>because the silent majority are cowards

I think part of it is because the language that those ideas are built on is intentionally very slippery. If you aren't extremely careful with how you word things, you wind up sounding like you're denying factual historical events.

John McWhorter is the only voice I've heard so far who can reveal the swiss-cheese nature of the set of beliefs contained by the term 'CRT', and do so in the very language of the educated class that espouses CRT.

Which Critical Race Theory?

The narrow legal sense which is all about bias built into the system by layers of subversively racist laws?

The Left political grift version which encourages performative virtue signaling instead of enacting actual change.

The traditional grift version used to sell trainings where white people are told all evil is the fault of their whiteness?

The Right political grift version which uses the worse excess of the above grift version to quietly silence pr forestall actual change.

The social movement that acknowledges with (purposely?) bad language that the system is rigged, and needs to be fixed.

This is what frustrates the debates because literally there are no shared definitions.

It is in the interests of the political left AND the political right that the definition never become crystal clear, they both profit off the confusion.

I think this is true about a lot of current orthodoxy. Most people know something stupid when they see it, but few want to stick their neck out so they just go along with it. Ths greatest enemy of freedom is apathy