Just for a quick recap, let me sum up Paul's argument.
Cultural marxism is when someone says that there exist people on Earth who are being oppressed on the basis of economic "class", religion, or immutable attributes like gender, sexuality, race etc. He claims this is a bad thing because it is divisive, unproductive, socially corrosive and destructive.
But when it is shown
that right-wing influencers like Charlie Kirk or Trump junior engage in extreme forms of divisive speech, it's not their personal responsibility but rather the fault of... cultural marxism
again, of course
Then Paul claims
cultural marxists don't care about the murder rate in Chicago
I point out
to him that there are certainly associations relying on what he calls cultural marxism who advocate for an actual solution, which is tackling the issue of poverty.
it's false because these people deal with economic issues, whereas, as he now claims, "Cultural Marxism will only care about skin colour, race, gender, religion, sexuality etc." that is, leaving out economical considerations, contrary to what he said earlier (he did mention initially 'economic "class"' as a center of focus for cultural marxism, see above).
When asking him what happens when the economic angle gets mixed up with the other ones, like in the example of gender pay gap, Paul goes on
to (not) demonstrate there is no oppression to speak of to begin with
That's a lot of mental gymnastics
... in my opinion