I suggest you re-read the comment to which you replied. Perhaps you'd like to revise your barely concealed and completely unfounded attack on the straw man you created around my comment.
From your reaction I'm guessing the sand shovelers you think are scum are the "woke" people but I hope I'm wrong.
That's as may be, but you focused on a single sentence ("I have no control over what other people do, think or say. What other stance can I take?") in my comment and ignored everything else I wrote.
You then deigned to forgive me (and 300+ million other people) my ignorance.
...a lack of familiarity with institutional or
systemic change made me think you might be
missing that option. That's not a criticism; it's
really common in the US.
I'll wait with bated breath for your next brilliant missive.
> you focused on a single sentence [...] in my comment and ignored everything else I wrote.
I did address you saying the $20 thing was hyperbole, but I guess I'm not sure what you wanted me to add to the rest? You said you misinterpreted GP's comment - okay? What am I to add to that? It's not much of a prompt for discussion.
And you interpreted that incorrectly.
the "stance" I take (in this case, support for the equal rights and equal opporunities of all) is the stance of one who doesn't have governmental or corporate power to directly impact change other than my behavior and my advocacy.
You interpreted what I said to mean that I'm powerless to effect any change. Which is unfortunate since not only is that not true, I neither said nor implied anything of the sort.
All that said, I suspect we're, in large part, in violent agreement on this topic.
Go back and read the comment[0] to which you originally replied. You'll see that it makes clear what I think.
My apologies for not listing every possible activity. I'll make sure to write a Phd thesis here in future.
As for the rest of your paranoid (and condescending) blather, I can do without it. From now on, I will.
Of course - individualism in a political sense means the rejection of collective action. It usually boils down to the belief that people's political actions should be limited to financial transactions - solving climate change by individuals recycling, solving food insecurity by individuals donating, that sort of thing. I knew you were being hyperbolic, but a lack of familiarity with institutional or systemic change made me think you might be missing that option. That's not a criticism; it's really common in the US.
> Sadly, those who pile that sand on these folks' heads are never held to account.
Yeah, I was considering saying in my original comment that targeting those types of people has been a conservative strategy for years now, but figured it was political enough already. It seems its easy to switch people over from "nominally anti racism but also anti change" to "nominally anti racist but practically anti anti racist, ie pro racist" by getting them to support counter protest movements escalating in extreme from "all lives matter" and "its OK to be white" up to believing in the white genocide conspiracy theory.
> I suspect that many of those with their "heads in the sand" would be less inclined to ignore the intolerance if the sand shovelers (dump truck operators?) were shown for the venal, cynical scum they are.
Unfortunately people aren't very easy to reason out of positions they've dug themselves into. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink, as they say.