I definitely believe that some modern activists go a bit too far. So much so, that the more extreme “activist” enact a different form of oppression. Fighting extremism with more extremism leads to Crusades, Jihads, and Spanish Inquisitions. Not to say that is what will happen here, but to point out that it probably will only lead to an extreme and possibly violent end.
What see here is a possible presumption that social activist do not advocate/support homeless and racial inequality. It seems as if you’re saying they only care about racial inequality which they see as more of a problem than homelessness. On top of that, the way you stated the point that the homeless don’t read Karl Marx or partake in highly educated discussions is also presumptuous, granted it is logical to think that the majority of our homeless have not received a higher education.
The deeper problem with this point though, is it seems to hint at the fact homeless people have greater things to worry about than higher education. That is merely trivializing higher education and I find it as a counterpoint that not caring about a higher education could be the exact reason one is in their situation of homelessness. How do you know that they don’t long for a higher education and that if given the oppurtunity to expand their knowledge that they also wouldn’t come to an educated decision to become activist for racial and financial inequality?
The issue could simply be, that they know they don’t have much if any of a chance to receiving a higher education and taking those chances takes time and focus away from their more urgent need to survive. That in no way negates higher education or supports any claim of activist or their beliefs not being valid or of no importance.
We all have are problems and someone will most likely have it worse than us, but that does not make any of our problems magically disappear or make our issues have no importance. Don’t speak vapid whiny drivel “oh! Everyone hates me and no one likes my business ideas, so I am going to bitch about it until my business idea is liked by everyone!” If you do this, you do nothing beneficial for society when you speak.
You can complain, but make it constructive which includes all the valid reasons why you feel something is wrong and why it needs to be changed, but most of all you must try to throwout ideas for a solution. If you aren’t thinking of solutions to solve your problem then why should you expect others to solve them for you?
There are plenty of activist who uselessly whine, but there are plenty of educated activist who have valid arguments and present actual solutions for problems in our country. This “PC” thing is real old from both sides. If someone disagrees with you, but brings forth a valid argument why with logical reasons then they aren’t “PC” and by negating their claims to be “PC” you are the offended one who is being “triggered” by someones free speech.
If their only argument is because it offends them and supported by nothing more than their opinions then yes they have no valid arguement and are just speaking “PC” drivel.
Each person is an individual case. Recognize what is valid logical reasoning and what arguments are worthless, vapid, and fallacious logic. Don’t generalize people and do not trivialize education if you want to present a strong case for something. That weakened your case by a lot. Regardless, I still take many of your points into consideration and do see some valid arguments here.