The pattern is:
Apply standard of neutrality to poster, and find poster wanting - hence remain skeptical to keep an open mind.
"there could be a misunderstanding."
The promulgator and supporters are always people who are at best well meaning, but generally oblivious to privilege or its manifestations.
This will be pointed out, and the promulgator will point out how they have done X or are friends with Y in defence.
So first off - you aren't being targeted. The promulgator is acting rationally based on his experiences.
The best examples to counter this were an AMA from a guy who had a sex change operation. He then could clarify what Male privilege is, and how you would be completely oblivious to it until its gone.
It turns down as a woman a simple thing like walking down a road changes in a manner drastically different from what men are used to.
Similarly there was an AMA from a girl who used to look good, and then lost that advantage. All of a sudden she saw privileges she assumed were just normal things - disappear.
It turns out that men don't normally open doors for you, or are helpful.
Unfortunately when you react with outrage, most people have no idea what you are talking about and respond with:
"It unnecessarily adds doubt to the claims being made"
• We see a stranger (call them the victim) on the internet making strong, negative claims against a set of people who are also strangers.
• We often only have the victim's word to judge these claims by.
• Therefore, there will often be debate about these words (which we can talk about with certainty) instead of the claims made (which we only know about second-hand.)
Starting from this perspective seems to lead to really, really degenerate conversation. It tends to be worst when talking about rape or sexual harassment charges.
(There's sometimes an additional weird layer where commenters think the original victim shouldn't make claims they can't prove to third parties, regardless of the truth of those claims.)
Other wise its always a death spiral at worst or a holding pattern on average.
I think yours is a larger general case - and I am trying to invoke perhaps a child case with the addition of privilege blindness.
What is tragic that this is a perfect example of good intentions that lead to terrible results.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)
In brief, saying "X is wrong, because X subscribes to ideology I" is not a logically valid argument. Willing to hear X's argument and consider it on its own merits does not grant legitimacy to I.
The narrator's argument isn't "white people are colonizers, so...", he merely enumerates what he has experienced. That phrasing is unfortunate (but pales in comparison to being told far more offensive things _at work_) it doesn't detract from (or add to) his argument, i.e., it's an irrelevant detail.
There's a time to vent and a time to make a case. I personally feel that the author would have been better served making a case (EEOC) instead of venting in a public method. Especially since the identities of the author and the company in question are very easy to track down. This could have long term negative consequences for the author, and may make his claim harder if he does decided to take his former employer to court.
YMMV.
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2012/08/...
However, it detracts from the story compared to a straight telling, which would have focused 100% on the racist jerk.
IMO.
When should it be considered acceptable for a victim to mimic their aggressor's behavior (especially when it is similar behavior that caused the victimization to begin with)?
Disclaimer: I'm trying to understand and not support to any of the GP comments.
It unnecessarily adds doubt to the claims being made. If your narrator has an agenda it becomes difficult to trust that narrator.