White Privilege in Dutch Anarchism

From Mirna Wabi-Sabi, on race, colonialism, and identity

Author’s note: “De Pinkster Land Dagen (Pentecost days in dutch) started in 1927 by young anarchists from the Netherlands. In 1933, they bought a potato field from which they made a camping site, and where they organize a drug/alcohol free Anarchist festival every year.”

At Pinkster Land Dagen 2017, University of Color gave a workshop on white privilege and “post”-colonial identity as an attempt to start a conversation about decolonizing anarchism. The workshop and talk was difficult and many of the responses were problematic to many different degrees. We don’t believe this was due to a few loose cannons in the audience, but more likely illustrated the systemic problems in these circles that we aimed to tackle with the workshop.

This attempt requires a tremendous amount of emotional labour on the part of the UoC members, and here we would like to outline why.

  • This is not a philosophical discussion about subjects we read in books. It’s about the pain we are still feeling now, and struggle with every day. Books can help white people learn about this, and for people of color to find the vocabulary to express and process this pain. If you are a white man and you don’t listen to women of color on issues of racism and sexism, don’t be surprised when they choose not to listen to you. If you think you understand racism better than people of color then you are exercising white privilege, white supremacy and reproducing colonizer’s attitudes.
  • If white people are hurt or offended when they are called ‘white’ this is called White Fragility. This means that they experience the issue of ‘race’ so rarely, that when they are confronted with this statement, the situation itself is the worst version of discrimination they have faced. People of color are confronted with this so often that if they reacted extravagantly every time someone pointed out their race, they literally would not be able to do anything else in life. It would also probably lead to arrest or death.. One person calling you white is not the same as a whole world, institutions, governments, policies, armies, physical violence, history and so on constantly labeling you and controlling your life. Color-blindness is an offensive exercise of white privilege and does not help people of color, or lead to the eradication of racism. Denying the problem because you get to does not lead to solving the problem for those who actually suffer from it.
  • There is no such thing as ‘reverse racism’. Calling someone white is not a racist act, it’s only a statement of a fact, the fact that there is Institutionalized racism, there has been for hundreds of years, and white people just do not experience it. It’s called white privilege and this is not a racist statement. Racism is not discrimination based on skin color, it’s systematic institutionalized oppression of people of color and the ‘global south’ since the genocide of our people and our culture by western European entities.
  • Equating colonial violence in Latin America to the Dutch struggle between Catholics and Protestants: Don’t. Color blindness/white privilege at play again.
  • Equating culture to nation states: Culture is something people in colonized countries had to fight to preserve in-spite of European nation states. We are proud of our culture and we fight to preserve it, it does not mean we are proud of our Government. It’s also problematic that the anarchists that present this argument don’t acknowledge the existence of the anarchist culture they so cherish.
  • What’s wrong with white European men leading indigenous, feminist, and other Latin American movements? Everything. Indeed white men can be aware of the issues, but they also need to be aware of how much space they take, and to allow the space for people to speak for themselves. We don’t want to need the validation of white European men because this is just another exercise of colonial attitudes. Even with the best intentions, white dutch anarchist men acting like they know better around people from the ‘global south’ creates an incredibly unsafe environment for people of color. They can try, but they just don’t understand what it’s like for immigrants of color, and how we often feel like we need to ask permission to be somewhere, or to say or do something.
  • If you are a white person and you truly feel like you know better than a person of color when it comes to racism, or you know better how to communicate ideas on the subject… stop and think ‘Where is this feeling coming from?’ ‘Where is it rooted?’ ‘Is it valid?’. It’s coming from entitlement, which comes from being a white European. It’s rooted in white supremacy, it’s not valid and it can create an unsafe environment for people of color. For instance, it is very problematic when Dutch people try to educate a Brazilian woman on Brazilian ‘post´-colonial identity.
  • As a white dutch anarchist it’s important to realize that disagreeing with a person of color doesn’t just mean philosophical differences with any other fellow comrade, but a very real and practical exercise of racial power. Because white dutch anarchists have the access to resources, spaces and history in the Netherlands. These disagreements lead to alienation and series of racial micro-agressions that make it virtually impossible for people of color to stay in a white dutch anarchist space without feeling subjugated.
  • For instance: Tone policing. ‘We agree (in theory) with what you are saying but we don’t like how you are saying it’. That is to say: you are probably right because I’ve read it in a book, but I don’t like it that you are so emotional about it because it’s not ‘gezellig’ or respectful to us. The thing is that of course we are emotional about it because we are still suffering and our wounds are still open. Many white people are willfully ignorant to this because it’s in their best interest to maintain the [racist] status quo, while also maintaining the “not racist” label.

