This is amazing. I wonder, is one allowed to speak like this in the Bay Area, or would this mark you as a deplorable to the kind of people who erase racism by erasing race.
I understand why he chose to say it this way, and I'll probably be stealing "liberal racism" (what a phrase: that's going in my pocketbook alongside "white guilt" and "racialise"), but this is the wrong way to say it to a Bay Area audience. You'd want to say something like "erasing representation to avoid confronting racism".
Or, maybe people truly don’t know what you are talking about when you’re excessively vague and coy, to the point where it adds nothing to the conversation.
When someone’s post amounts to: “you know what I’m talking about, I just can’t say it,” well, you might as well just not say it. You’re dogwhistling, but there are no dogs.
It's not how you said it -- it's that for no apparent reason you're making a political jab at a large group. Plus it seems to seems to have no bearing on the article.
Yes, you can speak like this. People are just going to think you're pretentious. This is the sort of language you use with specific audiences. The interviewer and the interviewee are simply using language for mutually exclusive audiences.
Perhaps you're getting downvoted for being weirdly coy. It sounds like you want to paint a bunch of people with one brush, why don't you just go ahead and do it?
I'll never understand this smirking form of reactionary elbow-nudging.
