Kant has a point worth acknowledging about the function of lying with respect to truth telling. He points out that in order for a lie to work the way its speaker intends, most people have to be telling the truth most of the time.* This is sometimes expressed by saying that lies are parasitic upon truth. Habermas will talk about strategic discourse (i.e. telling you what it takes in order to elicit certain outcomes I prefer) and how it makes use of communicative discourse (i.e. telling you true things for the sake of clear and accurate communication). Strategic discourse (parallel to, but not exactly equivalent to lying) depends on communicative discourse, but the reverse is not the case. If there's something I don't like about "the wokism" it's this: It 

One of my problems with the current fad of “specifying one’s pronouns” is that it simply does not use language correctly. Phrases such as “my pronouns” or “I use XYZ pronouns” don’t mean what folks seem to think those phrases mean. First, pronouns are part of a language, and as such, do not belong to you or anyone else. They are not like a name. This is part of 

When I first encountered the term “anti-racism” I assumed, as I was meant to assume, that it referred to something used to oppose or combat racism -- much the way antibacterial soap is meant to kill bacteria or anti-itch cream is meant to cure itching. It has since become clear that the “anti” in anti-racism functions much more like anti-clockwise or antimatter. If the hands of the clock start spinning anti-clockwise, they still go round the clock. We use “antimatter” to refer to another kind of matter -- made of antiparticles, each of which has a counterpart in ordinary matter. In this sense, the prefix “anti-” means something like “as seen through a perverse mirror.”

It seems to me that prefix of “Anti-racism” -- like that of “anti-fascism” is meant in this sense.