I thought this offered a rather interesting perspective I haven't seen before.
The part of this that really blew me away is how hard it was to listen to the article without putting the author in one of two boxes: 1) On MY side of the issue 2) An enemy of MY side No matter what he's talking about (from persecution to John Green) I was always trying to either say "I hate this because it endorses what I hate!" or say "I love this because it endorses what I love!" but the piece only allows either mode for a moment or two before reminding you that it's talking about feeling like you have to think that way.
Any article that begins with a "content warning" is immediately suspicious in my eyes. The first paragraph unfortunately confirmed my suspicions. The fact that most millionaires and senators are white doesn't prove that white men persecute anyone they don't like, or even that most whites are rich and powerful; so this isn't even an "apex fallacy", it's a non-sequitur. On the other hand, the preponderance of leftist ideologues in universities and the media would actually seem to support what he defines as the anti-social-justice narrative.The social justice narrative describes a political-economic elite dominated by white males persecuting anybody who doesn’t fit into their culture, like blacks, women, and gays. The anti-social-justice narrative describes an intellectual-cultural elite dominated by social justice activists persecuting anybody who doesn’t fit into their culture, like men, theists, and conservatives. Both are relatively plausible; Congress and millionaires are 80% – 90% white; journalists and the Ivy League are 80% – 90% leftist.
It's worth reading further – he doesn't really support one side or the other (see for example: "there are a lot of social justice arguments I really hate"), and more considers the psychology of both sides.