>>519684705
You come from a tradition that seeks to define a single, logical framework which supplies the syntax for any argument (in any field of experience). So if you could establish (for example) that “patriarchy is bad” or that “racism is bad,” it would then follow that every instance of it is also bad (by having a share in the badness you established earlier).

But what fucks you up is talking to someone who doesn’t share this idea of an overarching logical framework that precedes all discussion. For them, there are just competing guilt-claims and threats of social ostracization. It’s like they have a continually updating leader-board of victimhood narratives. So your friend probably has a thought process that goes like this:

>Women are opressed and patriarchy is bad. Fuck men and down with the patriarchy! But white people are BAD!! And there’s nothing worse or more dangerous than a white person asserting their interests over a non-white person. But I’m a white person!!! So I couldn’t possibly tell a Muslim that I won’t wear the hijab and receive beatings from the Imam! That’s white supremacy!!!! And I’m not a white supremacist!”