But we're not talking about protected classes. They did not take "extreme measures."

We're talking about large institutions adopting policies to shield themselves from potential lawsuits from protected classes.

> "extreme measures."

What is this [0] then?

[0] https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/can-job-postings-in-can...

They do censor research on the opposite of their viewpoint, though. Which further reinforces their impression that they are right. We’re back to 1590 in terms of civilizational evolution.

I don't think that's a good explanation. The vast majority of people behind such initiatives don't come from underprivileged or victimized backgrounds.

It's more about this idea of being an advocate for the downtrodden - a good person fighting the racists on behalf of those without a voice. And because you're fighting the good fight, it's of course OK to make the oppressors uncomfortable or to bully them into submission.

Depending on your priors, this is either messed up, or it's messed up not to act and accept the status quo. Pick your poison, I guess.

The anti-racist's burden, so to speak

I mean, that sword cuts both ways. If you just decide that the other side of the aisle is comprised of monsters, why stop at making them uncomfortable or bullying them? Why not persecute them further? And why would they not do the same to you, if given the opportunity? It all just seems so vicious and wrong headed. We conceived of tolerance in order to allow for discourse and the above perspective seems so stupid regressive.

C.S. Lewis wrote it sharper than I ever could:

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”