Decolonization and Identity

Almost every time I tell someone they are white or Dutch, they respond defensively with: “But you are kind of white too”, or “you’re not black,” or the best one “How would you feel if I called you Latina or Brazilian?” It’s laughable and worrying that they take such a statement as an attack. Yes, I am Latin American, and I am Brazilian. No, I am not black. That doesn’t change the fact that they are white and Dutch.

I think they do this because they think that me labeling them what they are and pointing out their privileges implies I don’t have privileges and therefore I’m better. It’s actually the opposite, I point out their privileges because I see them in myself.

This wrong assumption is a serious aggression to people of color because Western Europeans have always felt comfortable labeling others while remaining neutral, and this has been paramount to the persistence of white supremacy. It’s also very telling of how unusual and repulsive it is to them to feel subjugated based on their skin color or nationality, which people of color are way too used to. Having to admit they cannot be the objective voice of reason on a subject for once is incredibly painful to people suffering from white fragility. And when it comes to racism and decoloniality, they are not the voice of reason that should lead the movement. For once they will not be the center of attention, and we do not want a seat at their table.

I’m an incredibly privileged person, and I’m always trying to deal with this privilege carefully, critically and consciously. It’s tricky to recognize when you are being treated differently or being discriminated against, because you can’t switch passports or skin color freely. Sometimes we don’t see the micro-agressions and oppression because we know nothing else. This leads to a lot of gaslighting, paranoia and many even believe black people are collectively suffering from post traumatic slavery syndrome.

Ironically, I learned a lot about what it is like to be Brazilian/Latina, and be treated as such, only after I became European. At borders, at clubs, with partners, with other Brazilians, it completely changed. Traveling was so much easier, at borders I felt confidence and entitlement as opposed to anxiety and fear. Strange white men didn’t flirt with me as aggressively or asked me to dance and shake my ass.

After 10 years outside of Brazil my skin became lighter due to less sun and my hair straighter due to less humidity, which also made clear the difference between being treated as a white girl or a Latina. People were inclined to think I was in Europe to study as opposed to ‘work,’ both implying I was in Europe to ‘better’ myself, and implicitly expecting gratitude from me. Brazilians started talking to me as if I lived like a princess and knew nothing of the turmoil and struggle of Brazilian life. I was always fierce and political as a kid, but the European passport in particular was a radicalizing turn of events.

The alienation from all sides pushed me to take the issue of Identity and belonging very seriously. White Western European people have lived sheltered from these kinds of experiences so they haven’t had the unavoidable motivation to explore their whiteness. So, white people, take this into consideration because a revolution is coming and you need to decide, you are either with us or against us. “decolonization is always a violent phenomenon” (Fanon)

I’ve never felt safe in this space (PL and the Dutch white-anarchist-activist scene). Even though it’s wonderful that so many people to some degree acknowledge the problem of white supremacy, and want to make this community safer, it’s been an uphill battle for me in the last 7 years and I’m tired of it.

It’s great that people see the need for these kinds of discussions and aim for diversity in the community. However, it’s not great to rely on people of color to do the work for you, and we hope white anarchists find ways to address and solve this problem themselves.

References: Angela Davis, Audre Lorde, Gloria Wekker, bell hooks, Frantz Fanon, Paulo Freire and Maria Lacerda de Moura.

