I introduce some philosophical concepts (the is-ought problem and the notion of thick concepts) to illustrate why you cannot remove morals from political debate, why avoiding words like "racist" because they are "inherently alienating" is an unproductive exercise, and why explicitly appealing to values helps facilitate political discussion and communication.
I lay out how property is an engine of inequality in society, and why property ownership, tax law, and inheritance law are critical to fighting inequality and oppression in society.
The benefits of intersectionality I put forward are more apparent when given math analogies. Set intersection provides an easy reminder that choosing both is a wise idea. Conceptualizing oppression as a multidimensional space discourages Oppression Olympics. Intersectional analyses are good/responsible practice in the same way that checking for and reporting significant interactions is in statistical analysis.
Intersectionality is a fairly recent buzzword in the social justice left that is often accused of being divisive and the root of puritan perfectionism. I argue why intersectionality is (1) the opposite of those things, at least in my experience, and (2) necessary for making the world a better place.
I talk about what Nice Guy Syndrome is, the faulty mental model I think causes it, and how that faulty thinking is reinforced by fairly commonplace and uncriticized portrayals of romance.
Dealing with criticism is hard. I give some tips drawn from my life experience for dealing with criticism gracefully without feeling bitter and resentful at the person dishing it out.
Identity politics seems intuitive but has very different meanings depending on the person using it. People exploit intuitive notions of "identity" or the ambiguity of "identity politics" in order to manipulate people. I advise caution both when you see people criticizing "identity politics" AND when you see people defending it.