Okay, good. Let's use your example. But I don't understand what point you're making with it.

You and Chad manage to find many points in common. I'm very happy for you both. Then you both go home and something happens that you each interpret in racialised ways. That's fine, and would happen regardless, right? The same could happen between men and women and gay people and straight people, and (and this is very important), any two people who have had different life experiences.

Two women might interpret a story about rape differently depending on their experiences with men. Two black, gay, disabled, army veterans might interpret a story differently depending on their other life experiences.

The important question is; who is right? Or perhpas a better way to frame it; what is the best way to interpret the story?

Are you right about it being open season on black people? Well, we could have a conversation about police shooting statistics and the particulars of the case and try to come to an accurate conclusion. Is he right that white kids are being cheated? Well, we could have a conversation about bias and the historical disenfranchisement of black people and how affirmative action has actually benefited white women more than any other group.

You'll both have your knee-jerk reactions based on your experiences in llife. But these are very often based on paranoia and media bias and occasionally rank anger. That's not a criticism. All of us are vulnerable to this. If you have any sense, you'll both be willing to reason carefully and talk honestly about whether your knee-jerk reactions are correct. And if I know you and Chad as well as I think I do, you'll bring out the best in each other in this conversation and you'll both learn something. This isn't idealism. It's called thinking.