I’m going to do both of us the favor of ignoring the parts of your response that, once again, can’t help sinking to the level of personal digs, patronizing nonsense and defensive flailing, and focus on substance. I encourage you to do the same, if you’re capable of it. I hold out hope for everyone.

So, here we go. Let me start with this:

I have not mentioned Trump. If you really think his supporters are anti-racist like your friends, I should leave this for your own consideration.

I do not doubt that there were other factors involved. But, how does any of that prove that there is no difference in the experience of being black/white/whatever in America? Let’s say you’re right and virtually no racism — against poc — exists in the great majority of people today. Would you acknowledge that the history of racism had impacted the structure of society, access to healthcare, quality of education, economic inequality, treatment from criminal justice system? Or in any other areas?

First, I do not think Trump supporters are “anti-racists.” I think many of them were directly motivated by race, in fact. I don’t know if you had a chance to read the anti-white racist Ta-Nehisi Coates’ latest screed suggesting that Trump’s supporters were primarily driven by race, but I wrote a response to that in which what I point out is not that race wasn’t a factor in their support(and a big factor, at that), but rather, that the reason race was such a big factor is that these white people were driven to become more race-conscious and identify with their racial group as a direct result of people on the regressive left, people such as Ta-Nehisi Coates, rolling back the Civil Rights Era vision of a nation where people would be judged as individuals rather than as races. I won’t explain the whole argument here (you can read my response, which is well documented with details and some stats, etc., if you’re interested), but that’s the general idea.

Second, to answer your question, yes, I think racism (specifically, racism against African-Americans) absolutely has, in the past, “impacted the structure of society, access to healthcare, quality of education, economic inequality, treatment from criminal justice system [and] … other areas.”

On to your next point:

You mistake the audience as stupid. No one reads this story and marks every older, white European male as an overt racist. The point of the story is that such people exist, maybe not everyone; but maybe also racism doesn’t have to be out in street beating on people or using the N-word. It can be seemingly far less harmful when you have US history for comparison.

I think you’re giving people too much credit. I agree not everyone’s going to read the story and decide all whites are racist or all older white European males are racist or whatever. But think of this story as another brick in the wall, so to speak. There’s a lot of this kind of toxic stuff going around. People present their individual experiences without bothering to reflect on how common or unique those experiences might be, and the invitation is to others to assume that this is really what’s going on behind the scenes. This, we are supposed to think, is how white people are with each other when no one’s looking. I don’t mind anecdotes in journalism when they’re either fascinating in themselves or else used to illustrate something common or important. But this doesn’t fall into any of those categories. If the author had started with this anecdote and then proceeded to give us some data about what’s typical out there that makes the anecdote credible as an illustration of something widespread, then I would’ve had no problem with it. I mean, how would you like it if I published a story where I describe my particular experience interacting with a stereotypical “young black thug” who tried to mug me, etc.? You and many others like you would likely chime in to say this was pretty racist of me, no? And that’s in a case where, statistically speaking, I’d probably be able to muster much more empirical support for generalizing my anecdote than in the case of the guy the author described. My point is that stuff like this isn’t helpful. It just makes people more dug-in in their prejudiced attitudes.

Your next point:

I haven’t called you stupid, as Amber Lisa noted you are capable of great mental feats of gymnastics to reach your conclusions. You are so defensive at being tied to the idea of racism. And why wouldn’t you be, previous generations got such benefits, and could flaunt their racism with impunity. Today, white people are. Lanes for that, and that is unfair.

However, benefits remain. How can you look at such institutional racism against poc, that allows the AG to literally be a racist, and believe this is less important than the openness with which poc call out that racism? Where is the impact on your life, that equates to voter suppression?

You keep referring, here and elsewhere, to “poc,” and, as I’ve indicated before, I find such umbrella terms very problematic. “People of color” is yet another one of these useless generalizations. Or rather, it’s a useful political tool for getting out the Democratic Party vote and getting people to vote against their own economic interests, but as a more strictly empirical matter, it groups together people whose experience is widely divergent. African-Americans in this country have a unique experience of slavery, discrimination, racism, etc. The only other group that comes anywhere near this kind of experience is Native Americans. Other groups, such as Hispanics, have faced some discrimination, but it is nothing like what African-Americans have had to endure, historically speaking. And still other groups, such as most Asian-Americans, did face isolated instances of discrimination at various historical periods (e.g., internment of Japanese Americans during World War II or the Chinese Exclusion Act), but at this point, most Asian-Americans from Japan, China, South Korea and India are over-represented among the most successful groups in our society. They constitute around 20% of enrollment at top universities, and more like 40% of enrollment at top universities where affirmative action isn’t used to keep their numbers down. To put all these divergent groups of people and others into one basket entitled “people of color” is absurd. So let’s dispense with that term.

