Discussions that could be so useful, if only certain pitfalls were avoided.

That we could talk about deeper values, methodologies, what actual transformations take place. Instead it is always the same representation of a walled institutional narrative which proclaims as though it has never spoken before. These narratives always miss the mark of conducting themselves in the locale of greatest interest, and that could be forgiven if only it wasn't shutting down other inquiry. In the case of motifs, which are perhaps too deeply embedded in the human experience to be considered "mere motif" (disambiguate) -it is not enuogh to simply say that something is unjust or that something which happened in one's ancestry was injust. This is a neverending game, no matter where it is played. So for the reasons we need to examine why and how these particular pursuits are coming into being, the mechanism, the rationale, at a more semantically complete level, and then deliberate over the values being proposed.
Instead, we get a relegated assumption that people's experiences are different on the basis of an arbitrary characteristic, while also pretending experiences to otherwise be equal in other circumstances. Relegating us, inevitably, into groups which facilitate a move towards what one might call a set of interesting names, all of which bearin notoriety in the disregard for human life -> Both in mortal measure, and also in conception. Nevertheless, we are kept from making such dinstinctins, and instead we create unnecessary conflict in bad taste, and with some expense. So, if there is a high resource requirement for proper conduct, and a high risk of insufficient conduct, then it becomes an irrational pursuit. The proposition is so distasteful that even describing it and its challenges seems like an undesirable and irrational endeavour.

How to rectify this?
Is this to be rectified?
Why? For What?