"Privilege" + "Equity": A Dangerous Combination?

So I've complained a lot about the progressive conception of "privilege" a lot. It's not that I think it doesn't make sense, it's rather that it (like other progressive concepts) isn't very good, and it's used in an overly-expansive way. It's certainly not the best concept in the vicinity. Better are discrimination (in the negative sense (not the neutral sense) and (dis)advantage. Progressives do continue to use the concept injustice--though that's a whole big thing in itself. 

   One big problem with emphasizing "privilege" is actually that it makes certain problems seem less serious than they are. Cops hassling people on account of their race is more discrimination and injustice than lack of "privilege." Another major problem is that a "privilege" differential can be fixed by taking away the "privilege." But cops unreasonably hassling more whites doesn't solve any problem. 

   But now consider "equity"--i.e. equality of outcomes. Also consider the many moves we see to promote "equity" by making things worse for "privileged" groups--e.g. eliminating advanced placement classes...

   Well, you see where I'm going with this. The emphasis on "privilege" + the emphasis on "equity" can be seen as the source / justification of the view that we can make things better by making things worse--i.e. by eliminating good things that generate or participate in "disparate impact." E.g. AP classes. 

   This is a stupid and dangerous development, rationalized by stupid and dangerous ideas.

   Well, disparate impact also ended up in there. That's a stupid and dangerous idea in itself. 

   One of the worst developments on the left has been the elevation of unequal outcomes from cause for concern to proof positive of unjust discrimination. In fact, an unequal outcome is usually nothing more than the basis for an abductive guess that there might be unjust discrimination. But when you add in the idea that there are no innate group differences among races and the sexes...well, then you get to this crazy place pretty quickly.

   None of this is that hard to figure out. Hence one of my main meta-complaints: that we're running headlong into a dark and crazy place because the left has so successfully shut down criticism in polite society. Conservatives are screaming bloody murder--in their own venues. And polite society ignores those venues. But the left has taken over mainstream discussions almost completely. And it's implemented the rule that all criticism of progressivism is racist. Thus even the most obvious objections are shouted down--or never voiced at all. 

   And, again: that's really the centerpiece of our illiberal left: political correctness--the subordination of evidence / reason / truth / fact (you can put the point several different ways) to leftist political dogma. Without political correctness--and its adjunct, "cancel culture"--none of this madness ever breaks out of the extreme, lunatic left. It's no coincidence that an utterly daft, obviously insane political totalitarianism has political correctness and punishment of dissent at its core.

   Of course most people I know don't believe all this stuff is that dangerous / don't believe it will last. But I think that's in part because they underestimate the power of moralizing epistemology. Not: in the ordinary way of seeing epistemology as normative and whatnot. Rather: by turning rational questioning into a sin. My own view is that that's largely how Christianity became wildly successful. If you can make people shut down their critical faculties (such as they are) because they think criticism is a sin...well.. I'll end with: seems like it's been a pretty effective tactic so far... It's kinda like an immune system for a a system of beliefs.