You must have about zero understanding of power dynamics to not realize that even if Kylington had experianced racism he would not have been able to call out his coach in the media.
Your post started with "even if Kylington had experianced racism he would not have been able to call out his coach in the media", which is a direct reply to my post that
made the very point, right at the very beginning, that Kylington's testimony operated under such dynamics. You know, where I literally described it as being like "Stockholm Syndrome"? Where I literally state that "silence speaks volumes" is bankrupt thinking because "speaking up would also be suspect"?
If you're going to suggest that my post is the "height of ignorance", you can start by actually reading it.
Also what are you trying to do with talking about exactly how 'African' you perceive Kylington or Aliu to be?
There exist people who judge the validity of a person's arguments entirely and only by what the speaker's demographics are. Whatever grounds such a person would have to pre-judge Aliu's words as "valid by default", the exact same grounds exist to pre-judge Kylington's words as "valid by default." Those grounds are objective, not "what I perceive".
"What I'm trying to do" is point out that such people are rank hypocrites who quickly and easily discard the absolute doctrines of their identity politics the instant those doctrines become inconvenient. Because they are, and they do.
The fact that they are both half black has nothing to do with the explicit racism that was directed at Aliu.
Of course not. It has everything to do with, "if you believe in identity politics and presumably aren't a hypocrite, then the exact same grounds to pre-judge Aliu's words about what Peters was like
ten years ago are in play to pre-judge Kylington's words about what Peters is like today.
Do you think these two hockey players would have all the exact same life experiences just because they happen to be the same race? Your post is really the height of ignorance
You've really got this shit down pat, don't you?
* Ask rhetorical question completely unrelated to a post
* Assume an answer in the least charitable way possible
* Discredit other party on moral grounds based on assumed answer.
Kafka would be so proud.
Not that you care, but the answer to your question is "no, I don't think that."
Identity politicians and allegedly progressive SJW types think that, however, and they spoke up by the legion about this incident.
I mean figurative tears of course.
