One thing that disgusts me about it is how transparently absurd the logic for protecting Jews in particular is—it goes: “it’s particularly bad when this happens to Jews because they’ve historically been the victim of that stereotype,” and then, if you ask why a stereotype of being successful and powerful is considered offensive, the logic continues with: “ascribing Jews power and influence has historically been an early step in them being singled out and persecuted for that perceived power and influence, and this has happened many times.”

Now, there’s not anything strictly wrong with that logic (setting aside questions of whether the stereotype is accurate or not as not directly relevant to the logic itself )… but it does compel one to go back to the start of the logic and raise the question of “if this stereotype is part of a repeating pattern that leads to violence, why is it not deeply concerning to see whites painted with that stereotype?”

One thing that disgusts me about it is how transparently absurd the logic for protecting Jews in particular is—it goes: “it’s particularly bad when this happens to Jews because they’ve historically been the victim of that stereotype,” and then, if you ask why a stereotype of being successful and powerful is considered offensive, the logic continues with: “ascribing Jews power and influence has historically been an early step in them being singled out and persecuted for that perceived power and influence, and this has happened many times.”

Now, there’s not anything strictly wrong with that logic (setting aside questions of whether the stereotype is accurate or not as not directly relevant to the logic itself )… but it does compel one to go back to the start of the logic and raise the question of “if this is stereotype part of a repeating pattern that leads to violence, why is it not deeply concerning to see whites painted with that stereotype?”