[zobzu]

many comments do not seem to target the staffer, but rather, their race - here's one of the top rated comments: https://bsky.app/profile/enuffbs.bsky.social/post/3mguqaeqwi...

"The culture of mediocre white men continues. This is a study in the Dunning-Krueger effect. Too bad these clowns have no subject matter expertise is any area. They don’t even have a fully formed pre-frontal cortex. [...]"

[miltonlost]

Where is that "targeting" their race? "The culture of mediocre white men continues" to me isn't targeting his race. It's targeting his mediocrity and society's allowing up mediocre white men to succeed easily. They're not saying he's mediocre BECAUSE he's white (which would be the racist part).

[throwawaypath]

Where is that "targeting" their race? "The culture of mediocre Indian men continues" to me isn't targeting his race. It's targeting his mediocrity and society's allowing up mediocre Indian men to succeed easily. They're not saying he's mediocre BECAUSE he's Indian (which would be the racist part).

[happytoexplain]

Disclaimer: I think the root problem being described by the quote is real, and I think the way DOGE/MAGA/etc interpret "DEI" is absolutely just pure, petty hatred with no semblance of reason, even though there is certainly a rational argument against DEI you can make.

That said,

I think your take is a little disingenuous. The way they've used the person's race in the sentence is really common, and we understand in those cases that it may or may not come from a racist place in the writer's heart, and we really only have cues/heuristics/history to go on.

E.g. if I mention that race X commits more crime, the reason I'm saying it and the context of the surrounding text and my tone and wording all inform you of whether I am saying that from a place of honesty (wanting things to be better for everybody, including race X), or a place of hatred for race X.

Generally when a writer inserts a person's race flippantly like in the parent's quote, it comes from a place of pettiness, at least partially (and yes, you can be racist against your own race). In particular, this is a good example of a common format used when speaking sarcastically or bitterly about, specifically, white people (sounds like "a room full of old white men" or "angry white lady"). It's now particularly obnoxious, since its usage has largely outgrown the legitimate grievances which inspired it.

It's important to be extremely careful about this kind of "reverse racism" - yes, the point is that the target race is privileged in some way, so it feels more harmless than "regular" racism. But "reverse racism" becomes "regular racism" very, very fast, and the cute shine drops off of it like a rock. I think we're well into crossing that big fuzzy line at this point (and for the past decade, in fact). I think emotionally intelligent people and good communicators are wary of using "white people" (or any race) in any sentence where it is accompanied by an implied eye-roll.

[tzs]

> Generally when a writer inserts a person's race flippantly like in the parent's quote

It may not have been flippant. There is a contingent of young men, almost always white, who think that minorities now have it easy and white people are the most oppressed group in the US, and that this is why they have trouble getting into the best schools or getting the best jobs. Unqualified affirmative action minorities, they think, took their rightful place.

They never seem to notice that plenty of other white people also got into those school or got those jobs, and that those white people and the minorities who got those admissions or jobs worked very hard for years to get it instead of slacking off like they did and expecting to still make it.

Many of these people have found each other on social media and developed a culture around these beliefs.

In the context of DOGE and its unimpressive staffing I think "culture of mediocre white men" was referring to that group.

As a white man who is mediocre in many things, but blames it on my own laziness or lack of talent in those areas, that is the first thing I thought they were talking about.

[pear01]

> It's important to be extremely careful about this kind of "reverse racism" - yes, the point is that the target race is privileged in some way, so it feels more harmless than "regular" racism. But "reverse racism" becomes "regular racism" very, very fast, and the cute shine drops off of it like a rock.

Except it doesn't. White people aren't being rounded up by ICE. White people aren't disproportionately represented in prisons. White people have more space to breathe in America - in effect, to be mediocre - than their peers.

Go watch the deposition tapes. This young man soullessly enjoys demolishing anything DEI aka anything that doesn't benefit or identify with his own race, sexuality or gender. And he does this from a position of power.

Reverse racism is not a thing. Racism is not simply an individual's prejudice. There are two words for a reason. Racism is not merely racial prejudice.

When someone in the federal government creates an exclusive program to erase white history, then that would be reverse racism. When only white people fear the cops as much as other minorities do today that would be reverse racism. When the Supreme Court says if a white person is at a home depot and speaks like a white person ICE has reasonable suspicion to detain them while other races get to go about their business that would be reverse racism.

What isn't cute is your equating childish, powerless online comments with what racism is - which is beyond individual or even aggregated racial prejudice. It is the institutionalization of said prejudice. The old American South wasn't racist merely because white people made mean, petty comments. It was because the entire society was weaponized for the exclusive benefit of the white race. The vestiges of that live on today, and clearly some among us want to take us farther back still.

With everything going on your focus on people calling out his white mediocrity, which frankly, is blatantly obvious and not racist at all is suspect. It suggests you think just pointing out someone's race is itself inherently racist. Which again, demeans the actual meaning of the term.

Also I missed this bit:

> It's now particularly obnoxious, since its usage has largely outgrown the legitimate grievances which inspired it.

That says everything I need to know about you. Here's another term for you to consider: white fragility. No need for a definition, I wager you need only consult a mirror.

[happytoexplain]

I think this mostly is talking past what I said. Not that your points are not legitimate - just not in the context of what I'm saying. I agree with 90% of your comment in a void.

I can at least clarify one thing:

Yes, "reverse racism" doesn't exist, which is why I put it in quotes. I'm using it as a colloquial shorthand for "racism against traditionally privileged races", i.e. white people.