linked to that story. If you have an undesirable immutable property (i.e. white or male), then you have to toe the line by deprecating yourself. But if you are a minority then you are not required to do that, you are accepted simply because you are assumed to always be oppressed.

> https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/24/politics/march-for-our-lives-...

That's rather heartwarming; they clearly intuitively understand solidarity. It's not like someone is holding a gun to their heads and making them do it.

Why is it famed as a "privilege" and race issue then? They can only be inclusive if the other person is a minority?

Arithmetically, the majority has to be the group that includes the minority, surely?

More seriously, all those kids recognise that news coverage and politics applies very different bias to young white people and young nonwhite people, and they're refusing to accept that and keep pointing it out.

I think thats a distinction without a difference. Even if things like political positions, worldview, way of live, and religion aren't (completely) biological they aren't just opinions that people can change at the drop of a hat. E.g. (genuine) political beliefs aren't something someone explicitly chooses, they are based on their beliefs, experience, and background. In addition, whether a trait is immutable or not is irrelevant to whether or not its ok to hate a person for it for it.