Some of those Xes, Ys, and Zs are actually good points and it's good the people who were talking about it all along have a voice now. Just because some people, usually not those actually affected, go overboard or talk over the people they're trying to help doesn't invalidate the concerns.

It's actually good that, now, I understand the big ol generic "Indian" with a war bonnet painted in the school gym when I was a kid was a misrepresentation and misuse of sacred, hard-earned symbols. It's good that I know whose land those pipelines cut across now. It's good that I understand spirit animals are a sacred, private thing, not something to bandy about or declare for every fleeting interest on Twitter. It's good that I know naming certain evils is kind of a jerk move to do in a crowd of people who believe in them.

I, nor you, have an obligation to honor or respect anyone's beliefs. We have the limited rights to dismiss, criticize, adopt, etc any belief/creed/etc. The limits are prohibiting or restricting others, including original inventors of belief , from doing same except in support of 2nd limitation. Which is, doing harm.

Many want that to be absolute no harm. I strongly disagree that "hurt feelings" and "uncomfortableness" are worthy levels of harm.

Society continues to debate this.

If people had respected the right of people to practice and believe as they wish, there would be no problem, but now their cultures are in tatters after centuries of violence and forced reeducation, and they're trying to protect what's left. The current situation is the result of people not believing what you said, in the past or present.

You speak in abstract terms of rights and privileges. This is the actual, real situation. There are real human consequences to treating endangered indigenous cultures as something to repackage and transform for the benefit of people outside those cultures.

Keep that in mind as you debate abstract ideas with "society," whatever that is.

You say those things are “good”, but you offer no evidence of why. How does chastising people for having a “spirit animal” on Twitter help the indigenous people?

No one said anything about chastising people on Twitter except you.

You’re literally chastising here:

> It's good that I understand spirit animals are a sacred, private thing, not something to bandy about or declare for every fleeting interest on Twitter.

Goodness is orthogonal to liberalism. Something can be illiberal but good or Liberal but bad.