if he is of the opinion that minorities are an inherent problem, then what makes him acceptable as a non-white living in the USA and especially as one advocating for white's rights? or is it just lip-service?
I'm just playing devil's advocate here. I have no problem with Pedro doing what he does.
It lies in the "not every"-part, obviously. I mean, if one doesn't partake in the behaviour that is deemed the problem, I see no reason to not consider them part of the group they call out.
If they are partaking in the behaviour AND calling it out, they are hypocrits, part of the group and deserve a paddling
If they aren't partaking in the behaviour and REFUSE to call it out, when asked to, they are part of the group and deserve a paddling.
If they are partaking in the behaviour and DEFEND it, they deserve worse than a paddling
I'm just playing devil's advocate here
I'm aware. I just didn't find anything objectionable in that quote.
I don't follow him, but what exactly would there be to reconcile.
if he is of the opinion that minorities are an inherent problem, then what makes him acceptable as a non-white living in the USA and especially as one advocating for white's rights? or is it just lip-service?
I'm just playing devil's advocate here. I have no problem with Pedro doing what he does.
It lies in the "not every"-part, obviously. I mean, if one doesn't partake in the behaviour that is deemed the problem, I see no reason to not consider them part of the group they call out.
If they are partaking in the behaviour AND calling it out, they are hypocrits, part of the group and deserve a paddling
If they aren't partaking in the behaviour and REFUSE to call it out, when asked to, they are part of the group and deserve a paddling.
If they
are partaking in the behaviour andDEFEND it, they deserve worse than a paddlingI'm aware. I just didn't find anything objectionable in that quote.
I agree with everything you said, nicely put.