You had said that there were those that felt that dealing with racism and civil rights was priority one, and others felt that dealing with class (and, by extension, economic inequality) was the way to go. You're now introducing a third group that didn't value either approach?

Your summary of my point is a little off. I was saying that there were those who felt that dealing with what we might call "social" liberal issues was a greater priority than dealing with class and inequality. Those social liberal issues include a host of things, including climate change, and not just racism and civil rights. It's a way of framing the big division in the Democratic party right now: between those who want the party to be focused primarily on reworking the economic structures in the country, and those who emphasize correcting these "social" issues directly. Again, this is a simplification to the point of being incorrect, but it's still useful. It's a division between those who think that capitalist structures need to be fundamentally reworked (if not eliminated), and those who think that the core is sound enough that our primary focus should be on solving important other issues we face.

In some ways, this reflects the 'takeover' of the party apparatus by young college-educated liberals during the Great Awokening of the last ten years. That group - like the Corporate Democrats PP rails against - is personally well-situated in the broader economic structure of the country. But they are deeply motivated to make changes based on their values about non-distributive problems - like climate change, racial justice, fighting the patriarchy, etc.