Thanks for engaging thoughtfully with my comments! I don't think I have any more to add; I was hoping you'd think about that perspective and you did.

Regarding zero tolerance, I'm not sure people understand the term the same way. Overall the term has been used to justify a lot of harsh and often ineffective action on the basis of very little evidence (think zero-tolerance drug policies).

Let me give an example for why I think it's the wrong type of concept to use.

Suppose some white guy (cis/het etc. etc.--let's give him all the privilege categories to make him as unsympathetic as possible) is responsible for communicating a complex topic to people, one on one. Maybe he's a genetic counselor and has to explain risk factors.

So, he starts off talking to each person the same way. But by asking questions and hearing the responses, he can sometimes get an idea when someone is not following.

The problem is, his black male clients disproportionately don't have the background they need to understand what he's talking about. So even though he adjusts somewhat, he still doesn't serve his black male clients that well. That's racist! Zero tolerance policy, he's out.

Okay, so reboot. He understands the demographics of his black male clients, so he uses a simplified approach to begin with with black male clients. His well-educated black male clients feel like they're being talked down to. That's racist! Zero tolerance policy, he's out.

Okay, okay, reboot again. He understands the demographics of his black male clients, but doesn't want to stereotype anyone, so he starts with the standard approach but when black male clients seem to be having trouble understanding, he switches more readily to a simplified approach. Unfortunately, some well-educated black male clients still end up being talked down to, because he's over-eager to switch to the easier-but-less-accurate methods for explaining the topic. That's racist! Zero tolerance policy, he's out.

So really, the answer if you're the guy with all the privileges is: don't be in a job where you have to deal with black people in a case where there's a systematic demographic difference. You can't win. Just quit and get some other job. Now the genetic counseling service has under-staffed their offices where they get a lot of black male clients. That's racist! Zero tolerance policy, the company's out (loses its contract to provide services).

Wait, wait, no, that's not what they do! The company shifts non-white ("only white people can be racist") employees who are willing to do the job to that office. Now when you look at the company as a whole, on average the white counselors get all the cushy easy jobs in the affluent predominantly white areas. That's racist! Zero tolerance policy, the company's out.

The issue with "zero tolerance" is that it very easily provokes no-win situations like the above.

This is also part of the reason why the world is going backwards (to an extent) with racism! "Zero tolerance" means that as a practical matter there's not much more pushback against really-bad-racism than against a-whiff-of-possible-racism. So people stop trying, and stop hiding the bad stuff. It's all the same anyway. But it isn't the same!

Instead, one needs to think about the degree of injustice in a particular situation, and also the rate of false positive and false negative errors (assuming racism where no exists vs. missing racism where it does exist).