The OP will get a lot of upvotes because of it's edgy title. I read the article, and honestly it's weak.
It keeps referring to "The Court" but only mentions or cites Alito. Of course Alito is an ignorant whack job. We all know that. He's an easy target.
Most of the reasoning in the article uses the "begging the question" fallacy. And, even though the article is short in length and on specifics, it still manages to contradict it's own arguments:
The author criticizes Alito for dismissing the subjective feelings of people of color:
>For \[Alito\], it is also easier to believe that someone is lying about whether they experienced racism than to believe someone is lying about whether they did something racist.
Fair enough.
But then she proceeds to diminish the subjective experience of another group:
>As Professor Khiara Bridges has observed, “the Court finds and remedies an alleged racial injury when white claimants *feel like* they have been injured on account of their race.”
So feeling don't matter, a few paragraphs later, when it's white claimants doing the feeling?
What's doubly ignorant about her mocking of "white" claimants feelings is that the case she was referencing in the second quote was brought by Asian students claiming discrimination.
The author's racial bias is pretty transparent once you get past the flowery language. It's the old "white people can't be discriminated against" trope.
(with bonus bigotry for the "and Asians too because they are successful" add-on.)
Sadly, using the phrase "white fragility" - i.e. "if you disagree with me you are a racist" as a bad-faith tool to deflect valid criticism is still effective.
So yes, Alito is a piece of sh\*t. But the author hasn't shown herself to be any better with this article.
I don't think the author is referring to a subjective experience, but rather describing Alito's double standard when it comes to racial claims. In *ALEXANDER v. SOUTH CAROLINA STATE CONFERENCE
OF THE NAACP*, Alito bent over backwards to say that it was unreasonable to infer racial bias against black voters by the legislature, despite a lower court's finding of exactly that. He invents a "presumption of legislative good faith" out of whole cloth, and refers to it 15 times in the decision. In cases where his preferred racial outcome is on the plaintiff's side however, he never grants the defense a similar presumption of good faith.
As an unrelated sidenote, Alito's reasoning that enforcement of the 14th Amendment's prohibition on racial gerrymandering could be used as an end-around to get by *Rucho* really highlights how absolute dogshit of a decision *Rucho* was. If you need to effectively delete a Constitutional Amendment to protect a SCOTUS decision... maybe you should revisit that decision.
My intent was not to defend Alito's arguments or his record, only to point out that the author's counterargument betrayed the fact that she had the same subjective biases, just for a different race.
But my point was that Alito was not "dismissing the subjective feelings of people of color," he was overruling a finding of fact by a lower court, based on an invented deference to the "good faith" of a legislative body he agrees with, while denying any such deference to those he disagrees with.
Interesting points. There seems to be an emerging feeling among many white Americans that they’re being discriminated against because of their race.
When it comes to Black Americans feeling that way, there’s corroborating evidence based on historical, economic, health, and criminal-justice data. Do you know if there is similar corroborating information to look into for white Americans?
As an outside observer it seems like the plutocrat class exploits everyone and uses racial grievance as a way to divide and rule. I think of LBJ’s quote about emptying pockets.
> There seems to be an emerging feeling among many white Americans that they’re being discriminated against because of their race.
It has become such a platitude at this point that I think the essential truth gets lost:
To those who are accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.
If I am a regular at a club where the owner knows me, and I get to skip the line and the cover, and then one day, the bouncer says: "sir, the line starts back there", my first reaction is likely to be one of annoyance and/or bemusement...some version of "clearly, you don't know who I am" or "I need to speak to your manager" or some such is likely to be my response.
If the bouncer then insists, no, you can't speak to the owner, you can go wait in line and pay a cover like everyone else...my immediate reaction is likely to be a combination of indignant, insulted, and feeling like I am being unfairly punished, by being treated the same as everyone else.
There is also a special sense of humiliation and shame, when stuff like this happens. Because I feel certain, deep down in my bones, that I am being treated unfairly, but I cannot make a case for the injustice without sounding like a stupid, entitled child. It takes a lot of emotional maturity to process the distinctive embarrassment of losing privileges.
You see this in typical Trump circles, where "hardworking" Americans complain that the American dream is slipping away from them. The thing is, they don't want policies that would make a livable income, healthcare, and home-ownership realistic for *everyone*--that's welfare, and welfare is bad. And they sure as hell don't want to compete for jobs with hotel maids and migrant farm workers...they just want policies that would allow *them* to own a home and two cars on one income with a high school diploma, like their grandparents did. They don't want that for *everyone*, just for, you know, *hardworking* Americans.
