One might argue that pragmatically being a member of a group that it's unacceptable to punch is superior to being a member of one that it is. For example historically in pretty much every culture the persons of civil and religious officials have been inviolate. The modern USA culture of contempt for leadership is clearly unsustainable and thus it will end.
A Chinese colleague told me a joke a few years ago. "An American asked a Chinese, 'how does it feel to not be able to publicly criticize your President?' And the Chinese replied, 'How does it feel to not be able to publicly support yours?'"
> A Chinese colleague told me a joke a few years ago. "An American asked a Chinese, 'how does it feel to not be able to publicly criticize your President?' And the Chinese replied, 'How does it feel to not be able to publicly support yours?'"
Gonna put on my pedantic buzzkill hat for a second. I do actually find that joke to be funny, but it hides potential discussion of real differences behind a pithy comment.
Being jailed for criticizing your president is much much worse than suffering social backlash for supporting a president that your chosen community has judged to be bad.
Depriving someone of their freedom through legal force is not the same thing as people getting mad at you on the internet (even if that anger causes you to get fired).
> The modern USA culture of contempt for leadership
Give me leaders who aren't contemptuous and then we'll talk. They do exist, on both sides of the aisle, even though they sometimes seem to be in short supply these days.
A Brahmin Indian immigrant like Sojwal is a pretty good contender for least-oppressed group in America. Top of the charts in income by ethnicity, college admissions, low crime rates.
White people falling far behind east asians in practically every measurement shows what a crock of crap "systemic racism" is.