Unless you mean that the attempts to make people feel worthless are done on the basis of immutable things, but are done in response to "not towing the line"?
Yes, I do mean that. If you are white or a male you are told to "check your privilege", and that you "are not allowed to speak about issues". (Is a white male allowed to have an opinion about abortion? Ask yourself what you think, and ask others as well, and that will help you understand.)
Go watch some campus talks and see how bad it gets. Or just read this: https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/24/politics/march-for-our-lives-...
Notice the narrative that the white students don't matter unless they deprecate themself? It's framed in an inclusive way of course ("they include others"), but the subtext is quite obvious.
And that's a CNN article, the real world is much worse.
The pendulum is swinging, and instead of making everyone important, now those who were marginalized before are gaining status by marginalizing others.
> but are done in response to "not towing the line"
Like, your previous comment was about "towing the line" and I was asking about the connection between the "immutable properties" thing mentioned in the original comment I responded to, and the "towing the line" that you mentioned.
I wasn't asking "are people speaking against other people's immutable properties?" (which seems to be the question you responded to).
I was asking, "By talking about 'towing the line' when the context was 'immutable properties', did you mean that the treatment based on 'immutable properties' is targeted at those who don't 'tow the line'? If not, what is your meaning in bringing up 'towing the line' in the context of people speaking against others' 'immutable properties'?".
I am not trying to make a point about who is or is not treated badly. I'm trying to clear up what was meant to be communicated.
That's rather heartwarming; they clearly intuitively understand solidarity. It's not like someone is holding a gun to their heads and making them do it.
More seriously, all those kids recognise that news coverage and politics applies very different bias to young white people and young nonwhite people, and they're refusing to accept that and keep pointing it out.
Most of the time I hear people claim that someone else objects to someone's "existence", the person is claiming that people are objecting to the "existence" of homosexual or bisexual or transgender persons. So, with there seeming to be a correlation with red states, I thought maybe the comment was saying "That is because there are a bunch of hateful ___phobes in the red states grrr!"
However, I probably should have picked up on the part of the comment that talked about the unchangable property being treated as "violence", and realized that that likely implied that the group imagined to be saying the quote was likely, uh, the group that tends to define "violence" in weird ways to include things that they believe are bad in general.
I suppose my first interpretation of the comment also didn't fit particularly well with the increase in the rate being primarily among persons who are (considered) white.
Is there a reason you would expect the harm from things of that sort to have increased as of late?