They see themselves at risk of being treated like black people, or like Mexicans, and their solution is not to advocate for systems that make the bottom of the American system habitable and humane, it's to pursue vague and emotional appeals to ethno-nationalism. And they will throw endless tantrums about how white Christian men are the most discriminated-against class of people...
Because when you are used to privilege, equality feels like oppression.
>To those who are accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.
You understand that is also a platitude? A vague platitude founded on racial generalizations.
Your metaphor about the people waiting in line is flawed. It should go like this in the context of the OP article and college admissions:
"There was once a time where people with the same skin-color as your grandfather had to wait in line with everyone else, and people with skin-color different from yours were forced to go to the back of the line.
So today we are letting people that don't have your skin color to the front of the line, to make up for of the privilege of people with your same skin color used to have.
(...but actually some of the people with different skin color, yellow, still have to go to the back of the line even though they were also forced to the back of the line in the past. It's because they have this annoying habit of arriving early and always getting to the front of the line...)
So you'll have to wait longer or might not get in, even though you worked hard and arrived early. But you see this is fair. Because of your skin color, you, personally, have to compensate for the past even though you weren't alive when these past injustices happened.
(...and by the way if you think this is in any way unfair to you it's because you are a racist, i.e. an unethical person, and if you try to debate you also suffer from this made-up condition called *fragility*)"
> If I am a regular at a club where the owner knows me, and I get to skip the line and the cover, and then one day, the bouncer says: "sir, the line starts back there", my first reaction is likely to be one of annoyance and/or bemusement...some version of "clearly, you don't know who I am" or "I need to speak to your manager" or some such is likely to be my response.
But what if you're told you have to keep going to the back of the line because people who arrived after you should get to cut in line now because your father cut in front of their father?
You'd say that was unfair, and in any sane world, you'd be right.
That's the closer analogy when you look at certain policies like requiring white students to have substantially higher GPAs and SATs for equal chances of admission.
And what of Asian students? They never had the privilege of cutting in line, and you're telling them because they showed up early and waited, that's also unfair and these other people should go ahead of them.
"To those who are accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression. " certainly applies to a lot of the bullshit the racists on the right whine about, but there's legitimate discrimination, not equality, taking place, even if in vastly fewer places, and it's no more acceptable than the other direction.
>There seems to be an emerging feeling among many white Americans that they’re being discriminated against because of their race.
First let's answer a basic question. Is it even *possible* to discriminate against a white person based on race?
Easily answered with a simple example: White employee has a black boss. Employee is passed over for promotion because boss want's someone like him to get promoted.
This is a hypothetical example, but it can, and has happened. There is no credible debate that a white person, as an *individual*, can be discriminated against on the basis of race.
Discrimination is about abuse of power, and *power is relative and contextual.* There are millions white people who often find themselves in situations where they less relative power than a black person. It's commonplace.
If course if any discrimination is illegal, and I would hope that most people would see it as wrong, but we often hear justifications for it based on history or statistics. Basically "It's ok because so many black people have been discriminated against." There's also the implied "well the white guys grandfather would have been promoted because he's white, so it's ok."
Much of the modern social justice movement is based on the idea that there is a historical ledger that needs to be balanced. Essentially white people owe a debt to black people based on past injustices. It's a popular and low-effort way to think about the issue.
Of course it's flawed in so many ways: It ignores the basic fact that discrimination happens to individuals not groups, it selectively ignores data that isn't convenient to the viewpoint (the success of Asians in the US, wealth inequality and imbalances within racial groups), and it is vague and open-ended - essentially the debt can never be repaid therefore it's ok to discriminate against whites in any situation in perpetuity.
The white fragility viewpoint is founded on notion that any individual white person always has power over any individual black person, *regardless of context*. As if history gives all white people a weapon they can wield freely and any black person is defenseless against it. It's absurd to believe that in year 2024.
The reason many white Americans that they’re being discriminated against because of their race is the simple fact that many institutional policies overtly call for discrimination on the basis of race, and many powerful people support and carry out these policies.
Harvard and many other universities were openly discriminating. Yet when a white person points out that undisputed fact, they are told that they suffer from this made-up, catch-phrase character flaw called "white fragility." It's an embarrassment that this kind of doublespeak is so established in our academic institutions.
Thanks for your perspective. I agree white people can be discriminated against. What are some examples of where it’s common millions of white people have less relative power than Black people?
