[AnthonyMouse]

> I don't really agree that if you're in the social majority you can be upset about racism against your empowered majority position... it just doesn't make sense.

It makes sense for two reasons.

The first is that a huge amount of the "anti-white racism" is directed by "white people" against others nominally in the same group, implying that they aren't actually in the same social group and correspondingly that the targets don't have a majority. As evidence of this, notice that people can be canceled over petty nonsense, e.g. Gina Carano. How could this happen if there was actually a social majority which should nominally be exerting pressure in the opposite direction and winning?

The second is that there are plenty of contexts where the majority doesn't even exist on paper, e.g. only 40% of California is "white" so a "white person" who lives in California is a minority. That state is also the place where a disproportionate amount of the attacks happen. And the same is true of many major US cities, e.g. New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Houston.

[onethought]

As was pointed out in another thread: I should have said elite not majority

[AnthonyMouse]

But now you're classifying redneck coal miners as "elites" which doesn't really work.