Mirna Wabi-Sabi

Intersectional feminist and decolonial activist

16 thoughts on “White Privilege in Dutch Anarchism

  1. Your comment about becoming european is interesting, in that the change seems to have had as much to do with how you perceive yourself as how others perceived you. Being treated with common decency and respect isn’t a privilege, you are entitled to expect it, we are all entitled to expect it. Is there really no part of you that wonders whether the change in others attitudes came about because of the change in yours? For instance, border security do pick out people who look fearful and predatory chauvinist arsehats might avoid confident women. Maybe your newfound sense of (legitimate) entitlement was projected in your body-language?
    Now, I have no basis for suggesting this besides your posting, so I’m not saying this is actually the case, it’s a genuine question.
    While we’re at it, there are a couple of things which I find confusing. I’d appreciate you explaining them to me, I genuinely would like to understand;
    If (as you seem to suggest in the in the first half of the essay) white (particularly male) anarchists aren’t really in a position to understand the problem cohesively, if they should ideally be adopting a fairly passive and supportive stance regarding these problems, how can they “find ways to address and solve this problem themselves”? Wouldn’t finding the way and solving the problem imply some sort of leadership position?
    I also think this is quite problematic, you say “Calling someone white is not a racist act, it’s only a statement of a fact” but you’re not just calling someone white, you’re making a ton of assumptions about them based on the fact that they’re white, that they’re privileged, that they don’t understand the difficulties people face in post colonial societies, that they’re objecting to subjugation on the basis of “white fragility”. To call someone white isn’t racist but it is racist to make assumptions about them on the basis of their whiteness. I can see you’ve examined your privilege but have you examined your prejudice closely?


  2. Not being from the Netherlands or from Europe in general, I don’t know what the internal culture of the anarchist milieu is like in that part of the world but, where I’m from, there are increasing numbers of “white anarchist men” such as myself who are pretty much fed up with “The Anarchist Scene” in general. So, when the author of this article states that individuals of my background “don’t acknowledge the existence of the anarchist culture they so cherish,” I don’t really know what she’s talking about. I neither deny nor cherish its existence. In fact, I actively despise its existence, which is why I simply do not spend time in anarchist subcultural spaces.

    Like so many discussions of “privilege” within anarchist circles, the author seems to want to have her cake and eat it too: on the one hand, she acknowledges the toxicity of “the Dutch white-anarchist-activist scene” and laments its shortcomings but, on the other hand, continues to participate in it. If you are as fed up with the anarcho-activist scene as you say you are, then why be involved with it? If you’re really serious when you say that “we do not want a seat at their table,” then why not just walk away? Instead of continuing to beat your head against a brick wall guilt-tripping people about their “privilege,” just admit to yourself that their “scene” isn’t worth your time and move on to something better. What’s missing here is a critique of “subculture” as such and the insular cliquish mentality to which it gives rise. The people within this subculture can run around in circles “unpacking their privilege” from now until the Rapture and it’ll do nothing whatsoever to change this one simple fact.

    The author seems to be tying herself in knots trying to reconcile the privilege she sees in others with the privilege she recognizes within herself when she could save herself a lot of frustration simply by keeping different company. The de facto purpose of any subculture, be it “political” or otherwise, is merely to reproduce its own existence. Regardless of any initial pretenses about building a movement or fomenting a revolution that it may have founded itself upon, a subculture, merely by defining itself in opposition to a dominant culture, can only ever be an outgrowth of that culture. Whether one is speaking of an activist scene, a nation-state, or an ethnic identity, the fact remains that all such social bodies are built around the assumption of “The Collective” as a unified “object” that somehow exists independently of the individuals who comprise it. It is this fetishization of a unified collective identity that has fueled cultish dogmatism and blind obedience to authority for countless ages.

    If people want to derive a sense of personal empowerment from their ethnic background then, by all means, more power to you. If this helps you feel stronger in who you are as an individual, then this can only be a positive thing. However, it starts to become a problem when one’s ethnic background ceases to be one particular aspect of who they are as a person and becomes a collective political identity that seeks “representation” in what psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan referred to as “the discourse of the Master.” At this point, it has ceased to be a source of empowerment and become a source of continued slavery.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Hi, thanks for the comments.

    Have I thought about the change in other people’s attitude coming from the change in mine? Yes, of course. This is the basis for almost all the decolonial revolutionary texts I mentioned as reference: how to identify the problem and to bring about change. If you meant more as a chicken or the egg situation, what comes first: the oppression or the oppressed, be careful, this is the kind of rhetoric Blue Lives Matter people use to justify police violence.

    About white men leading, sounds like you missed the point. If the problem is the lack of diversity in a particular community, members of that community can ask for help, but ultimately it is their responsibility to evolve. The community here being the white dutch anarchists at PL. It’s frustrating for people of color to have to explain things to white people who only marginally want to listen, because they have an unconscious(?) motivation to maintain the status quo. If the problem is, let’s say, abortion rights, men can definitely be supportive, but leading such a movement would be very uncomfortable for women, because it reinforces the idea of how difficult it is for women to take charge of their own bodies. So the message was: know where your power and responsibilities are, rather than recreating issues you claim to be fighting against.

