So wait. You complain that my reply was too long and covered too many points for you to respond to, in a reply that was longer than my original article. And then write this equally long reply, in which you leave the topic of victimhood almost entirely and raise numerous varied points. Seems like you hold yourself to a different standard than you hold others Charles.

Speaking of which, no, it wasn't a personal attack at all. I simply said that the type of thinking you were engaging in is a perfect way to stay locked in a bubble. This is a statement of fact. It even has a name. It's called catastrophising. It had nothing to do with you disagreeing with me. The fact that you were wrong wasn't even the main issue. The issue is believing you know something because you feel it.

So yes, I can see how engaging in personal attacks makes the person feel as if they're being attacked. I can also see that failing to apply the tiniest degree of self-examination beyond your first, emotional response, can make you feel as if you're being attacked when you're not.

And no. I'm so tired of this way of thinking. The entire "anti-identity politics line of reasoning" does not originate within the oppressing class. First, the entire concept of an "oppressing class", at least based around an immutable trait, is deeply and obviously flawed. But more importantly, when it comes to racial issues, I am a member of the "oppressed" class. I care deeply about these issues. And I still oppose identity politics. I think it is an incredibly ineffective way of analysing and solving the problems that black people face.

So while I have no particular problem with walking and chewing gum, if the chewing gum part is causing us to walk backwards in certain important ways, I very strongly suggest we stop doing it.

And yes, funnily enough I can provide an example of a "black" person (not sure why the scare quotes) blaming white supremacy for everything. Even though the question is clearly disingenuous as I obviously didn't mean literally every single thing (and even thought the article we're commenting on lists numerous examples of stupid things being blamed on white supremacy). But yes, here's a conversation I had with a guy who did just that (I strongly suspect this will now be insufficient because the question wasn't in good faith in the first place):

https://steveqj.substack.com/p/you-can-join-candace-owens-in-deluded

You say that my my statement that some black people see themselves as nothing more than victims is an unproven assertion, but your statement that "there are far more people who dismiss racism when it is there than who see it when it is clearly not there" is also an unproven assertion. Once again, you demand standards that you don't hold yourself to. (Also, you could have saved yourself the trouble of typing the entire list. Obviously I'm not denying racism exists. I write about racism.)

But more to the point, my assertion simply requires that I've had a conversation with one person who proves my point (and I've had many). Yours is a population level claim that requires evidence of statistical analysis of people's attitudes. I'll wait patiently for you to provide it.

The point I was making with the poll data was obvious. But of course, now you simply move the goalposts because you don’t like the results. So sure, knock yourself out. Here’s the properly randomised poll, conducted by Gallup. Methodology is detailed at the bottom:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/183713/socialist-presidential-candidates-least-appealing.aspx

There's nothing wrong with the survey (especially given how wide the gap is between a black candidate and a gay candidate, say) other than the fact that it invites a more nuanced analysis of privilege and disparity.

And no, I'm not embarrassed by comparing the Kenosha militia and the New Black Panthers at the Arbery trial. First of all, there was far more justification for the Kenosha militia to be armed. They were there to prevent the destruction of property that had been carried out by rioters, largely unopposed, for two days. You can disagree with their right to be there all you like, but being armed makes sense if you're going to go there.

What exactly is the justification for turning up outside a courthouse where the jury hasn't even begun deliberating yet, armed with semi-automatic weapons? There were calls for a mistrial as a result of their actions. They could have put the whole case in jeopardy. So what was the justification for being armed? What was the threat that they were arming themselves against? How exactly is it intellectually dishonest to make the comparison? If anything, the comparison is generous to the Black Panthers.

It seems that you're simply engaged in trying to dismiss and/or disagree with me rather than trying to think logically. I don't see much value in this.