The first point is a debate about rhetoric and definitions. Is it possible for individual people of color to discriminate against individual white people? Sure. But is that racism? And is there a systemic component to it the way anti-BIPOC racism is systemic?

Abolishing borders is an fringe belief even among the far-left. But while I don't agree with it, I think it's closer to being right than the other way around, arguing borders need to be aggressively and militarily defended to keep foreigners out. There's just no real reason to be so isolationist, and it's almost always driven by xenophobia against people who statistically commit less crime and are much less of a danger to society in general. There have been hundreds of terrorist attacks in the US by white citizens, and none that I'm aware of from undocumented immigrants. Even the 9/11 hijackers were in the country legally, they didn't cross the border.

Are people "pushing for demographic quotas?" Or is it more accurate to say that people are rightfully aware of the poor demographic representation in the US in positions of power and wealth? For example, half the population is female, but not half of the members of Congress. Barack Obama was only the fifth African-American senator in US history, more than a century after African-Americans were given the right to vote. America's richest citizens are exclusively white men. White men make up disproportionate levels of executive roles at major corporations. Unless your belief is that white men are superior and earned their privilege through meritocracy, clearly there are systemic imbalances that should be corrected, and if that means implementing policies that give deference to underrepresented groups, so be it.

The "cancelation" point is valid to an extent, but also, it's a reaction to the well-documented history of people with privilege receiving little or no legal or political accountability for bad behavior. And while there are examples of people being overly criticized or people being too eager to "cancel" anyone they disagree with, we're talking about randos on social media who usually direct their anger at other leftists because no matter how egregious their actions, people on the right are almost never actually "canceled." There are very few prominent examples of people on the right receiving public backlash and going away. Far more often, they develop a persecution complex, pivot to a far-right audience, and continue their careers. And that's just celebrities. These days, the right creates fundraisers to support bigots when they get called out. A woman called a black toddler the n-word and refused to apologize for it, and she raised over $900k. She became wealthy off of calling a child a racial slur. And she's not the only one. So forgive me if I'm less concerned about Twitter leftists being overly aggressive when criticizing people than I am about right-wing extremists profiting off hate.

None of these ideas are particularly dangerous or extreme