Not entirely sure if this breaches GT guidelines, but I think not. If it does though, someone let me know and I'll just delete.
Remember my new best buddy from yesterday? He's very flattered that I addressed him, and he's back for more. This time he takes issues with my assertion that whiteness affords individuality.
What a terrific mess. For starters, her characterization of the United States's post-9/11 sociopolitical landscape is hopelessly oversimplified: human nature unfortunately being what it is, it's entirely logical to believe that many people viewed Middle Easterners as suspicious after the Twin Towers fell (though I didn't, and neither did anybody that I knew at the time), but it's just nonsense to act as if it were a universal and endearing sentiment, rather than one held by a narrow-minded segment of the population.
[...]Of course, a bare 53% majority "favorable" view of "Arab people" isn't the greatest indicator of social and political harmony—but it also doesn't necessarily or even likely imply that the respondents believed "all" Arabs to be "terrorists." Good Lord.
So basically, he still doesn't understand how referencing systems of oppression works. Colour me shocked. It's almost as if brown people who aren't even Muslim were face with discrimination post 9/11. It's not at all like the "brown people of Middle Eastern affiliation are totally terrorists" trope has become so ingrained that a decade later, it's still a big part of popular culture. It's not like people who don't even fall within the "target" group are being singled out and profiled...
Young is correct that, in contrast to the profiling to which many minorities are subject, young white males are not regarded prima facie as school shooters—but judging white males in such a way is merely as it should be, and indicative of the same even-handed consideration people should extend to every member of every racial and ethnic demographic.
I'll translate: "Of course we don't racially profile white guys. That would be racist. Isn't that what we don't want?" *shakes head*
But my absolute favourite part is this:
Try selling her on that point, though. "WE CAN MAKE GENERAL STATEMENTS ABOUT WHITE PEOPLE," she claims—and she justifies her claim by using the very same racial quackery she deplores in the very same paragraph! Readers, I can't make this up—and remarkably, I don't have to. Young set out to lecture your humble blogger on his racial insensitivity, and she ended up publicly reiterating her own racial prejudice and rationalizing it with the prejudice of others. She referred to me as "willfully oblivious," and I'll graciously allow her the projection.
Emphasis mine. His tried and true selective reading allowed him to eliminate the part where I talk about CONTEXT. He distorts my words and then tries to use them against me. Except any intelligent person with basic reading comprehension skills understands the full quote as intended:
IT IS WITHIN THIS CONTEXT THAT WE CAN MAKE GENERAL STATEMENTS ABOUT WHITE PEOPLE. It is because we know that no one is going to reflect one set of white people's bad behaviour onto all white people.
I think the most hilarious thing about this is that the original post was about white women. So not only has he managed to make this all about him, (literally proving my point by the way. wtf?) he's made it about him across both race and gender. You have to applaud that kind of mental gymnastics.
I have my very own Hugo. It's almost flattering.
I'm actually in two minds about posting this at all because his trolling attempts are just so transparent. My talking about him is exactly what he wants. "Here is a link to this thing I wrote where I insult you. Please talk about it and increase my exposure." I may only have like 800+ followers on twitter, but it is not lost on me that he's got something like 79, and keeps trying to bait me.
Either way, from the link dumping he keeps doing in my mentions (I've since blocked him) it's clear he reads GT, so my dear, if you are reading this now, I invite you to jump right into the fray and have a chat with me. I promise not to enjoy myself too much. After this I'm ignoring him though. This is my new mantra for 2014:
Oh, but on top of all that, he's still confusing GT with Jezebel, and he apparently thinks I'm a staff writer. JOURNALISM.