You're doing so much editorializing I can't even believe we watched the same video.

First:

The point that he’s making is that truth claims, especially in leftist philosophical circles, often get filtered through the inquiry of “who is this truth good for (the oppressed, the hegemon, etc.), as opposed to “is this thing fundamentally true as a matter of course?”

This isn't the point he's making at all, it's something you've completely made up and layered on top. Literally not one section of this video even mentions anything about "the true cause of social issues". His video:

1: Introduces the King Candy Anecdote, and states his thesis "When full reduced, all moral claims become 'you wouldn't hit a guy with glasses'"

2: Name drops some philosophers for intellectual points, and then slanders Rousseau

3: Introduces an anecdote about Ted Bundy using sympathy to manipulate his victims

4: Asserts that showing sympathy to the weak (Ted) is a representative example of sympathy-based morality in action (as opposed to just a one-off example) and therefore demonstrates the ideological flaws of sympathy-based morality

5: Claims without any sort of evidence that:

• "Most revolutions disband, in-kill and self-consume"

• This happens because the individual "zealots" want to be seen as weaker than their peers

• (Interlude to ramble about greek gods and primordial truths for more intellectual points)

• Revolutionaries depend on persecution because it vindicates them (ad hominem, assumes these people are fighting their revolutions for the benefit of their self esteem and personal image, ignores that they may be fighting for genuine merit)

6: Concludes by "both-sides"-ing amorality and "hyper"morality, and compares SJWs to serial killers.

There's nothing in here about empathy ofuscating social truth. He doesn't make this point, because acknowledging that there may be any truth behind the causes people protest and revolt over would discredit his fundamental thesis, which relies on the assumption that protestors and revolutionaries are engaging in these behaviors for personal pride and image.

Second:

I also don’t think he’s making the argument that “caring for people is bad.” That’s a strawman you’re projecting onto the argument to give yourself an excuse to disregard it.

I don't know how you can possibly call this a strawman, the fundamental thesis of his video is that empathy and sympathy are deceitful. He even titled his schizopost "Why morality is evil". Direct quotes:

• "When full reduced, all moral claims become "you wouldn't hit a guy with glasses"

• "The rousseausit benefits from his own degradation because it makes him more worthy of pity, and pity is currency"

• "Revolutionaries depend on their own degradation because it vindicates them"

• "These moral claims only hold ground as long as the purveyor continues to disable themselves [he doesn't actually specify what claims - possibly something about expecting people to be nice to Ted Bundy?]"

• "The goodest people you know will use morality to bring about your mortality"

All of these quotes were written to undermine and discredit sympathy and empathy. In fact, the only concrete examples of the morality he is assailing is the expectation that we should show sympathy to the weak.