    I do believe being white is a privilege, and if you are white, logically, you have that privilege. If you think these statements are not based on reason or actual experience, sounds like you also missed the point about acting like you know better. This sentence here “they’re objecting to subjugation on the basis of “white fragility”” didn’t make sense to me, but in general sounds like you are one of those people suffering from white fragility. Either way, good luck.

    @Frederich Stirnerius von Deleuzenstein,
    Sounds like you are not, and you admit it, the kind of anarchist that attends this festival. There are a lot of other people in the world that aren’t you though, sorry to break it to you. About leaving, I did, darling. I don’t live in Europe anymore, and I declined their request to return for further workshops. Not sure where you got the idea I fetishize a “unified collective identity” but I’m ashamed to engage with you in a response. Considering I take a more Hegelian approach towards the master/slave dialectic, I must rupture this cycle of recognition where you try to existentially define me. Tchau.


    1. Mirna:
      Well, allow me to congratulate you for severing ties with the anarcho-scenester cult. That’s certainly a step in the right direction. And it’s hardly news to me that I’m among the minority of self-avowed “anarchists” (a moniker that I adopt with no small amount of reluctance) when it comes to my rejection of the anarchist subcultural ghetto. I spent my late teens to mid-twenties embroiled in that whole scene and it sort of nauseates me that I actually used to be one of those people. However, my experience here in Canada may differ from yours in the Netherlands in that it was usually the white anarcho-leftist “cool kid” contingent who were the first to wave a disapproving finger in your face about unchecked “privilege” as a means of silencing dissension within the ranks. The implication, though never explicitly stated, wasn’t simply “you’re privileged” but, “you’re privileged and should, therefore, feel guilty about it and atone for your sins.” Seeing as I eventually care to reject the whole idea that guilt is a useful basis from which to act in the world in any capacity, let alone in service to any so-called “revolutionary” project that I would consider worth pursuing, rejecting the entire framework of “call-out culture” as I had experienced it up until that point was a natural step for me.

      This isn’t to say that, if you’re willing to acknowledge the possibility that “white male privilege” has both advantages and disadvantages for those who inherit it, we can’t discuss the matter further. However, what I will not do is be guilted into personally apologizing for a broad network of diffuse and fluid systemic oppression that I had no hand in choosing. Nor will I pander to your ideological sensibilities merely because you think I’m morally obligated to do so. Been there, done that, bought the proverbial t-shirt. As for your avowed Hegelianism, I can’t really say I’m surprized. Considering the tendency of the Hegelian dialectic to assimilate anything resembling individual difference and specificity into a totalizing “World spirit,” it’s pretty much to be expected. It’s really six and one to me whether you respond or not. I’m ready and willing to discuss these matters further but won’t be offended if you’d prefer to just continue silently on your way.

      But, all criticism aside, I do, as I said at the outset, commend you for recognizing the need to discontinue your participation in the anarchist subculture. I would only suggest that you seek out some critiques of your perspective that are freely available online. Here are a few to get you started if you so choose:





      Liked by 1 person

      1. Hi, Frederich Stirnerius von Deleuzenstein
        You suggested I seek out some critiques, but it seems that the critiques you are presenting are based more on projections of your personal experience, rather than on what I wrote.
        The issue of guilt and participation in identity politics are a little bit out of place. I wish you good luck exploring these issues within yourself, if this is what you are struggling with. About awknowleging the pros and cons of “inherited white male privilege”, I’d suggest to you some texts by bell hooks. White capitalist patriarchy is bad for everyone, also for men.


    2. I think there is a chicken and egg issue to work out and shying away from it on the basis that others use it to justify oppression is cowardly. One of the difficulties in extracting oneself from oppression is in extinguishing the subservient mindset in oneself, the policeman in your head. As we all face oppression, this is something we all have to do to some extent. People who come from colonised countries have a greater challenge, in that this subservience may be overtly (as well as covertly) reinforced but they must accept this challenge if they are to be free. Based on your essay, you seem to have required the validation of others in order to feel entitled to walk through a line on a map without being accosted by agents of the state. My question was; do you think you would have enjoyed the same rewards if you had liberated yourself rather than waited for others to liberate you through their validation? Chicken and egg.

