@Zahlanzi
We have an issue which is bubbling to the front of confrontations in the Netherlands.
By pure coincidence there’s a letter about the subject in the news:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53330105
So, it’s not directly related to racism, but it does have overlapping aspects.
What seems to be happening is this: inclusion.
What? Says ye. Whatever is wrong with inclusion?
Well, one of the interpretations is roughly as follows:
“I feel insulted. You cannot judge what insults me, therefore you have to accept my feelings in this.”
Men cannot judge what offends women, white men cannot fathom what’s offensive or racist to black people.
So, what happens is, someone feels insulted and demands an apology.
And then gets it. Because otherwise said offender is not woke and is probing his or her racism / ignorance / etc.
Now, say you raise the issues of context and intent. This is instantly dismissed. Because one cannot judge tue context and intent which is perceived by the victim (who’s obviously not a victim, but is just someone who’s assertive and vocal about the offender’s short-comings).
Now, in this scenario, I give you the death of debate and even the death of communication.
For if person X can be offended by Y, and Y cannot be judged on context or intent, then person C can be equally offended by the behaviour of X. And person M can be offended by C’s reaction to X’s behaviour to Y. Etc.
What’s your opinion on this?