Too many anti-racists believe that two wrongs make a right. They carry a "Use 'Whatabout?' Free" card, that let's them excuse their own overreactions by pointing to their permanent victimhood. So long as you'd rather be you than they, you have no right to complain about anything they do or say.

They may be right to feel that way, but they disserve their cause when they act that way. Even if you're a victim seeking justice, kindness often succeeds where rudeness fails.

"White Fragility," like "White privilege" is a semantic scam, an excuse for bad behavior, a form of blaming the victim by claiming that there are no White victims, only white crybabies. It's quite easy to say that White people are socialized in a way that incorporates unconscious and harmful (to Blacks) impressions about race without appropriating the animus-laden word "racism."

The effort is dishonest: people like DiAngelo pretend that you don't have to have animus to wear a label that gets its power from connoting animus. If "racism" doesn't connote animus, what word shall we use for the kind of racism that DOES entail animus? Are these smug bozos really suggesting that there is no useful linguistic distinction? Can an epithet that fits Adolph Hitler and Joe Sixpack serve any useful purpose?