Given that the "culture war" is, at a baseline, profoundly negative for everyone in all ways (fragments society, decreases trust of others and critical institutions, etc. etc.), anything that feeds the flames of the war had better be accomplishing a reasonable amount in order to not be net negative. That is, pick your battles, because battles are destructive.

So I don't agree that a difficult-to-swallow-style is a net positive. When we're choking on social changes already, and basically need the Heimlich maneuver, adding more difficult-to-swallow stuff is not helpful because it gives yet another perspective that might reach a few people; it's dangerous because it provokes reflexive opposition in far more people than it does to solve anything.

So whether intentional or unwitting, I can only view content like Robert's--like much of social justice advocacy, sadly--as self-benefiting positioning amongst his tribe (however that is construed), where he buys social credit within the tribe by damaging overall social cohesion and working against a practical feeling of common humanity. And probably making worse the very problems he's talking about, because he drives away the reachable instead of reaching the reachable and encouraging them to mitigate problematic behaviors and attitudes.

I don't fault him for trying--that is laudable!--but I think the approach is highly ill-advised given the audience available on Medium.