>Ok, based on the replies I understand that many in this thread think white bigotry and other bigotry are equal.

This statement implies to me that you think white bigotry != bigotry. This is one of those statements that make me think "no rational caring individual could believe that" because it sounds racist against white people to begin with. Yet I want to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Can you explain your mindset? Hopefully also how this mindset does not lead to treating people of different races differently or a justification for why it is okay to treat them different?

You don't think white bigotry and other bigotry are equal? Absent power, why do you hold that view?

To answer both replies, I’m saying white bigotry stands out because white people have the power and numbers. Absent that, then you have a different story, but we’re not absent that.

I am sincerely trying to understand this line of thought. Is it that since white people have more power and more numbers we should focus extra hard on white bigotry?

Starting with the assumption that all people should be treated equally than all bigotry is morally objectionable and we should treat all bigotry as such. The only issue that comes in is that since white people have the power and numbers white bigotry happens more than other bigotry and thus we by chance we object to it more.

I don't see any way that this allows bigotry against whites to get a pass, it just gets called out less because it happens less.

Am I missing something? I feel like I am because I still don't feel like I grok your responses.

> Is it that since white people have more power and more numbers we should focus extra hard on white bigotry?

Yes.

> Starting with the assumption that all people should be treated equally than all bigotry is morally objectionable and we should treat all bigotry as such.

Good assumption. I agree.

> The only issue that comes in is that since white people have the power and numbers white bigotry happens more than other bigotry and thus we by chance we object to it more.

I don't really understand this part, but I'll add that not only does it happen more, it is more damaging. A white bigot can get shit done.

> I don't see any way that this allows bigotry against whites to get a pass, it just gets called out less because it happens less.

I don't think it does allow bigotry against whites. I'm not worried much about bigotry against whites. Maybe I will be after white bigotry is reigned in a bit, but for now eyes on the ball.

> Am I missing something? I feel like I am because I still don't feel like I grok your responses.

I don't really know whether we disagree about something, everything, or nothing.

>I don't think it does allow bigotry against whites. I'm not worried much about bigotry against whites. Maybe I will be after white bigotry is reigned in a bit, but for now eyes on the ball.

Ahh, this I think is where I find issue. You say that you think all people should be treated equally and I see the statement I quoted as clashing with that ideal. Specifically saying "I'm not worried much about bigotry against whites." I am trying to be charitable but as a white person I would get roasted if I said "I'm not worried much about bigotry against blacks."

This mismatch is what causes me to make me question your commitment to the ideal that all people should be treated equally. Because to me, if you really were committed to ending bigotry and promoting inclusion and diversity you would be equally enraged by bigotry by whites and bigotry against whites. Yet, that isn't the case.

This puts me in a really hard spot because I want to believe you mean well but now I have to decide, are you lieing about your commitment to equality or do you have a valid reason to disregard bigotry against whites? I have yet to see a good argument for disregarding bigotry against whites so I am stuck with you are lieing. But I don't think you are...

Because bigotry against whites is a sideshow, a minor issue. It is a joke to elevate it to same problem level as bigotry by whites. Now, to your point, any SPECIFIC incident may be treated equally and should be, but taken on the whole, it's ridiculous to treat them equally and to expect people to use language that treats them equally.

To draw what I see as a parallel in my mind. What you are saying is equivalent to saying that the point of the #MeToo movement is something like

>Because harassment against men is a sideshow, a minor issue. It is a joke to elevate it to same problem level as harassment by men. Now, to your point, any SPECIFIC incident may be treated equally and should be, but taken on the whole, it's ridiculous to treat them equally and to expect people to use language that treats them equally.

It seems like doublespeak, bigotry against whites cannot be both treated equally individually but not treated equally on a whole. That might work in the ideal but it will for sure not work in practice because you will end up creating resentment among whites who have been mistreated and are told "Your problems are not as important." This resentment will fester and end up radicalizing some and on a whole result in a net increase of racists.

It also causes a problem when in the future you have accomplished what you are aiming for, say in 2050 there is no longer any bigotry by whites. Yet, there will still be bigotry against whites. Does it the become a major issue? Will we then elevate it to the same importance as the current issue?

Do you see where I am coming from? How I can see this attitude is not the right one to take if the end goal is equality for all? You don't have to agree with me, I just want to know if you see what I am seeing.

I do see what you're saying, and I understand. And we have the same goal.

But we diverge here: my view is putting a bunch of energy into bigotry on whites takes away from the energy needed fight bigotry by whites. It muddles the issue to always have to add, "some black people are bigots too". But, as you alluded, I think that's temporary. I also don't go so far as to say bigotry on whites is ok right now. The original quote didn't say that, and I wouldn't endorse that.

> Because bigotry against whites is a sideshow, a minor issue.

Then why all the resistance to addressing it? If it's such a small problem, it should be a simple and harmless thing to tackle it along with all the other kinds of bigotry. Carefully policing what kinds of bigotry are to be addressed or not sends the implicit message that some kinds of bigotry are OK. It also makes the overall anti-bigotry project harder because it turns what could be a universal moral appeal into a targeted condemnation that elicits defensiveness and justified accusations of hypocrisy.

If there's a hierarchy of power involved, why not focus on protecting those with the least power instead of policing the most powerful? That would allow for flexibility in dealing with inter and intra-racial/cultural/gender bigotry and decrease the most harm the fastest, wouldn't it?