Man, I hate this comment. mk has an idea you disagree with? Fine. But you jump to personally insulting language, and, I think, a misunderstanding of why they posted this to begin with.
I mean, you read THIS sentence:
In no way does this mean that we cannot, or should not take offense or react when we witness behavior that causes another harm. It only means that we should be genuine in our offense, and realize that the empathy we share is limited, whereas the sympathy is not.
...and think that he's advocating for a siloing off, and that he's falling into the mindset of white supremacy (and yet, simultaneously, Intersectionality Bingo) where no one gets to have an opinion about anything?
For fuck's sake, he's trying to figure out how he should interact with experiences he hasn't had. The utility of this discovery is to fucking discuss it and suss out how to best do that. Your example of Trevor Noah, Tomi Lahren, and Anne Frank? That's clearly, clearly not the world mk is demanding.
You are arguing that without perfect experience there cannot be understanding.
He isn't, and I'm not sure why you think he is. He literally says, "[My] understanding can grow, but I am fooling myself if I think that my empathy will continue to expand along with my understanding." If anything, he's putting forward in his reply to your comment that we can't have a perfect understanding of something, but that our limited perspective still has utility and we should be honest about the limitations of our understanding while we "react when we witness behavior that causes another harm."
Hubski is a discussion-based website, and I hate how often the discussions dissolve into a dismissive, "I will bet you anything it's because you've been watching a few games of intersectionality bingo."