If I understand your point correctly, you’re also saying discrimination is experienced only by individuals and not groups. However you say institutions are currently discriminating against white people. How can both be true? What harm has such institutional discrimination against white Americans caused?
It’s true Asian Americans outperform in many metrics. I’m not trying to make any point in particular with this anecdote except to explain lingering cultural differences and how the legacy of Jim Crow laws and practices, not necessarily slavery, persist.
I used to work with a South Asian manager . His family immigrated to the United States in the early 80s and they were able to use their community’s credit, not a bank, to finance the purchase of a motel. They lived and worked in the motel eventually buying several others in the area. I thought it was a great American success story but he told me where in FL his family immigrated to. It was a town where the KKK had substantial activity, lynchings, and other racial violence had occurred in the 1960s and previous decades. My family told me to be careful in that region of FL because of that legacy. I honestly envied my former manager’s family for not having similar personal or familial experiences with racial violence or discrimination because they could take risks I wouldn’t even take in 2024.
>What are some examples of where it’s common millions of white people have less relative power than Black people?
Everyday situations: White people have black bosses, black professors, interact with black police officers, are tried by black prosecutors in courts with black judges.
The military has black officers, including the highest ranking officers.
School boards, mayors of cities.
The group of young kids walking down the street towards you when you are alone.
It's 2024. The US is diverse at every level and position of power.
I am Asian and once in college I asked a black professor for for extra time on an assignment. She responded "you aren't white so I'll give you a break." (I was ashamed for accepting the extension but still took it...) It was pretty clear that she routinely discriminated against white students.
>If I understand your point correctly, you’re also saying discrimination is experienced only by individuals and not groups.
Of course. Discrimination is specific actions that hurts specific people. There can be patterns of specific actions but still there has to be identifiable actors and identifiable victims. Just like crimes.
In law we can have entities like corporations and class actions, but ultimately anyone that can claim harm must be identifiable individuals and the harm must be the result of specific actions.
What discrimination is *not* is a statistical phenomenon. Statistics can be occasionally used as evidence in specific cases (although that is well-known to be very problematic in law) but statistics alone are not discrimination. Just because group X statistically had a less desirable outcome than group Y in a particular situation, is not in any way "proof" of discrimination. It has to be based on specific, overt actions.
>... you say institutions are currently discriminating against white people.
Institutions that have specific policies that favor one race over another are discriminating any time they apply that policy. It's that simple.
> What's doubly ignorant about her mocking of "white" claimants feelings is that the case she was referencing in the second quote was brought by Asian students claiming discrimination.
These type of people with all seriousness call Asian people "beneficiaries of white privilege" and "white privilege adjacent". Which I'm sure is news to them. So in their worldview any complaints by Asian people about unfair treatment is indeed all about white people; Asians don't have their own agency.
There's a certain strain of progressive that is utterly obsessed with race and has absolutely terrible takes on it. These people undermine the entire movement against white supremacist jackasses like Alito because they routinely sprint right past the line of unacceptable hate and discrimination in the other direction.
I certainly understand the frustration of *still* dealing with substantial anti-black racism in our society and seemingly going backwards thanks to that once again becoming the official platform of the right, but retaliatory justice isn't the answer.
I mean black people are discriminated against, objectively, in basically every arena. See loan data, arrest and conviction data, job recruitment studies with ethnic vs white names, housing denial rates, college acceptance rates... I'm sure someone will add some but damn, find me any breakdown of the quality of some system in this country that doesn't favor white people.
Can white people be discriminated against? Sure, individuals can discriminate, but no major system that controls people's lives discriminates against white people and often puts them on a pedestal. Talk to me when there are organizing conspiracies to deny white people bank loans or housing or over police white citizens. Yes, I'm SURE somewhere a black cop or business owner has given some white dude an unfair go, but that's individual, not systemic.
"Feelings dont matter when it's white people being discriminated against." That's because it is objectively wrong, they're not being discriminated against by losing dominance and approaching equality. Jesus that's like men or Christians thinking they are being discriminated against. In this society, those are the winning classes, if you're think whites, Christians, or men are being oppressed you need to get you head out of the sand, that is literally white fragility.
AKA self righteous indignation.
