But a conservative worldview contributes nothing to the expiration of these oppressive societal attitudes.
I’ll have to take the opposite side of that argument.
To a conservative, social policy is always secondary to economic policy; or perhaps better to say that we view them as different sides of the same coin; the best way to solve the problems of an oppressed group is to make sure there are plenty of good paying jobs for them, is one way of looking at it.
Since the best economic environment is one where all economic actors play on a level playing field without regard to sex, gender, race, religion, whatever……. conservative social commentators fervently hope that oppressive societal attitudes remove themselves organically from the economy as rapidly as possible, with as little legal and regulatory intervention as possible. (A goal which is not always achievable, obviously.)
Thus, it is unsurprising when a conservative commentator downplays the scope of an existing oppressive societal attitude, because deep down inside, we’re all hoping everyone will “get over them” so we can move on to a more prosperous economic future. :-)
But, this is difficult when the political counterpoint is “identity politics”, because the last thing an “identity politician” wants to do is solve one of those social problems; their political future depends on the social problem getting worse, not better.
Hence the counterpoint between right and left, these days.
Hence, such a limitation does exist, but it did not come to pass yet, and Crowder does not advocate a utopian societal liberation and equality which would allow it to expire.
Hm. Well, I really don’t know what all that means, since a lack of “oppressive societal attitudes” certainly does not lead to a utopia. But, certainly if we could get people to just see everyone else as PEOPLE, and not some member of a “group” which we do or do not approve of, we’d be in a much better place than we are today. I suspect that is KIND OF what Crowder’s position on the matter is.