Hello. I love feeding trolls!

>But when is it enough?

The self-interested 0-sum answer is that while one is below the median, more equality is preferable, and while one is above the median, it is not. On the population level, this all evens out. But it incentivizes the individuals who feel a threat towards their above-median status to fight increasing equality.

For example, a white person whose categorical superiority to people of color is threatened will attempt to equivocate categorical and meritocratic superiority by adding a layer of justification to their worldview. A hugely popular example is moving from the self-justifying belief "whites are superior" to the argument "whites have statistically higher IQ's according to this data, and higher IQ is equivalent to superiority, ergo whites are superior." 

The weakness of this approach is that the latter argument is based on empirical observations of time-sensitive data. It's not categorical; it needs a continuous supply of experimental confirmation, and is therefore labor intensive to maintain. There are three main ways to ease the burden: fabricating information wholecloth, using biased data collection/analysis techniques, and supporting social policies that maintain statistical confounders between whites and non-whites.

Interestingly, a person with firm belief in the meritocratic superiority of whites does not feel threatened, and has no reason to make arguments supporting the superiority of whites over non-whites. It is only those who understand on some level that they are reliant on categorical superiority who feel compelled to make arguments.

I'd say you're being uncharitable to both views.

The first view: "Everyone should be treated the same". Having different laws for different races or ethnicities, is more unfair than treating everyone the same. Attempts to keep racial discrimination result in people being discriminated against and killed. Even if perfect equality were not achievable, I think a more equal society is preferable to a less equal one, unless there are good things that only came with a less equal one.

The second view: "It's bad to hurt people's feelings", I'd defend with some caveats: adding an "everything else being equal" at the end. Unnecessarily hurting people's feelings is net negative. It can be legitimate to hurt people's feelings, but I wouldn't say hurting for the sake of hurting is good or neutral. Between two courses of action, equally effective, but one of them unnecessarily hurting people's feelings, it's preferable to choose the one where fewer people's feelings are hurt.

I'd feel uncomfortable in this community if basic human rights are challenged in a sort of witty game and a supposedly clever use of language.