This reminds me a little of the Monty Python skit about the man who pays to have someone argue with him, but fails to get a satisfactory response.

I think it's fine to hold any argument to the standards of logic, reason, consistency, etc. (although these standards will only go so far in promoting efficient discourse; a persuasive argument must also have heart).

But it doesn't seem rational to expect an individual, group, or movement to eschew any semblance of inconsistency, paradox, self-contradiction, hypocrisy, etc. Any argument logically contains its own counter-argument.

The anti-racism agendas are inherently complex. They are messy. (Pro-racism discussions, on the other hand, tend to be simple--to the point of being simplistic.) If we wait for the perfect statement before we move forward, we will always be marching in place.