There's more to the story with this dialogue. The medium became the message, as our respective approaches applied our convictions. It was hard getting Kevin to dialogue because of the progressive sensitivities in question. As I said in the message that followed when Kevin shut down the dialogue:

"Regarding your closing remarks, it seems to me you're adopting the role of referee rather than debater in these dialogues. Instead of just debating the issues, such as explaining why there's no infantilization in progressive circles, you often flag the fact that certain language offends you. Even you should appreciate that that detached mode is consistent with my thesis. When social justice advocates focus on such superficialities, rather than tackling the genuine hard challenges that remain, that could be a case of posing to cover up the hypocrisy that all consumers face (including me). I'm not saying this applies specifically to you. I'm talking about a culture here, and I'm not engaging in ad hominem or mere name-calling since I'm explaining how this corruption happened. If I'm mistaken about that development of liberalism, you'd have to show as much rather than just noting that you don't like the language I'm using. The language is either justified or not, and the dialogue's purpose is to establish what readers should think about that. Readers are the referees, not you or me."

So we didn't get a chance to address more specifics. (I raised the issue of African American rights towards the end.) But the problem from my perspective is that Kevin is too sensitive to trivialities, such as the use of labels. As I said in the dialogue, the underlying issue here is the difference between modern and postmodern liberalism. Modern liberalism emphasizes freedom of speech as an individual's right. The postmodern kind dispenses with individualism as a myth and sees us all as being trapped in social games, and this cynical elevation of sophistry and performative helplessness skew modern values.