You’re on fire, man! Great writing. But could you spell it out for me, because I’m stupid. What exactly is it that you feel T is not-so-subtly implying about black people?
You’re on fire, man! Great writing. But could you spell it out for me, because I’m stupid. What exactly is it that you feel T is not-so-subtly implying about black people?
T argues that it's appropriate to call Neely's death a "lynching" because "a lynching is the murder of a black man in service of white supremacy" and because he posed a "perceived threat to white comfort & social order"
The problem is, if a mentally ill, violent man is only a threat to *white* comfort, if it's in the service of white supremacy to try and stop this man before he murders innocent people on a train, what does that say about a society that would be run by black people?
Would violent, mentally ill people be so commonplace in a society without white supremacy that people wouldn't be scared? Are black people normally comfortable around this kind of dysfunction?
As far as I can see, the idea that only white people would be concerned about this obvious societal problem suggest that black people are more inclined to accept or exhibit behaviour like this.
That they are victims, childish, unable to manage their affairs, needing to be led and cosseted and caretaken by all-powerful whitey. Thus, the lowering of standards, the bending of the rules to make it easier for black people to improve diversity optics in American institutions.
It's a sort of infantilization, a stripping of dignity, a dehumanization. He is implying that these people believe that white paternalism is the answer to black people's problems - which is an idea that is about as parallel to old-school racism as you can get.
I don't blame him for bristling; for being angry. This posturing solves nothing except publicly promoting their tribal bona fides at the expense of black people's dignity. It most certainly is not a healthy way forward.
You’re on fire, man! Great writing. But could you spell it out for me, because I’m stupid. What exactly is it that you feel T is not-so-subtly implying about black people?
T argues that it's appropriate to call Neely's death a "lynching" because "a lynching is the murder of a black man in service of white supremacy" and because he posed a "perceived threat to white comfort & social order"
The problem is, if a mentally ill, violent man is only a threat to *white* comfort, if it's in the service of white supremacy to try and stop this man before he murders innocent people on a train, what does that say about a society that would be run by black people?
Would violent, mentally ill people be so commonplace in a society without white supremacy that people wouldn't be scared? Are black people normally comfortable around this kind of dysfunction?
As far as I can see, the idea that only white people would be concerned about this obvious societal problem suggest that black people are more inclined to accept or exhibit behaviour like this.
That they are victims, childish, unable to manage their affairs, needing to be led and cosseted and caretaken by all-powerful whitey. Thus, the lowering of standards, the bending of the rules to make it easier for black people to improve diversity optics in American institutions.
It's a sort of infantilization, a stripping of dignity, a dehumanization. He is implying that these people believe that white paternalism is the answer to black people's problems - which is an idea that is about as parallel to old-school racism as you can get.
I don't blame him for bristling; for being angry. This posturing solves nothing except publicly promoting their tribal bona fides at the expense of black people's dignity. It most certainly is not a healthy way forward.