There are some interesting ideas in what you wrote, but unfortunately, the whole comment is written in a mindkilling way. Yeah, that's probably your point, so... uhm...

he clearly understands the dynamics of racial privilege, the concept of minstrelsy, and how those relate to contemporary social justice struggles in macro and micro (American belly dancers), but seemingly none of the people he is communicating with do.

Well, one way to deal with people who don't understand what you are trying to tell them, is to explain. It's not the only way -- for example, you could also also bully them into submission -- but it is the way that most LW readers probably prefer. So, if this cause is so important to you, what don't you write an article here, explaining what Arthur Chu gets and we don't? And by explaining, I mean... explaining.

If Less Wrong had been around in the 1820's it would have supported slavery.

More likely, it would discourage object-level debates about slavery (both for and against), so that Americans from both North and South could debate about something else: rationality, etc.

By the way, libertarians are not exactly supporters of the status quo. (By which I am not suggesting that libertarians are most frequent here; but this is what LW is frequently accused of.)

When discussing existing oppressive social structures such as patriarchy, white supremacy, colonialism, and capitalism, attempting to dispassionately argue causes this phenomenon at best, and at worst actively silences the people victimized by such structures.

How about other oppressive social structures?

Let me give you an example. Every time I go to a LW meetup to nearby Vienna, I cross a line that 25 years ago would get me killed. And I usually remind myself about the fact, and how happy I am to be able to go to Vienna like no big deal, when so many people got killed for trying.

There is a memorial to all those killed people, on a border between Slovakia and Austria. I happen to visit it about once in a month; not for political reasons, it just happens to be on my favorite walking path in nature. You know, countries usually protect their borders to prevent other people from getting in. But socialist countries protected their borders to prevent people from running away. In socialism, people were considered property of their country. When they tried to escape their masters, that was a similar kind of crime as when a black person tried to run away from their master. And if they succeeded to run away, their families were punished instead. To legally leave the socialist country, e.g. on a vacation, you had to leave hostages at home. It happened when I was a child; in happened in a place I still live. The second most frequent cause of death on borders of socialist countries were allegedly the suicides of soldiers who couldn't bear anymore the moral burden of having to kill all those innocent people.

So, according to your arguments, what exactly it is that I am supposed to do about it? How exactly am I supposed to react to you? From my point of view, you are a blind and evil person. Should I scream "Freedom!", try to accuse you of random bad things, say you should be banned from LW, say that LW is a horrible website if it does not ban you immediately? Should I even use lies to support my case, because the most important thing is to win, and to destroy all those murderous socialism-sympathisers? Because otherwise I am dishonoring the memory of the millions who were tortured and murdered in the name of... things you defend, kind of. Is that the right thing to do?

The thing is, I understand this is not how it "feels from inside" to you. Which makes things a lot more complicated. Welcome in the real world, where the good things are not achieved by sorting people into the "good" ones and the "evil" ones, and then attacking the "evil" ones by whetever means available.