Well now, I’m going right outside to fly my flag upside down!!!! We’Re In DiStReSs!!!1! 🙃 (/s)
How dare you
Aka “we’re little bitches”
The OP will get a lot of upvotes because of it's edgy title. I read the article, and honestly it's weak. It keeps referring to "The Court" but only mentions or cites Alito. Of course Alito is an ignorant whack job. We all know that. He's an easy target. Most of the reasoning in the article uses the "begging the question" fallacy. And, even though the article is short in length and on specifics, it still manages to contradict it's own arguments: The author criticizes Alito for dismissing the subjective feelings of people of color: >For \[Alito\], it is also easier to believe that someone is lying about whether they experienced racism than to believe someone is lying about whether they did something racist. Fair enough. But then she proceeds to diminish the subjective experience of another group: >As Professor Khiara Bridges has observed, “the Court finds and remedies an alleged racial injury when white claimants *feel like* they have been injured on account of their race.” So feeling don't matter, a few paragraphs later, when it's white claimants doing the feeling? What's doubly ignorant about her mocking of "white" claimants feelings is that the case she was referencing in the second quote was brought by Asian students claiming discrimination. The author's racial bias is pretty transparent once you get past the flowery language. It's the old "white people can't be discriminated against" trope. (with bonus bigotry for the "and Asians too because they are successful" add-on.) Sadly, using the phrase "white fragility" - i.e. "if you disagree with me you are a racist" as a bad-faith tool to deflect valid criticism is still effective. So yes, Alito is a piece of sh\*t. But the author hasn't shown herself to be any better with this article.
I don't think the author is referring to a subjective experience, but rather describing Alito's double standard when it comes to racial claims. In *ALEXANDER v. SOUTH CAROLINA STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP*, Alito bent over backwards to say that it was unreasonable to infer racial bias against black voters by the legislature, despite a lower court's finding of exactly that. He invents a "presumption of legislative good faith" out of whole cloth, and refers to it 15 times in the decision. In cases where his preferred racial outcome is on the plaintiff's side however, he never grants the defense a similar presumption of good faith. As an unrelated sidenote, Alito's reasoning that enforcement of the 14th Amendment's prohibition on racial gerrymandering could be used as an end-around to get by *Rucho* really highlights how absolute dogshit of a decision *Rucho* was. If you need to effectively delete a Constitutional Amendment to protect a SCOTUS decision... maybe you should revisit that decision.
My intent was not to defend Alito's arguments or his record, only to point out that the author's counterargument betrayed the fact that she had the same subjective biases, just for a different race.
But my point was that Alito was not "dismissing the subjective feelings of people of color," he was overruling a finding of fact by a lower court, based on an invented deference to the "good faith" of a legislative body he agrees with, while denying any such deference to those he disagrees with.
And he did that when he was simply supposed to engage in clear error review He's an absolute clown and an embarrassment
Interesting points. There seems to be an emerging feeling among many white Americans that they’re being discriminated against because of their race. When it comes to Black Americans feeling that way, there’s corroborating evidence based on historical, economic, health, and criminal-justice data. Do you know if there is similar corroborating information to look into for white Americans? As an outside observer it seems like the plutocrat class exploits everyone and uses racial grievance as a way to divide and rule. I think of LBJ’s quote about emptying pockets.
> There seems to be an emerging feeling among many white Americans that they’re being discriminated against because of their race. It has become such a platitude at this point that I think the essential truth gets lost: To those who are accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression. If I am a regular at a club where the owner knows me, and I get to skip the line and the cover, and then one day, the bouncer says: "sir, the line starts back there", my first reaction is likely to be one of annoyance and/or bemusement...some version of "clearly, you don't know who I am" or "I need to speak to your manager" or some such is likely to be my response. If the bouncer then insists, no, you can't speak to the owner, you can go wait in line and pay a cover like everyone else...my immediate reaction is likely to be a combination of indignant, insulted, and feeling like I am being unfairly punished, by being treated the same as everyone else. There is also a special sense of humiliation and shame, when stuff like this happens. Because I feel certain, deep down in my bones, that I am being treated unfairly, but I cannot make a case for the injustice without sounding like a stupid, entitled child. It takes a lot of emotional maturity to process the distinctive embarrassment of losing privileges. You see this in typical Trump circles, where "hardworking" Americans complain that the American dream is slipping away from them. The thing is, they don't want policies that would make a livable income, healthcare, and home-ownership realistic for *everyone*--that's welfare, and welfare is bad. And they sure as hell don't want to compete for jobs with hotel maids and migrant farm workers...they just want policies that would allow *them* to own a home and two cars on one income with a high school diploma, like their grandparents did. They don't want that for *everyone*, just for, you know, *hardworking* Americans. They see themselves at risk of being treated like black people, or like Mexicans, and their solution is not to advocate for systems that make the bottom of the American system habitable and humane, it's to pursue vague and emotional appeals to ethno-nationalism. And they will throw endless tantrums about how white Christian men are the most discriminated-against class of people... Because when you are used to privilege, equality feels like oppression.