      As far as your “acting like I know better” point, I have my opinion, it is mine, I will state it if I wish. I do not claim it as some sort of universal truth, it is what I believe, based on what I know. I understand that it may well be utterly incorrect but, if it has merit, this merit exists regardless of my gender or ethnicity. To say my opinion is less valid than yours on the basis of my gender is sexist, to say it is less valid than yours on the basis of my race is racist. You have no way to know, on the basis of either my gender or my race, what level of oppression I have endured nor how acute my powers of analysis are. To prejudge my opinions, knowledge, ability or experiance on the basis of outward markers is odious (and the fact that this needs to be explained to you is utterly baffling). Personally, I’m quite sure I disagree with you because I find fault with your arguenment rather than because of your gender or race but, by all means, go ahead and tell yourself it’s all white fragility, if that makes you feel better.

      One of the faults I find with your arguement regards the thorny issue of “white privilege”. If you feel privileged by your whiteness, that’s your problem. I do not. A privilege is a special right granted someone, over and above what the rest of society should reasonably expect. The degree to which the state respects my freedom and dignity is below what I should reasonably expect and I would say this is broadly true of all anarchists, that this is the very basis of anarchism. How then can any self-respecting anarchist accept that a slightly less odious degree of oppression is “a privilege”? It’s nonsensical. You say I should be careful in the language I use but, in calling the treatment you receive as a white woman “a privilege”, you allow the problem of discrimination to be “solved” by victimising white people to the same degree as other ethnicities. Framing the problem of oppression in terms of privilege demands an extension of state oppression rather than a restriction of it.

      Along the same lines, I find fault with the idea that certain people should recuse themselves from leadership positions based on some physical attribute. Leaders within any anarchist community or group are given their position by their followers, they do not take it. If you do not want to follow men in leadership positions, do not follow them. If you do not want to follow white people in leadership positions, do not follow them. If you feel uncomfortable with the leadership of a group or movement, don’t join it, find a better one, start your own, whatever. If someone feels strongly about a subject, such as abortion, who are you to say they shouldn’t do the most they can do to further what they think is right? Where is the sense in suggesting that good and able people, who have been deemed by their peers to be good and able, should hold themselves back on the basis that you think they’re the wrong gender?!?


  4. Mirna:
    I’ve been “exploring these issues within myself” for years now and, as a result of this introspection, I’ve come to some definite conclusions on the subjects of “identity” and “privilege.” These are words that you use frequently in the above article in a context that is highly reminiscent of the manner in which I’ve heard them used by individuals who most definitely did fetishize a unified collective identity. If you’re using these words in a different sense than I have come to understand them in the context of the present discussion, then please clarify what you mean when you use them. When you speak of a “decolonial identity,” who’s identity are you referring to? Yours? Someone else’s? A group of people’s? Multiple groups of people? What exactly do you mean when you speak of “identity?”

    As for the subject of “privilege,” do me a favour and complete the following sentence: “White men are privileged and, therefore, they should _______________________________.” The third link that I that I shared in my previous post is an article by Wolfi Landstreicher called “A Question of Privilege,” from Willful Disobedience, Vol. 8, No. 2. Here’s an excerpt that I think is directly relevant to this discussion:

    “One hears a lot of talk about privilege in anarchist circles these days. “Male privilege”, “white-skin privilege”, “first-world privilege and similar phrases come up regularly in discussion, but with no real analysis to back them up, as if everyone should understand exactly what is meant. And, indeed, it is not so difficult to figure out what is meant by these phrases. Their clear implication is that if the oppression and exploitation one suffers in this society is not as intense as that which another suffers, then one is privileged relative to that other person. But such a conception of privilege is useless from an anarchist and revolutionary perspective. It only has meaning in relation to the reformist concept of equality before the law, which is always equality of exploitation and oppression. For those of us who have no interest in rights, but rather want the freedom to determine our own lives and so find the only equality worth pursuing to be equality of access to all that is necessary for determining the conditions of our existence — that is, for those of us for whom the destruction of the social order and the revolutionary transformation of reality are the essential first steps toward making our lives our own — a very different concept of privilege must be developed.”

