Hey Mia, this discussion needs to be simplified I think, in order for us to find common ground and consensus. So let me work through some of these points.

Marginalised people have ben cancelled for centuries by the majority doesn't make any sense historically As a general rule, throughout history a minority of exceptionally powerful and selected people have held power and influence, and the vast majority of people remain powerless. This is the basis of Marxism and has nothing to do with minorities. The majority eventually overthrow the powerful minority usually in a violent revolution. See Russia 1917, France 1791 etc.

The game of identity politics conflates Marxist theory of power imbalance with various 'isms' - and this conflation is problematic. A minority is not, in and of itself, powerless. Not every POC is in a worse economic or social position than every white person.... so whilst there are definitely economic imbalances and systemic problems, those are not insurmountable. You have people like Tim Scott in the Senate as a Republican.

Now that doesn't mean that there aren't problems, because there absolutely are - but rather that those problems cannot be solved by identity politics as a weapon. Whilst it might feel like society is moving forward, viewed objectively that does not seem to be the case. Each echo chamber is getting louder and more self righteous about their particular ism, but the dialogue and discourse needed at a democratic level to enact change isn't happening. Everybody simply backs into their own corner and comes out swinging. Feeling oppressed and being oppressed are different things entirely and there is growing overlap between the two. Asserting that you feel oppressed is now enough to stymie discussion - that's problematic for Libertarians like me.

I believe that people should be allowed to do and say what they like provided that it doesn't cause harm to other people. The left is running away and merging the concept of 'harm' with 'offence' - nobody ever died of being offended.

The JK Rowling issue is a good example of this in action. She speaks on behalf of an oppressed group (women) but on behalf of an oppressive group (white women) against an oppressed group (transwomen). She believes she is entitled to do this because in her mind they are biolgically men (an oppressive group to white women) but in the mind of transwomen they are a particularly niche oppressed group. I happen to think JK Rowling is wrong - but that doesn't matter, what matters is that a discussion happens. That discussion is lost, the nuances were lost a long time ago. Interesting voices and perspectives were drowned out in a cacophonous yelling of insults from both sides. What good did it do?

The same thing happened with the Coopers in Central Park. It was a white woman (feeling oppressed) who called the police on a black man, and got cancelled. So what happened? Do you think that improved the lot of white women or black men? Or did everyone just split off into teams and begin hurling insults? In a different universe, someone called a restorative justice conference and got the two of them to sit and discuss what happened. Someone got them to speak as individuals rather than as tokenistic placeholders for their ideological factions. In that conversation they (and by extension us) may have learned a lot about what it means to be different in a pluralistic society. Instead, identity poltiics and it's hybridisation of marxism just pits us all as enemies of each other. Something that leads everybody vulnerable to right wing strong man governemnts. We're going to stupid ourselves into a dictatorship and not see how we did it.