1. Thread on progressive political language. Many terms and phrases in political discourse have at least two meanings. This makes it difficult to debate and combat noxious movements because they deviously use phrases such as "social justice" that sound intrinsically desirable.

2. Here, I will look at "Black Live Matter," "Diversity," "Systemic Racism," "Social Justice," and "Affirmative Action." Each of these terms sounds good, but is used to forward an agenda that is dubious at best.

3. We've all become familiar with the phrase "black lives matter" in the last several years. And more recently, many corporations, including the Amazon, have promoted the phrase/movement. One's first reaction might be, "Of course black lives matter!"

4. And indeed they do. But this is why we need to distinguish between "Black Lives Matter" and "black lives matter." Black Lives Matter is a political and ideological movement that is dedicated to many progressive and quasi-Marxist ideas.

5. For example, according to a BLM website, BLM works hard to "dismantle cisgender privilege" and to "disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure" and to free people of the "tight grip of heteronormative thinking."

6. The BLM movement is thus quite radical and antithetical to conservative values. It also fails to take seriously the way disparities in crime lead to disparities in policing. Of course, the police deserve careful scrutiny. But they also deserve fairness.

7. I don't see an attempt at fairness from BLM. Now, that is different from "black lives matter," which is, of course, 100% true and absolutely important. Black lives literally matter. All lives do. Now, what does Amazon mean when they proclaim that "Black Lives Matter"?

8. They'd probably say that they mean literally that black lives matter. Who could be against that?? But, that gives corporate support to Black Lives Matter. Notice, too, how hard it is to say, "I don't like Black Lives Matter." It sounds like saying "Let's kill puppies."

9. One phrase, at least two meanings. The one is used to bludgeon opponents. The other is used to forward a fairly radical political agenda. Be careful therefore about these barbs that line the path of any debate about BLM.

What about "diversity"?

10. Diversity sounds good. We all like different kinds of foods, opinions, music, films, et cetera. Who could be opposed to diversity? But in practice, diversity often refers exclusively to "skin pigment diversity" (racial diversity).

11. This is why most of those who praise diversity consider a room with 20 white people from all over the world and with all different beliefs less diverse than a room with 10 white people and 10 black people from New York who share similar beliefs and IQs.

12. Diversity, thus, is usually a rhetorical weapon to defend racial preference, not a real commitment to diversity. It's a trojan horse for affirmative action. But it sounds good, noble, morally laudable. How, after all, could anybody possibly oppose diversity?

13. "Systemic Racism" sounds awful, of course. A society rife with systemic racism must be horribly unfair. So what is systemic racism? According to the president if the NAACP, it is "systems and structures that have procedures or processes that disadvantages African Americans."

14. This sounds bad. We should fight systems or structures that hurt blacks. But in practice, systemic racism is used to describe any disparate outcome that disadvantages *only* blacks, even if the system or process that leads to it is entirely impartial and fair.

15. Disparities in wealth and crime and STEM field participation, for example, are all used as evidence of systemic racism. But NBA participation isn't. Nor are the disparities that favor Asians over whites. Thus systemic racism is a selectively applied term.

16. Systemic racism provides no causal mechanism. It is a theory of mystery. It appeals to outcomes and ignores possible differences in behavior.

How can one argue against this will-o'-the-wisp, this phantom that disappears once you try to touch it?

17. "Social Justice" sounds morally righteous. We should all fight for social justice. But in practice, social justice has come to mean "All group differences in outcome will be obliterated." That's not real social justice. It's a kind of cultural/demographic Marxism.

18. There are may reasons groups have different outcomes. And no society has ever been composed of groups that achieved perfect equality. The only way to create such sameness is through an intolerable abridgment of freedom. Which is what radical progressivism ends up promoting.

19. But then advocates of radical progressivism say, "We're promoting social justice." Colleges now proclaim the same. But they don't mean free markets, equal treatment under the law, individualism, et cetera. Rather, they mean this ideologically saturated notion of justice.

20. "Affirmative action" is doubly misleading. First, it sounds like a good thing. It is "affirmative" and it is "action." Who could be against taking affirmative action!? Few take the name seriously anymore. We know a bit better. But are still seriously misled about it.

21. Many of my progressive friends have said, for example, "well, if it's a tie, then it should go to the minority." That seems reasonable. After all, the U.S. has sinned against different minority groups. But the tie argument is based on a completely erroneous premise.

22. In the real world, affirmative action gives *enormous* advantages to African Americans, large advantages to hispanics, and it disadvantages both whites and Asians. Affirmative action is quite literally a racist policy that prefers certain demographic groups over others.

23. A professor of mine at FSU once said that she thought that opposing affirmative action was, in itself, racist. It's not hard to see why. People are absolutely clueless about the real policy and the enormity of the advantages some groups get over others.

24. People can support radical progressivism. But they should be honest about what these terms mean. And if you are going to debate them, then remember to make the "in practice" meanings front and center. Don't get bludgeoned by the rhetorically convenient meanings.

25. You can oppose Black Lives Matter while strongly support black lives matter. You can promote diversity while resisting affirmative action. And you can promote social justice without supporting a kind of cultural leveling that strives to create equal outcomes for all.