Indeed. Activists find responsibility to be their kryptonite, so they avoid it like a plague.

During the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom on August 28, 1963, in his famous speech I have a Dream, American civil rights activist Martin Luther King Jr., said: “I have a dream that one day little black boys and girls will be holding hands with little white boys and girls.” I agree with that statement fully. And yet looking at what I see today, I can't stop thinking that poor Martin is spinning in his grave.

..............................................

“Racial stereotyping. For Martin Luther King, Jr., and other civil rights leaders, the sin of white racism was stereotyping all black people as inferior. It was a prejudice to be sure, but it was predicated on the assumption that all blacks were the same. King objected to stereotyping because he wanted blacks to be treated as individuals and not reduced exclusively to their racial identity (hence the meaning of his famous statement about the content of one's character taking precedence over the color of one's skin).

The postmodern left turns the civil rights model on its head. It embraces racial stereotyping - racial identity by any other name - and reverses it, transforming it into something positive, provided the pecking order of power is kept in place. In the new moral scheme of racial identities, black inferiority is replaced by white culpability, rendering the entire white race, with few exceptions, collectively guilty of racial oppression. The switch is justified through the logic of racial justice, but that does not change the fact that people are being defined by their racial characteristic. Racism is viewed as structural, so it is permissible to use overtly positive discrimination (i.e., affirmative action) to reorder society."

― Kim R. Holmes, The Closing of the Liberal Mind: The New Illiberalism's Assault on Freedom

.................................................

“...obscurantist feature in social scientists trying to combine pluralism with environmentalism. They are so preoccupied with the role of prejudice in creating hostile environments that they perpetually deny the obvious, that stereotypes are rough generalizations about groups derived from long-term observation.

Such generalizations are usually correct in describing group tendencies and in predicting certain collective actions, even if they do not adequately account for differences among individuals. Nonetheless, as Goldberg explains, the self-described pluralist and prominent psychologist Gordon Allport went out of his way in The Nature of Prejudice (1954) to reject stereotypes as factually inaccurate as well as socially harmful.

For Allport and a great many other social Scientists, nothing is intuitively correct unless it is politically so.”

― Paul Edward Gottfried, After Liberalism: Mass Democracy in the Managerial State

Off course people who have prejudice against prejudice, are simply unrealistic, if not downright stupid. Stereotypes evolved and stayed as part of human evolutionary journey because they were more constructive than destructive. But it takes a lefty to take mechanism for benefit of cognitive economy, deeply ingrained in all of us and turn it into political weapon. Specific prejudices can be put to the test, but prejudice itself cannot, because it has its useful and at this point, critically useful function in human society. Way before term political correctness was invented.

@Krunoslav Racism is of little consequence until it is a collectivized weapon, especially a collectivized weapon wielded and backed by law. Laws are not to be made to apply to groups but to individuals. Applying them to a collective invites division, partisanship, privilege, graft, race and class preference and all manner of injustice. BLM cannot be held accountable, this is true. They, and other identities, defined as victims, are granted special privilege and exemption from responsibility. It is a Marxist tool to erode cohesion of the extant socio/political structure and create the socialist state.

@FrankZeleniuk Yes. It started in the French Revolution and its a plague of the people's state.

Besides nationalism, the people’s state stimulates yet another kind of belligerent, avaricious, and collectivist spirit: what Karl Marx called “class consciousness.” In Revolutionary France, just as nationalism drove foreign international warfare, class consciousness drove domestic class warfare.

In political theory and particularly Marxism, class consciousness is the set of beliefs that a person holds regarding their social class or economic rank in society, the structure of their class, and their class interests. According to Karl Marx, it is an awareness that is key to sparking a revolution that would "create a dictatorship of the proletariat, transforming it from a wage-earning, property-less mass into the ruling class"

Off course Marxism is so adaptable, anyone can cast themselves as the proletariat and accuse others as bourgeoisie.

“The further Fascism receded into history and the fewer visible fascists there were on display, the more self-proclaimed anti-fascists needed fascism to retain any semblance of political virtue or purpose. It proved politically useful to describe as fascist people who were not Fascists , just as it proved politically useful to describe as racist people who were not racists.” ― Douglas Murray, The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam

“In Italy, Fascists divide themselves into two categories: Fascists and Anti-Fascists.”
— Ennio Flaiano

Or in America there are Fascists and Antifa.

Off course racism could not work in say Japan or China, because its all one nation of same color skin, so they would apply fascism accusations to get their class struggle.

Indeed. To lefties truth is toxic, as much as lie is to sane people.

Sadly our population flocks to pasture of stupidity. A new world order in trying to progress and many many are becoming programmable sheeple.