Read on Twitter
It’s easy to dunk on this kind of thing, but there’s a real point here: unrelenting competition in every aspect of life produces a large number of people who lose out, men and women, across race. They will not all meekly accept that, and you will not like how they respond.
Many disappear into drugs and the slow decay of irrelevant NEETdom. Others throw themselves into the role of entry-level junior assistant vice coordinator for the desperate attempt to build new Rules to make life make sense again (with themselves on top.) https://mobile.twitter.com/TheAgeofShoddy/status/1292234381981970433
At a time when “disruption” is regarded as a common good by power and influence, most still lack the capacity to compensate for constant disorder, threat, and treatment as unfashionable goods in the market. Somehow it must be restated that life is not a fungible commodity.
Beneath all of this is a deep truth which we have run very far from, but cannot escape: we are something specific. We have needs and require structure in which to fulfill them, or else we go mad. We are not suited to zero-sum social competition any more than we are to a vacuum.
What we do next to fix this is a different discussion. But this present state of affairs is not a durable settlement; it is a failure whose scope becomes more and more clear as more and more people are drawn into it.
Addendum: the answer to the question posed here is related. Why argue identities over ideas? Because identities are the rare aspect of present life which, theoretically, formally, offers a chance to escape from the prison of endless competition. https://mobile.twitter.com/thomaschattwill/status/1292561805034901504
In practice this almost never works out of course, but at least in theory if you are due something because of who you are, and who you are is in part a product of choice, then if you can mate those two ideas then you have the right to define a competition-free sphere of life.
