There is no logic. It's a faith based ideology that begins from the point that standard facts and reality are unreliable or insufficiently discovered yet, and therefore that you select optionally from them, guided by your personal sense of self. The clash comes in insisting that others must conform to your personal choice of facts and reality, and do nothing that interrupts or confronts you with a contradiction within it. To do so has become 'hateful'.
However obviously not everyone can select/be affirmed: to do so requires others to put you first, not expect to have equal rights to define self/reality/follow their own perceptions, and instead sacrifice themselves to meet your needs and provide what you need to be uninterrupted in your sense of self.
This inevitably separates society into the givers and the takers: those entitled to expect service from others and to allocate punishment where the service providers fail, and those who must not expect equality or freedom of expression or consider resistance and must instead provide. There's something in terms of pattern recognition that consistently comes up to separate the givers from the takers.
That this is a basically ethically wrong, wholly unsustainable and absolutely never going to end well situation, doesn't seem to have entered the heads of anyone stuffing all this into policy.
But then I watch Johnson and his government who also have this very progressive philosophy of selecting their preferred facts from reality, creating a narrative, ignoring and stifling the bits that don't fit, and then pushing that anyone who doesn't believe what they are told is wrong and stupid and should just be ignored. Cummings and his eye sight for example. It's terribly fashionable at the moment.
I re read The Book Thief recently. It was quite sad in how current it feels in many ways.