I had a bunch of shit written. Links, quotes. Doesn't matter. Here's the meat.

My position: you cannot affect positive change via antagonism.

Your position: unintentional antagonism isn't antagonism.

I think we can both agree that you didn't mean offense. We might even agree that you created offense. Problem is, you don't see why I keep harping on that offense because, well, that's not the subject at hand.

It is, though. Consider: you entered this discussion by implicating all of "White America" in callous indifference to the suffering of African Americans. You doubled down by informing mk that a solution was "literally not possible". So I'm the dumbass for trying to engage; I knew it was gonna be an uphill slog but I didn't expect to spend four exchanges explaining why "where you claim to stand" is an antagonistic way to restate someone's argument.

If there's one thing to hear, it's this: when someone is asking for a concrete, right-now action item, burying a list of social media action groups nebulously arrayed around racial justice in Paragraph (2) Subsection (c) is the wrong way to do it. Particularly when Paragraph (2) Codicil (1) is "I don't believe you aren't racist."

'cuz they won't hear it. And they won't engage again, either.

I'm just as outraged about police brutality as I was this morning. But I'm never going to engage about it on here ever again. If the simple act of expressing solidarity is gonna force me to defend myself, I'll skip it, thanks.

And if you want to know why this stuff disappears from the media, there's a clue; when the only thing "black people" want "white people" to do is "feel bad about it" there's a lot of incentive to move on to the roast of Justin Bieber.