the Motte-and-Bailey maneuver the "antiracist" theorists have pulled on credulous liberals regarding the idea of "denying objectivity" is truly something to behold.

these poor saps think they've agreed with the totally reasonable position that, 'yeah, at some level, everyone is inherently subjective,' (Motte)

when in reality they've signed themselves onto an ahistorical program of cultural relativism & reactionary nonsense that pretends all cultures across time are equal, and therefore the oral tradition has just as much use in modern life as basic literacy and numeracy (Bailey)

In some cultures they love their neighbor; in some, they eat their neighbor. one of these is objectively better than the other. I'm happy to tell you which it is, but the "antiracist" position pretends to disallow such judgments

It's not that they simply deny objectivity, which would be more than enough to render their project intellectually inert. Kendi explicitly writes in 'How to Be an Antiracist' that in order to be an "antiracist," you have to be a cultural relativist.

If antiracists hold that all cultures are equal, meaning that only racists apply their own subjective standards onto others, then the self-declared antiracist has precluded himself from saying that modern American cultural tolerance is superior to that of the Jim Crow South

this is rank stupidity assuming incorrectly that it has stumbled upon some sophisticated cultural understanding.

for, if you deny objectivity, then on what basis can you even claim that racism itself is something to be opposed??

One of Time Magazine's 100 Most Influential People of 2020, ladies and gents!