He spends 4500+ words talking about how bad wokism is (mostly complaining about how some people are complaining about language), and all of maybe 100 words acknowledging racism, and even then uses some of those to say it isn't as bad as the woke think. If you were writing an essay opposing a solution to a problem you really believed to be a terrible problem, wouldn't you take a little more time on why the solution was counter-productive, and maybe offer some alternatives?
Clearly our views don’t align but I also don’t think anyone is ducking an issue. Racism is wrong but perhaps “wokism” makes it to be a lot worse of a problem than it really is. The article was not a history of racism or how to solve it. If anyone is moving the goal post it’s you. I will accept that we probably cannot come to terms but happy to discuss.
My point was that if you knew nothing about racism or wokism, you'd conclude from the article that wokism was a huge problem and racism a relatively minor one. Which may or may not be PG's actual opinion, but that's the clear impression that the article makes.
I personally find it preposterous that language policing by universities and social media sites (and virtually all of his criticism is about that aspect of wokism, and not affirmative action) is somehow worse than systematically jailing millions of people and denying them economic opportunities out of bigotry. But even if you think it is, the article doesn't even attempt to make that case. He just notes in a throwaway line that "Racism, for example, is a genuine problem. Not a problem on the scale that the woke believe it to be, but a genuine one." (Emphasis mine.) And that's about it on how bad racism is vs how bad woke is.
