I mostly agree with your assessment, but depending on where you draw the boundaries of "progressive", I'm not even sure the above is true.

There are a profusion of terms and memes all aimed at legitimizing and embracing harm to poor and working-class whites, from the "basket of deplorables" through to "white privilege" (yes, you poor whites, you too--and if you feel offended by the pejorative nature of the term that's "white fragility"--but mind what you say to others because speech is violence). Punching people is bad, even symbolically, but "punching up"--that's cool! And which way is up? Why, the white patriarchy is the ultimate oppressor, which means you can always punch white men, even if they're poor and working-class. If they protest, well, we need to "center the voices of the oppressed" which, no matter how many ways you dice it intersectionally, never seems to include them. If they say something wrong (like "I treat everyone equally; color doesn't matter to me") call them out. If it's not overtly bad, it's even worse: it's a "dog-whistle".

Each individual concept tends to have some validity to it. But as a whole, it forms an almost unassailable rhetorical shield behind which one can act quite badly towards a group of people and spin it like it's virtue.

It's hard not to see such a profusion of justifications for dehumanizing and/or de-centering without suspecting that those speaking and/or agreeing don't recognize that some harm is being done.

I really like Loretta Ross' approach of calling people in, not out: this embodies the principles that progressives are supposed to care about. You can make the critical points--including incredibly damning ones about how society has done very badly for some of its members and there is some broad culpability too. But you can have open conversations about each other's challenges and not erect barriers to compassion and mutual understanding.