(1) Dismantling the system, in a context that does not ruthlessly advocate self-criticism, testing of measures as they're introduced on a trial basis, and building on the shoulders of giants instead of trying to create new giants from scratch [note: all NOT part of critical theories!], means to me a disaster. Well-intentioned measures will be enacted where people intuit what seems right to them, fail to think through the consequences, and shame everyone who thinks through the consequences more thoroughly and voices them. Then people will suffer the unpleasant consequences, which will be blamed nebulously on oppression not the ill-chosen measures.

For instance, the CRT approach of hyperfocus on race has been adopted and slightly preceded the rise, not decline, in hate crimes, overt racism, increased racial tensions, increased anxiety, and increased psychological fragility. The latter is all a predictable consequence given human psychology and the approach taken.

(2) We shouldn't fear living in a less oppressive society. We should fear living in a more oppressive society caused by people who say they want, but do not know how to actually deliver, a less oppressive society.

There are many instances of historical precedent where the road to hell was paved with good intentions, as they say. Critical theories have little to offer beyond good intention.

You can witness the failures of the French Revolution or the Communist Revolution in most countries, for instance, as cases where intention was inadequate. China suffered immensely because of their Communist Revolution, but they're also a case study in the value of incrementalism: rather than having another revolution, they worked their way back up incrementally from where they were (impoverished, with bad agricultural policy and gutted political and educational institutions), creating "Communism with Chinese Characteristics" which is basically "a politically authoritarian, but otherwise quite similar, alternative to modern social democracy".

I don't doubt the goal. I doubt the ability to get there with the methods proposed.

When Trump outlines real problems and says, "I alone can fix it!" I don't doubt that, for instance, crime is a problem. What I doubt is that he can fix it. I doubt that his attempts at a fix, assuming he even tries, won't cause more problems than they solve.

If someone says, "I'm going to solve poverty by giving everyone A BILLION DOLLARS!!!! What's wrong with SOLVING POVERTY????" what you doubt is that the approach will make things better rather than worse, not that solving poverty is an admirable goal.

Anyway, the reason I said so much about you not following Pluralus' arguments is because you were not following what he said. You were talking past him more and more with each post because you were apparently imagining what you thought he was going to say instead of reading what he actually did say.