You can complain about "the system" to your heart's content, and nobody will ask you to define exactly what you mean by that. Nobody particularly wants to hear your disjointed, rambling, personal definition of "the system," so when you express a desire to fight it, your statement will go unchallenged.
Likewise, claim you're against "social injustice" and nobody will really question you. Oh, they'll be pretty sure you're not referring to our revolving door criminal justice system, or the lopsided nature of interracial violence. Whenever you use that amorphous phrase, most people will assume you're referring, vaguely, to the uneven social distribution of success. But nobody will ever ask you to provide a precise definition.
"White privilege" is a nebulous and mostly fictitious concept which conveniently explains away all differences in accomplishment between the races. (The Left must have wanted another catch-all term beside "racism.") When someone does try to use statistics to prove the concept, as Nicholas Kristof tried to in November 2014, its flimsy nature is exposed. But again, nobody will ever ask exactly you mean by "white privilege," since nobody wants you to continue your harangue. So, use the phrase as often as you like.
The Granddaddy of all hazy concepts, of course, is "racism," that all-encompassing term used to explain so many of society's ills. Nobody ever dares ask exactly what you mean by this, as they'll be too busy scrambling to prove that they themselves are not guilty of this Original Sin.
"Institutional racism" conveniently explains away all differences that can't be shown to be due to any actual racism. Not as many people of color in the physics department? Must be "institutional racism." Luckily, people have been conditioned by now to know that they must not question such a term. Throw it around with impunity."Sexism," racism's spunky little sister, is a hazy concept encompasses so many different things that it, too, is practically indefinable. Does women's liberation mean that feminists want women to be combat soldiers and be at risk of shrapnel shredding their flesh? Or do they want to ban the cracking of off-color jokes in the presence of delicate females? Do they want opportunities for women firefighters who can theoretically hoist someone over their powerful shoulders and carry him to safety? Or do they insist that any consenting woman who has sex was raped if she had one drink? Do they want the right to walk around bare-chested, just like men? Or do they want to criminalize leering at women? That's the utility of imprecise terms: they can refer to anything you want it to.
The "war on women" is an offshoot of sexism. This undeclared war seems to exist only in the overheated imaginations of liberals who see only evil in their political opponents. (It's just a pity that all warfare can't be conducted so bloodlessly.) But it's such a vague, inchoate war that even the battlefields remain shrouded in mist. (When examined closely, it actually appears to be more of a war on Republicans, as in, the best defense is a good offense.)
"Homophobia." I wrote about how misleading this word is here. (A phobia is when you have an unreasoning fear of something, not a mild revulsion for it.) But, of course, by classifying this revulsion as a "phobia," you are implying that those who feel it are somehow mentally ill. If you can define any opposition to your program as stemming from insanity, you're one step ahead.
"Diversity." The wonderful thing about this concept is that it is so, um, diverse: who can argue with such an amorphous notion? But are American students' high school experiences really all that diverse? And once in college, do people of different races really sit around and, in a spirit of friendship and mutual understanding, share their backgrounds and stories with receptive audiences of other races? Or do they just take their courses, play sports, drink, and look for sex the way most college students do?
"Cultural appropriation." Sometimes, just using eight and thirteen letter words will do the trick: you'll sound as if you're talking about something substantial. So what if the concept is a one way street? It sounds good, and that's what counts. (Anyway, aren't all liberal memes pretty much one-sided?)
"Raising awareness." Certainly, increased knowledge about our various problems can't be bad. And very few people are rude enough (like this blogger) to ask if the heightened awareness is actually doing any good. That would be a little like inquiring of someone who had participated in a 10k Race for the Cure, "Well? Did you cure it?"
After looking closely at the way these issues are phrased in such all-encompassing and sometimes misleadingly worded ways, one can't help but come to the conclusion that that is by design.
Having such unclear, hazy, ill-defined concepts comes straight from Obfuscation 101. Just remember, there is only one reason to ever obfuscate: because the plain, unvarnished truth will not pass muster.