    Alright, so white men are privileged. Duly noted. But this begs the obvious question: now what? In other words, armed with this Earth-shattering revelation, what is to be done next? While I appreciate your concession that “white capitalist patriarchy” is bad for men too, merely acknowledging this to be the case doesn’t get us very far if we don’t also attempt to flesh out its implications. For instance, is it possible that the pros of “white male privilege” offer tools for resisting its cons that are not available to people who aren’t white men? If so, then couldn’t it be said that people who aren’t white men could stand to indirectly benefit from certain aspects of white male privilege? Rather than going around feeling guilty about being privileged, it makes more sense to me that white men use the aspects of their privilege that make it easier to resist those aspects that keep both themselves and others in chains. I don’t think these sorts of questions are “out of place” here at all. On the contrary, I think they have a direct bearing on what you’ve written.


    P.s: I’ll check out Bell Hooks, but only if you promise to check out Judith Butler and Bracha Ettenger. 😉 Each in their own way, they present fascinating deconstructions of “Woman” as a collective identity category that is very much worth considering.


  5. Hi,
    You both are interesting characters. I hear a lot of defensiveness and assumption, because it seems that your egos are a bit hurt.
    If you tell me im prejudiced, you are saying I’m not basing my opinion on reason or experience. So, somehow you are, and therefore you know better.
    If I talk about identity and privilege I must be just like others you met who use the same terms, ‘one of those people’, but you are not listening to how im discussing these terms and what my point is.
    Now, coming from someone who thrashed identity politics, it’s weird for you to tell me to read Judith Butler.
    Either way, thanks for the comments and giving a real life example of what I was talking about in my article!


    1. You would find defensiveness in my words regardless of what I say because it’s what you’re ideologically predisposed to look for. Even when faced with a very fundamental request to define your terms so that we can clarify what it is we’re talking about, you shrink away from the discussion and declare a moral victory without even attempting an explanation as to how or why that’s the case. Why should I be expected to automatically know what you mean when you speak of “identity” and “privilege?” You’re one who initially used the words, not me. There is a very definite reason why you’re not interested in discussing the politics of guilt as it relates to white male privilege, and it has little if anything to do with it being tangential to the point. Could it be that you’re not interested in explicitly engaging with the concept of guilt so much using the implication of it as a means of controlling the debate? Sorry, but if being a “real life example of what you’re talking about in your article” is what I need to do to shine a light on these sorts of passive-aggressive manipulation tactics, then that’s a price I’m willing to pay.


    2. “If you tell me im prejudiced, you are saying I’m not basing my opinion on reason or experience.”

      Oh no, I’m saying the very opposite. You see “I’m basing my opinion on reason and experience” is how every bigot justifies their prejudice.

      When a cop shoots some member of a minority, he’ll say his experience and reason told him his life was in danger, when some fat old white guy pays a woman less than a man, he’ll say his experience and reason told him she would go off and have babies in a year or two, when some jumped up border guard hassles ten brown people a day, his experience and reason are telling him they’re a bigger risk, when someone calls an immigrant a parasite, it’ll be because their experience and reason tell them this is the only reason immigrants come to his country, when some guy asks a woman to “shake her ass” in a club, it’ll be because his experience and reason tell him that women like that kind of shit.

      So there you are, I’m saying you’re prejudiced because you’re judging individuals, and their positions, on the basis of your reason and experience, which is really just a self-satisfied way to describe those self-serving rules of thumb you’ve established regarding the group you’ve arbitrarily assign people to. For all the books you reference, you seem to have skipped or forgotten the basics.

      Prejudice is the act of judging one individual on the basis of your experiences with, and beliefs about, other people you regard as similar to them.

      Let me guess, you’re going to invalidate this basic observation on the basis of my gender? A man would say that? I’m clearly letting my emotions rule my thinking? Maybe you’d like to come up with some original sexist remark?


  6. Wow. The extensive white fragility and/or internalised racism on display in response to you, Mirna, more than demonstrates your points. Just wanted to say thank you for writing and sharing this.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I find your baseless attack on my character incredibly offensive and ask you to provide support for your vile insinuations or to withdraw them. I should not have to endure being labelled a racist on the basis of making clear, concise and respectful comments in response to an article I find intellectually flawed. Posting snide comments rather than directly addressing any concerns you have directly with the posters in question is utterly contemptable behaviour, better suited to the playground than public discourse.


  7. And yet even so much as a * rudimentary * definition of either “identity” or “privilege” remains oddly elusive. Funny about that, huh? Who needs a coherent argument when you can rely on the peanut gallery to shower you with praise and cry “racism” whenever anyone critiques your faulty analysis? Nothing like the predictable bleating of fellow sheep to re-enforce cultist groupthink.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.