The point was, and you are welcome to disagree, that a statement
" The key point is (social) "equality" has been a disastrous political and social ideal for 220 years now."
is neither correct nor incorrect: it is ill formed. One cannot assess the truthfulness of premises and validity of implications because the terms are ill defined.
Yes, but who uses the terms "equality" and "social equality" so loosely and sloppily? Not me! Almost always it's explicit and implicit communists and socialists, along with many, many poor thinkers and loose, sloppy idealists. That's just my point!
For 220 years now people have been shouting "Liberty! Equality! Fraternity!" without defining their terms or knowing specifically what they're shouting about. Even Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence speaks with disastrous ambiguity about how "all men are created equal."
In my judgment, people are only metaphysically and existentially equal.
(Maybe also "in dignity" and "as moral agents" -- whatever these might mean. I've heard people say these last two a lot -- but have no idea what they mean.)
This is factually incorrect. Writers such as Proudhon, Marx, Lenin and Trotsky devoted a great deal of time and space on elucidating the content with which they endow those words. You and I think that they were wrong, but to say that they did not know "what they're shouting about" is factually incorrect. You and I must've lived in different worlds for the past 220 years.