Does it make any sense for a divergent group to define both what is or is not a legitimate slight as well as what an acceptable or unacceptable response to it would consist of? If you didn’t answer “NO” quickly then examine your motives.
If you are not part of a particular group then how can you define that group’s degree of offense, insult, or injury appropriately?
Unequivocally you cannot.
Why then are some people so comfortable describing someone else’s feelings of offense as “perceived” when they by definition do not have the experience or perspective to judge?
The answer is clearly condescension and superiority.
When you are outside of an arena, only entitlement allows you to effectively tell someone else to “get over it” or “be realistic” or ” stop playing the victim”.
Those misguided people may in fact be motivated by fervent prejudices, but those same people may simply be working from a place of pure ignorance and immaturity without willful or intended bigotry.
Although, that somewhat less culpable state will not persist for long if it is allowed to go unchecked.
Regardless, the act of belittling and discrediting, in-of-itself, is a devious and contemptible method of keeping a targeted person or group in its “place” while at the same time, allowing the perpetrator to appear righteous.
This point must be brought up to all of the people that claim to despise the “racist” label while they are, at the same time, vehemently attacking everything that seeks to enable and uplift their opponents.
I will say that the game that these types of people have historically played worked very well when people were more easily kept from information (why do you think these people are invariably against public education).
Now, that gap is closing and in the end, intellect in conjunction with strength will be the equalizer.
