(Same person you’re replying to, new throwaway)

While I don’t appreciate the assumption that I commented in bad faith, I do greatly appreciate your earnestness in responding. I grew up in a very conservative area and have never been exposed to these ideas.

Nevertheless, I disagree strongly with this line of thinking. Hate speech is wrong, regardless of who says it, and who the target is; not just because it hurts the target, but because it emboldens the attacker and others to continue being hateful. Social media platforms are where people spend hours every day; and while you may be intelligent and mature enough to accept anti-white hatred as a measure to correct past wrongs, you severely underestimate the degree to which less intelligent and less mature people (whom I promise you’ve spent far less time with than I have) are vulnerable to grievance and negative-polarization. You have to consider them as well if your goal is to create true change outside of the institutions controlled by you and people with your beliefs.

I am not closed to the idea of affirmative action and benefit given to disadvantages groups to make right some past wrongs. I just warn you to not take a maximalist stance that causes resentment or assumes that POC should not have their anti-white speech policed because of “the soft bigotry of low expectations.”

Nice exchange, thank you! The idea is to not ask either one of the groups to change their behavior, but to show understanding first. I agree that certain actions are 'wrong'. Things people do can be very wrong, and understandable at the same time. People quite often do not act out of rational thinking but out of emotions. And these emotions can be very strong and very 'old'. When I remind myself I am not "meant" by them I can feel less offended, which allows me in turn to both stay in understanding and protect myself. Speech is just words after all.