@ech They're all just subsets of the crusade for "civil rights", so you can use that term for lack of a better one.
Doesn't matter how many labels the right corrupts, it still just boils down to trying to make sure everyone gets a fair shot in life and isn't unduly burdened by the state because of the circumstances of their birth.
@LouisIngenthron Further: I think this philosophy sort of took off in part because the civil rights movement and associated "colorblind" laws don't seem to have worked all that well – we still have lots of disparate outcomes. This way of thinking is sort of trying to make sense of why "civil rights" aren't enough.
@ech Nonsense. MLK espoused CRT. None of this is new; there were just bigger priorities back then. It's the continuation of the same work from before.
@ech I think my main point is, the true path to civil rights is incremental, and what you're describing is simply the increment we need to deal with next.
@LouisIngenthron Sure; that's the idea of it. But what do we call this particular phase, or "increment" as you put it?
@ech Well, we can't call it anything if we let the right co-opt every term. So, as far as I'm concerned, the terms you listed (CRT, woke, SJW) are still valid.
@LouisIngenthron Yeah, maybe you're right. Kind of a shell game otherwise, I guess.
Yeah there's no sense in ceding vocabulary to right wingers that want to twist everything.
@LouisIngenthron Yeah, like I said the ideas aren't new, for sure. I do not mean to imply that nobody had these ideas before the civil rights movement; I don't think I said anything to indicate that!
(CRT wasn't named when MLK was around; I'm well aware that the question of how much MLK's work aligns with CRT workers is the subject of vigorous debate. I think my point remains either way.)
@LouisIngenthron It's not just that, though – it's also the other things I mentioned. Activists that are very different from the thing I'm describing are also fighting for "civil rights".