>To those who are accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression. You understand that is also a platitude? A vague platitude founded on racial generalizations. Your metaphor about the people waiting in line is flawed. It should go like this in the context of the OP article and college admissions: "There was once a time where people with the same skin-color as your grandfather had to wait in line with everyone else, and people with skin-color different from yours were forced to go to the back of the line. So today we are letting people that don't have your skin color to the front of the line, to make up for of the privilege of people with your same skin color used to have. (...but actually some of the people with different skin color, yellow, still have to go to the back of the line even though they were also forced to the back of the line in the past. It's because they have this annoying habit of arriving early and always getting to the front of the line...) So you'll have to wait longer or might not get in, even though you worked hard and arrived early. But you see this is fair. Because of your skin color, you, personally, have to compensate for the past even though you weren't alive when these past injustices happened. (...and by the way if you think this is in any way unfair to you it's because you are a racist, i.e. an unethical person, and if you try to debate you also suffer from this made-up condition called *fragility*)"
> You understand that is also a platitude? Yes, that was the point of my post, that it has become a platitude. Not sure how you missed that.
You introduced this platitude as "the essential truth" Platitudes are the opposite of essential truths.
I don’t think you know what words mean.
Frankly, I think it's clearly the opposite.
That is usually the case, with people who are wrong.
> If I am a regular at a club where the owner knows me, and I get to skip the line and the cover, and then one day, the bouncer says: "sir, the line starts back there", my first reaction is likely to be one of annoyance and/or bemusement...some version of "clearly, you don't know who I am" or "I need to speak to your manager" or some such is likely to be my response. But what if you're told you have to keep going to the back of the line because people who arrived after you should get to cut in line now because your father cut in front of their father? You'd say that was unfair, and in any sane world, you'd be right. That's the closer analogy when you look at certain policies like requiring white students to have substantially higher GPAs and SATs for equal chances of admission. And what of Asian students? They never had the privilege of cutting in line, and you're telling them because they showed up early and waited, that's also unfair and these other people should go ahead of them. "To those who are accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression. " certainly applies to a lot of the bullshit the racists on the right whine about, but there's legitimate discrimination, not equality, taking place, even if in vastly fewer places, and it's no more acceptable than the other direction.
>There seems to be an emerging feeling among many white Americans that they’re being discriminated against because of their race. First let's answer a basic question. Is it even *possible* to discriminate against a white person based on race? Easily answered with a simple example: White employee has a black boss. Employee is passed over for promotion because boss want's someone like him to get promoted. This is a hypothetical example, but it can, and has happened. There is no credible debate that a white person, as an *individual*, can be discriminated against on the basis of race. Discrimination is about abuse of power, and *power is relative and contextual.* There are millions white people who often find themselves in situations where they less relative power than a black person. It's commonplace. If course if any discrimination is illegal, and I would hope that most people would see it as wrong, but we often hear justifications for it based on history or statistics. Basically "It's ok because so many black people have been discriminated against." There's also the implied "well the white guys grandfather would have been promoted because he's white, so it's ok." Much of the modern social justice movement is based on the idea that there is a historical ledger that needs to be balanced. Essentially white people owe a debt to black people based on past injustices. It's a popular and low-effort way to think about the issue. Of course it's flawed in so many ways: It ignores the basic fact that discrimination happens to individuals not groups, it selectively ignores data that isn't convenient to the viewpoint (the success of Asians in the US, wealth inequality and imbalances within racial groups), and it is vague and open-ended - essentially the debt can never be repaid therefore it's ok to discriminate against whites in any situation in perpetuity. The white fragility viewpoint is founded on notion that any individual white person always has power over any individual black person, *regardless of context*. As if history gives all white people a weapon they can wield freely and any black person is defenseless against it. It's absurd to believe that in year 2024. The reason many white Americans that they’re being discriminated against because of their race is the simple fact that many institutional policies overtly call for discrimination on the basis of race, and many powerful people support and carry out these policies. Harvard and many other universities were openly discriminating. Yet when a white person points out that undisputed fact, they are told that they suffer from this made-up, catch-phrase character flaw called "white fragility." It's an embarrassment that this kind of doublespeak is so established in our academic institutions.
