What's your argument against social justice?
Here's something that looks like a decent overview: https://www.tsowell.com/spquestc.html
I have some critiques of what you've linked; I don't put much stock in the "I turned out fine" school of thought, for one. But it was an interesting read.
Striving for the "impossible" is something we do all the time, as hackers. It seems to me like the disagreement is not over whether one can achieve an impossible standard of justice, but rather, over what is impossible.
(You know your movement has a image problem when even Barack Obama is stepping up and criticizing "woke" people: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50239261)
I get your point about Obama. But he asked his audience to recognize that people have flaws - not to ignore them.
You can use that logic to justify _absolutely anything_.
The extremes are there because people performing them actually like performing them. They do it because performing the extremes gives them status and power over others -- sometimes real, sometimes imaginary. They do it because it costs very little and it feels good and it can sometimes bring completely outsized rewards (career, uni degrees, money, fame, etc.).
It was true when people added names to Sulla's proscription lists in 81 BC. It was true when people reported their neighbours as 'kulaks' in 1930. It is true now because nothing really changes under the sun.
Source?
The best example is the atheist community that was about atheism. Some people "hijacked" that community and pushed for "atheism +", where now it was no longer enough to be atheist, you had to also be an intersectional feminist, pro-LGBT+,anti-racist, anti-islamophobia... not that it is a bad thing but it has absolutely nothing to do with atheism. So "atheism +" gatherings ended up talking about anything but atheism itself, since it had now to talk about representation of women, LGBT+, minorities in conferences.
edit: