> the assumption that 'viewpoint diversity' is either valuable or worth cultivating on all subjects, this is not true.

Ah yes. It shouldn’t even be legal for people to question your viewpoint. Because when has discussion ever been a valuable thing? Or when has a political fashion ever turned out to be sorely wrong, and new viewpoints were needed? Wait, I remember a few times - but I’m sure that this time is going to be different.

Also, “fragile white boys”? This kind of ad hominem makes you sound like a raging ideologue.

You argued that we shouldn't always have viewpoint diversity. If you don't have viewpoint diversity you have viewpoint monoculture. There is no way this is going to happen short of enforcing it legally (even then there is going to be dissent, so you would rather need something like brainwash, which should already tell you everything about whether this is a good idea, really.)

> I have never seen _anyone_ other than a frightened white male use the term 'virtue signalling'

I think this statement is fairly telling regarding the degree to which you seem to interpret everything through your particular political lens. Together with your use of "conventional" almost as if it were an insult, and talk of "sides"/the KKK/"losing" it's like you think you're part of some revolution. I would seriously consider whether that's true.

Do you not see the irony in labeling people who politely disagree with you "members of the KKK"? Or are you just trolling?

> I will not bother to discuss racial theories with... KKK

why? there are persons who do this and have success. if you are desiring for to stop racist you must start with most racist, no? https://www.theguardian.com/music/2020/mar/18/daryl-davis-bl...