Somebody esplain this to me. They are 'people of color', But they're not the only ones and then the rest - only about people of color...who are the 'other' people and why doesn't Josh care about that?
The whole article is replete with code words, keys and racism: "Armchairs", "Clutch their Pearls" and whites' first-forays into social commentary on something about which they know nothing. To Josh's mind, you can't be down with the struggle or know anything unless you are queer or black. Come to think about it, why doesn't Josh include Hispanics in his clutch of victims?
The thesis of the article is that white people saying anything is racist BECAUSE they are white. In truth, Josh is racist for asserting that. And, I can't call him 'queer', or say 'thug' or 'black' or 'lazy' or anything about blacks and not be a racist. Perhaps he should think about his words and the words of his victims: breeders, tro's, whitey, honky, cracker, white bread, polar bear and so on.
Lastly,
If you value plate-glass windows more than you value the life of a person of color, you are being racist.
That's pretty typical from people who haven't worked and have taken the fruits of that work and made their lives better, bought a business to feed their family and establish a livelihood, or to become a value-added member of society and see it all disappear in a cloudy mob of racist violence because of 'racism'. In the end, it is all about the value-added instead of cost to placate.
If there’s anything liberals are all about, it’s “orchestrating” definitions such that they get to throw stones at their opponents, but the opponents are “not allowed” to throw stones, back.