> What does it mean to live under an ideal? Since "class migration" is so difficult, what is this meritocracy getting us that's relevant here? Why would we act within the context of something that we don't actually have?

What it means is that the narrative we tell ourselves is that society rewards hard work, no matter who you are. This is _prima facie_ not reality. But narrative is powerful at defining our sense of self. As such, a culture that sees itself as a meritocracy, whether it is or not, may not see that there _are_ systemic issues preventing the ideal from being reality. It is the whole "Americans all see themselves are temporarily disgraced millionaires" or some variation on that theme.

> Could you go more into that? I only know of intersectionality as an analytical framework, I'm not sure what it would look like for a culture to express it. But maybe you're talking about something else.

Academic analytical frameworks make their way from the academy into the the governments and corporations that define our social condition. What it looks like in society is the belief that a) "otherness" is additive and b) people internalize the belief that "otherness" is an inexorable aspect of oneself and thus will never allow them to succeed.

It also informs our language in how we discuss these things. Lantix being a term that a vast majority of hispanics do not accept or even want. BIPOC being a term that attempts to be inclusive but inadvertently groups many disparate peoples into a single monolith, when their challenges and cultural are not monolithic. These terms did originate in the academy and they do inform the conversation we have around Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (another term from the academy)

> The idea the “elites” need to make rules and laws to “protect” the non-elites

I said _rules_ and laws. We do have rules, corporations make rules about what can be said on social media. Yes, some of these are very important, some of them may be overreach. But what can't be argued is that there are rules being developed with the intent of protecting specific individuals and groups.

> Treacherously close to the good old "the ones talking about racism are the real racists!" don't you think? I'm not trying to attribute that intention to you, but predicting that attempting to address an inequality will actually make it worse is a classic rationalism-lite technique to dismiss legitimate calls for change. If something is wrong it should stop; lack of a validated better alternative is not itself a good enough reason to resist its change.

Nope, not at all. I _never_ stated or even implied that we shouldn't talk about racism. I am not rejecting calls for change. I am not saying that the rules and mores we put in place are necessarily destructive. What I _am_ saying is that much like the narrative of "the USA is purely meritocratic" informs our view of self and thus how we express ourselves, the idea that "the USA is fundamentally, systemically and intrinsically racist, sexist, homophobic or transphobic, and being in one of those groups means you will always be 'other'" can inform an internalization of that belief which can server as a means to reenforce the flaws in our society.

I 100% believe that things that are wrong should be fixed. I believe that where systemic racism does exist it needs to be removed. In some cases, like the Voting Rights Act (which was disappointedly repealed), this is done via _de jure_ laws. It can also be done through a (albeit more slowly) concerted effort to change opinions via education, outreach and normalization. For an example of this, I am very confident that, given the same Supreme Court balance as it was at the time Obergefell was decided, the decision would have gone the other way if adjudicated in 2000 or 1995. By the time Obergefell was decided gay marriage was supported by an even or majority of Americans, that was not the case in the early 2000s. This was accomplished via many slow things, such as increasing number of people being "out" and thus humanizing the discussion for those who had never been exposed to the concepts. Another example that I hope to see is that abortions continue to be legal, but becomes generally un-needed via the introduction of more comprehensive and reality-based sex education, access to quality health-care and access to effective birth control in a confidential manner. If the Republicans had focused on _preventing the need_ for abortions vs. trying to legislate abortion, I am confident abortion rates would have fallen faster than they already have.

Anyway, the whole point of that above paragraph is that there are many ways to address unfairness, racism etc. in our world and country. We should be aware of these approaches as well as the unintended consequences that come along with those approaches. To continue the abortion thought process, I have heard it said and read (though I do not necessarily agree) that if the Democratic Party had a place for anti-abortion voices within the party that the GOP would have a hard time winning many elections. This based on the idea that abortion is a single-issue issue for many voters, and the absolutist view of both parties results in many people who would otherwise vote democrat (due to economic policies, healthcare policies etc.) end up supporting the GOP candidate.

I appreciate you not trying to attribute intention to me, or anyone, in online debates. The "assume best intention" perspective really does make room for more healthy debate without descending into chaos and tribalism.