What hath Robin DiAngelo wrought?

And she went after the Mighty Krug-Man too.
This can not stand.

It probably isn't Robin DiAngelo's fault, alone, or even primarily, that anti-white racism has become chic, but she certainly has been banging that drum for a long time, and a recent defense of Sarah Jeong mentions "white fragility" Robin DiAngelo's catch phrase which must surely be trademarked by now.

However, it's clear that it is chic and another article, by Zach Beauchamp, written in defense of Jeong argues that it's not so bad, all the nasty things Jeong said about whites, because all the other kids are doing it:

The problem here, though, is assuming that Jeong’s words were meant literally: that when Jeong wrote “#cancelwhitepeople,” for example, she was literally calling for white genocide. Or when she said “white men are bullshit,” she meant each and every white man is the human equivalent of bull feces. This is expressly Sullivan’s position: He calls her language “eliminationist,” a term most commonly used to describe Nazi rhetoric referring to Jews during the Holocaust. 

To anyone who’s even passingly familiar with the way the social justice left talks, this is just clearly untrue. “White people” is a shorthand in these communities, one that’s used to capture the way that many whites still act in clueless and/or racist ways. It’s typically used satirically and hyperbolically to emphasize how white people continue to benefit (even unknowingly) from their skin color, or to point out the ways in which a power structure that favors white people continues to exist. 

I get that white people who aren’t familiar might find this discomforting. 

But of course as we learn from Robin DiAngelo, finding this "discomforting" should not make one feel sorry for the white people, but rather contempt for their "white fragility."

It is certainly true that "the social justice left" says hateful things about "white people" - as I have noted several times on this blog, especially white women - especially white feminists.

It's interesting how often the social justice left attacks others on the left more than they attack the right. 

I always wondered if some of the more ambitious on the social justice left would ever pay for their flagrant ethnicity-based attacks - I've speculated about a lawsuit against Robin DiAngelo, which has still apparently not happened yet, but I still haven't counted it out. I was glad that Mikki Kendall seemed to have finally paid a price for her relentless race and gender based attacks when Michelle Goldberg wrote about her in The Nation. But now the NYTimes has demonstrated that ethnicity-based attacks are no barrier to career advancement.

In addition to the "all the kids are doing it" arguments in defense of Jeong are:

1. She's just parodying racists (like Andrew Sullivan)
2. It's OK to say racist things against whites because whites are all-powerful and all-privileged
3. It's impossible for a non-white person to be racist because they are all oppressed by whites
4. Jeong was attacked by racist trolls so that excuses her racism. This seems to be the one adopted by Jeong herself.

The worst thing about this defense of anti-white racism is that it gives the Right the opportunity to take the high road, as demonstrated by Jeong's attack on some right-winger and his response.

All these excuses given for why it's OK to attack people based on their ethnicity, if that ethnicity is white, makes the left look like a bunch of shameless hypocrites. And racists. And I hate shameless hypocrites and racists. And I hate it when idiots on the Left like Sarah Jeong make the Right look good.