It's not that liberals are ridiculed for focusing too much on race, but that they are ridiculed for going too far with solutions. In a piece for Politico, a centrist mainstream news outlet, Ibram X Kendi, director of the Antiracist Research & Policy Center at American University, did suggest creating a federal department of formally trained experts on racism (which he defines anything that results in racial inequity) with discipline (IE- fines and jail-time) and investigatory power.
https://www.politico.com/interactive...nal-amendment/
The goal post is not about whether we should shut about race (a different discussion and I don't think we should) bit just whether a policy suggestion is a good one.
What specifically have I said that you object to?
In the current argument I'm asking how someone knows about the effects a hearing has had on voters. I've offered no opinion of the matter, because I do not know the answer.
I'm asking about their current comments, rather than my impression of them from years of interactions, so it's nothing personal.
One way I look at things in political discussions is that I don't care about what side I'm on with a particular issue. The important thing is the facts on the specific item.
There's a different approach where the main thing is whether you're on the right side, even if your rationale for doing so is incorrect. This tribalism represents a problem in politics, just because it leads to people being wrong without any consequences (even minor ones like correction and admonishment) and to ignorance about the details or the tradeoffs if even considering the downsides of an idea or different opinions puts you on the "wrong" side.