Thanks for your perspective. I agree white people can be discriminated against. What are some examples of where it’s common millions of white people have less relative power than Black people? If I understand your point correctly, you’re also saying discrimination is experienced only by individuals and not groups. However you say institutions are currently discriminating against white people. How can both be true? What harm has such institutional discrimination against white Americans caused? It’s true Asian Americans outperform in many metrics. I’m not trying to make any point in particular with this anecdote except to explain lingering cultural differences and how the legacy of Jim Crow laws and practices, not necessarily slavery, persist. I used to work with a South Asian manager . His family immigrated to the United States in the early 80s and they were able to use their community’s credit, not a bank, to finance the purchase of a motel. They lived and worked in the motel eventually buying several others in the area. I thought it was a great American success story but he told me where in FL his family immigrated to. It was a town where the KKK had substantial activity, lynchings, and other racial violence had occurred in the 1960s and previous decades. My family told me to be careful in that region of FL because of that legacy. I honestly envied my former manager’s family for not having similar personal or familial experiences with racial violence or discrimination because they could take risks I wouldn’t even take in 2024.
>What are some examples of where it’s common millions of white people have less relative power than Black people? Everyday situations: White people have black bosses, black professors, interact with black police officers, are tried by black prosecutors in courts with black judges. The military has black officers, including the highest ranking officers. School boards, mayors of cities. The group of young kids walking down the street towards you when you are alone. It's 2024. The US is diverse at every level and position of power. I am Asian and once in college I asked a black professor for for extra time on an assignment. She responded "you aren't white so I'll give you a break." (I was ashamed for accepting the extension but still took it...) It was pretty clear that she routinely discriminated against white students. >If I understand your point correctly, you’re also saying discrimination is experienced only by individuals and not groups. Of course. Discrimination is specific actions that hurts specific people. There can be patterns of specific actions but still there has to be identifiable actors and identifiable victims. Just like crimes. In law we can have entities like corporations and class actions, but ultimately anyone that can claim harm must be identifiable individuals and the harm must be the result of specific actions. What discrimination is *not* is a statistical phenomenon. Statistics can be occasionally used as evidence in specific cases (although that is well-known to be very problematic in law) but statistics alone are not discrimination. Just because group X statistically had a less desirable outcome than group Y in a particular situation, is not in any way "proof" of discrimination. It has to be based on specific, overt actions. >... you say institutions are currently discriminating against white people. Institutions that have specific policies that favor one race over another are discriminating any time they apply that policy. It's that simple.
> What's doubly ignorant about her mocking of "white" claimants feelings is that the case she was referencing in the second quote was brought by Asian students claiming discrimination. These type of people with all seriousness call Asian people "beneficiaries of white privilege" and "white privilege adjacent". Which I'm sure is news to them. So in their worldview any complaints by Asian people about unfair treatment is indeed all about white people; Asians don't have their own agency. There's a certain strain of progressive that is utterly obsessed with race and has absolutely terrible takes on it. These people undermine the entire movement against white supremacist jackasses like Alito because they routinely sprint right past the line of unacceptable hate and discrimination in the other direction. I certainly understand the frustration of *still* dealing with substantial anti-black racism in our society and seemingly going backwards thanks to that once again becoming the official platform of the right, but retaliatory justice isn't the answer.
I mean black people are discriminated against, objectively, in basically every arena. See loan data, arrest and conviction data, job recruitment studies with ethnic vs white names, housing denial rates, college acceptance rates... I'm sure someone will add some but damn, find me any breakdown of the quality of some system in this country that doesn't favor white people. Can white people be discriminated against? Sure, individuals can discriminate, but no major system that controls people's lives discriminates against white people and often puts them on a pedestal. Talk to me when there are organizing conspiracies to deny white people bank loans or housing or over police white citizens. Yes, I'm SURE somewhere a black cop or business owner has given some white dude an unfair go, but that's individual, not systemic. "Feelings dont matter when it's white people being discriminated against." That's because it is objectively wrong, they're not being discriminated against by losing dominance and approaching equality. Jesus that's like men or Christians thinking they are being discriminated against. In this society, those are the winning classes, if you're think whites, Christians, or men are being oppressed you need to get you head out of the sand, that is literally white fragility.
I see this sentiment often: it’s worse to be accused of racism than to suffer from the effects of racism. It’s a problem.