Turning to your point that I am somehow personally defensive about being called a racist, first of all, I don’t know anyone who wouldn’t take umbrage at being called a racist (except, perhaps, for those who are proud of it), but second, I’m not sure where you get this idea that I’m particularly defensive about it. I’m very comfortable with my view of racial issues, actually. I believe in the Civil Rights era idea of judging people based on who they are as individuals, and I believe in entirely retiring the whole regressive “race” vocabulary, as I’ve described here, where I adduce lots of empirical evidence that racial thinking is making our problems worse. I know there are those who now view the once-vaunted ideal of race-blindness as a form of racism, but I believe these people are themselves racists.

You write: “You are so defensive at being tied to the idea of racism. And why wouldn’t you be, previous generations got such benefits, and could flaunt their racism with impunity[?]” Again, you’re completely off the mark here, and this is where grouping all people who have pale skin and non-“Asian”-looking eyes together as “white” is doing you (and everyone else) a disservice. You speak of me being defensive about being accused of racism because “previous generations” of white people got benefits. Sorry, but those weren’t my previous generations. I wasn’t even born in this country. I came here with my parents when I was four from the former Soviet Union, where my “previous generations” of “white” people got to endure such wonders as communism, World War II (in which my grandfathers fought, with one of them coming back a total alcoholic from all the inhumanity he’d seen and dying of stomach cancer brought on by drinking tank fuel — which is just what they did for lack of any other alcohol to drink, while my grandmother’s whole family — parents and siblings — died of starvation during the Siege of Leningrad), World War I (in which my great-grandfathers fought, and in which one of them came back with only one leg left), and looking back further in history, serfdom, which is not all that different from slavery (by coincidence, the serfs were emancipated in 1861, just two years before the emancipation of the slaves in the U.S.). My family came to this country with a grand total of $400, since that’s all you were allowed to take out of the former Soviet Union at that time. Everything else we had to leave behind. So when you tell me that I’m defensive about the charge of racism because my ancestors got to benefit from all kinds of privileges here in America, including the privilege to flaunt their racism openly, you haven’t the faintest clue of what you’re talking about, do you? Your racialized thinking here does little more than expose the hollowness of tagging all “white” people with the charge of “privilege” or “racism” or anything else of this sort. Everyone’s experience is different. We need to get back to looking at everyone as an individual rather than engage in these superficial color wars.

And when you ask, “How can you look at such institutional racism against poc, that allows the AG to literally be a racist, and believe this is less important than the openness with which poc call out that racism?”, I don’t know what you’re talking about, and I strongly suspect you don’t either. Yes, we have vestiges of racism against African-Americans (again, I reject your “poc” nonsense) built into some American institutions, but who said I believe that this is less important than “the openness with which poc call out that racism,” as if I’m weighing these two against each other and seeing what tips the scale? My view is a bit more nuanced than that. What I believe is that what you describe as “openness” in calling out racism — which is what many reasonable people view as bare-faced anti-white racism — is actually making the very problem you describe worse rather than better. It’s increasing racial identification and racial hostility and leading everyone, including white people, to rally around those who appeal to them based on their race. If you don’t like Jeff Sessions, maybe what you ought to do is think a bit more broadly about how aggressive racialized identity politics on the Left led directly to Trump’s election (and, thus, Sessions’ appointment). This is what I describe in my article on Ta-Nehisi Coates, if you want a fuller explanation of what I’m talking about.

This brings me directly to your next point:

Where blame can be laid today is in anyone who tells poc that anything is OK about this situation. You aren’t just doing nothing to change the iniquity, you’re fighting the resistance to it! If you don’t want to be called a racist, start by at least getting out of the way.

