This kind of joke is becoming popular on the left, and I think it's because on a subconscious level they know they're all just using social justice as an excuse to create theories they can tactically deploy to grab the upper hand in social situations.
Whenever they don't get what they want they invoke social justice discourses (feminism, Critical Race Theory, BLM, decolonization, etc) as a way to get the moral leverage they need to get the upper hand in whatever interaction they are having
And they do this constantly in interpersonal interactions and personal relationships, where they invoke social justice jargon in order to grab moral authority within the conversation so they can get what they want.
The biggest problem with letting illegal immigrants stay is that it is unjust. Why does nobody make this simple point?
It is unjust to ask immigrants who come legally to work for years to become citizens while letting those who enter illegally to be rewarded with citizenship.
When there is a set clear of fair rules for how immigration is to be done in a in orderly fashion, it is unjust to allow illegal immigrants to break the rules, skip to the front of the line, and then be rewarded with visas or citizenship just because left wing activists demand it
It is unjust to allow illegal immigrants to be rewarded for breaking the law and skipping to the front of the line. It doesn't matter if you feel empathy for the person doing the law breaking and the line skipping - it is unjust to reward that person with residency in the country
Leftists are having a tough time with Venezuelans celebtrating Maduro's arrest and the persians overthrowing Irans Islamic regime, because it means the people are rejecting both the communist and islamic halves of the leftists new islamo-communist/third world marxist coalition.
The left wanted to harnass the energy around the palestinian issue and use it to advance western marxism. So, they created an alliance between western marxist activists and Islamic fundamentalists/Hamas supporters using third-world marxism and postcolonial theory as the bridge.
They thought by getting the popular support of global south "subaltern" third-world groups, along with the support of the Islamic world, they would have a coalition big enough the challenge the United States, and which they would control by virtue of having organized it.
1/ The National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) created a DEI program focused on:
-Power, privilege, and oppression
-Understanding microaggressions
-Centering Native Voices in Atmospheric Sciences
-Knowledge that "does not come from science"
2/ The NCAR had two programs. The first was called UNIEON (which stands for "UCAR/NCAR Equity and Inclusion program"), and the second was a program they funded called "rising voices," which was about bringing "indigenous knowledge" into science.
And it's funded by tax dollars.
3/ The goal of the DEI program (UNIEON) was to bring DEI into the NCAR, and then get the participants to start implementing the DEI ideology via "Bystander intervention." That is, it invites people to insert themselves into other peoples social interactions in order to spread DEI
1/ If you want to understand influencer behavior, read Former WWE executive Eric Bischoffs' book "Controversy Creates Cash" about the inner workings of pro wrestling.
He said controversial things, regardless of morality, generates attention, creates buzz, and sells tickets.
2/ The title of the book comes from a chapter where he discussed bringing in Dennis Rodman for an event because Rodman was controversial and "controversy creates cash." Much of what is happening online, including the Charlie Kirk conspiracies, is driven by exactly this dynamic.
3/ While there is certainly more to it (parasocial relationships with influencers, foreign influencers, etc) one of the major factors that incentivizes outlandish claims and conspiracy theorizing is that the controversy generates attention, creates buzz, and drives engagement.
1/ There's a genre of woke-posting where they state their views as if they were talking to toddlers as a way of making their views look obvious (even kids get it!), grabbing moral authority (I'm the teacher!), and leveraging condescension to imply their opponents are beneath them
2/ These women are not actually trying to explain anything, the explanation is just a front for their condescending tone. The real goal is to "put you in your place" by treating you like a toddler so they can grab the social high-ground in the conversation
3/ The reason they do this is because by adopting the posture of a kindergarten teach it forces you fight through layers of snark, sarcasm, and condescending tone while being put in the social position of a child talking to a teacher.