I am in no way saying anything is okay. And I’m not fighting what you call “the resistance” to racism. The way I see it, I’m fighting the very people who are making the situation worse. I’ve described my reasoning many times, including in some of the articles I linked to above, but if you want to hear from a more “authoritative” voice, this well-publicized New York Times essay from the traditional liberal (i.e., not regressive liberal) Columbia political science professor Mark Lilla may help enlighten you a bit. Instead of telling me to “get[] out of the way” in the fight against racism, what you and other race-baiters like you might consider doing is getting out of your own way. You’re just making racism worse and worse by constantly and aggressively stressing race and attacking those people you think are racists. There are ways to fight racism (I have many ideas on that front that we can get into if you’re interested and that I’ve described repeatedly on Medium), but attacking and browbeating people isn’t one of them. That has never, ever worked.

Your next point:

We shouldn’t be shouting down people who offer their perspective. Firstly, the more people that offer their story, the more we can all learn — without, as you say, jumping to unsupported conclusions. Secondly, the issues need discussion — our disagreements show that at least — and when you tell someone their opinion does not matter, or is not valid, you are being superior. Why do you get to decide? Why not just say you disagree because of x, y, etc.

I still don’t see how you can comfortably criticise this account, using your own individual experience; while also debasing the position for lack of facts and statistics. Is there not a double standard here?

I disagree. We should be shouting down people, like this author, who offer nothing other than their perspective. We have too much “perspective” out there as it is. That’s how we got to this situation where CNN has its “perspective,” and Fox News has its “perspective,” and Donald Trump has his “perspective,” and facts and truth get lost in this jumble of perspectives. What we’re sorely in need of is not more “perspective,” but rather, more lux et veritas, light and truth. We need facts and data and more tethering to a reality we can all agree upon. As I said, I’m fine with an individual anecdote if it serves to illustrate something generalizable and if it’s backed up with some empirical data we can grasp onto, but this one didn’t fall into that category.

You then fault me for my ostensible hypocrisy in relying on my own anecdote in opposition to the anecdote I read about in this article. Here’s the passage of mine from the post you’re talking about:

Personally, among all the white people I know, virtually ALL of them not only would not use the N-word but would be horrified to hear it used by another white person. Virtually all of them are virulent anti-racists rather than racists. So why exactly is the story about the one 87-yr.-old guy more legitimate or representative than my experience of all my friends, colleagues, acquaintances, etc.? Maybe instead of telling these kinds of rabble-rousing clickbait stories of the one old white racist on the verge of death, we should be telling the stories of all the (many more) white people who abhor racism. I would argue, for example, that the phenomenon of white masochism is far more common today than this story of an unreconstructed old white racist. Or maybe, better yet, instead of telling these kinds of dueling stories, we should present actual facts.

First, as you can read, my point is that this one anecdote is useless because we can just as easily summon up anecdotes that go in the exact opposite direction. My further point is that I don’t personally know, among all my friends, anyone who is like this one old European guy. What I’m saying is that I believe that this anecdote is unrepresentative. Yes, I’m relying on my experience for my intuition, but I’m also not putting myself out there writing a story describing my experience and trying to get people to think that this is really how things are. What I’m suggesting is that, maybe, “instead of telling these kinds of dueling stories, we should present actual facts.” So there’s no hypocrisy on my part here. I’m saying it’s a mistake to present nothing more than stories, whether a story saying, “Oh, there’s this one old European guy who’s really racist” so this is just what racism/white privilege looks like on an average Tuesday (remember the title of the anonymous author’s original article was explicitly asking us to conclude that this kind of outrageous behavior by white people is just “an average day”) or, conversely, a story saying “all my white friends aren’t racist, so racism doesn’t exist.” All I’m saying is that the “average day” the guy describes is, in my experience, nothing like my average day or my average experience of white people, so if he wants to convince me (or anyone else), why doesn’t he muster some actual facts to show me why his intuition is more accurate than my intuition?

On to your final point, or at least your final point before you move on to some concluding ad hominems:

Oh, and I may have missed it but have you acknowledged the authors point, that they accept some form of white privilege at being hired because they are white? This is such a small thing, that on it’s own doesn’t require you to admit any white privilege in your world; just recognise another person experiences their own.

Do you want me to pin an award on this sleazeball who anonymously acknowledged his “white privilege” by tarring a sick 87-year-old man? No, sorry, no kudos from me for that. How much courage does it take to come out and do this anonymously? Moreover, I think the entire notion of “white privilege” is racist, as I’ve described here. And, as I’ve also described above and elsewhere, I think stories like this do more harm than good. So why exactly should I heap praise on this guy? Yeah … I don’t know either.