Ethics Quiz: “The Stickering”

More than a dozen handmade stickers reading “It’s okay to be white” were posted around overnight in Harvard Square earlier as well as around the nearby Harvard Law School campus.

Law School Dean of Students Marcia L. Sells, who is black, wrote an email to law students in the wake of what Stephen King might call “The Stickering”:

“It seems likely that these anonymous postings, made in the middle of the night, were provocations intended to divide us from one another HLS will not let that happen here. We live, work, teach, and learn together in a community that is stronger, better, and deeper because of our diversity and because we encourage open, respectful, and constructive discourse”

Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Dayand watch your step!—is…

Do you think posting the stickers was unethical? Do you think the Dean’s response was responsible?

I have a few matters to note and subordinate queries…

  • Apparently the idea was germinated on the forum website 4chan, a former Ethics Alarms which called upon followers to put up posters with the message in their area on Halloween night. The author of the original post on the site wrote that they hoped the “credibility of far left campuses and media gets nuked” as a result of the incident, adding that they could help achieve a “massive victory for the right in the culture war.”

Does it matter who came up with the slogan and why?

  • The reaction by Glenn Reynold on Instapundit: “SO I GUESS IT’S NOT OKAY. GOOD TO KNOW.”

Of course this was the inherent “When did you stop beating your wife?”-style trap in the stickers. Nevertheless, why isn’t that a fair and natural response to the Dean’s words?

  • There are some terrific comments to Glenn’s link:

Okay, next move in this game: put up some signs saying “It’s okay to be black.” See what Harvard does then. Dares Harvard denounce those? But under these circumstances, dares she not?

Great question!

Would the administrator have done the same thing re a sign or signs saying

It’s okay to be black.
It’s okay to be gay.
It’s okay to be transgender.

The question answers itself.

I would guess these are on the way. And…

God, we’re all Jews now.

POW!!!

and finally, this disturbing prediction…

Fascinating. It’s okay to be black. It’s okay to be brown. It’s okay to be beige. But, it’s not okay to be white. Fascinating.

The end result of this will be a stunning and amazing backlash. People can only put up with BS for so long before they strike back. Slaves struck back; freed blacks struck back; what’s happening now is a corrosive racism predicated on the notion that whites have been guilted for the past two plus generations and can now be done away with. In sum, the idea is whites are sheep, and it’s now time to slaughter.

We can thank Barack Hussein Obama for bringing it to the surface—it was always there, but Obama encouraged the corrosive racism to bloom in full sunlight. He did the country a huge favor because the end of this all will be a huge purgation on both sides, black and white. At the end of it, nobody will hate anybody for their “privilege”, and nobody will feel guilty—one hopes.

Some people will die, but death is necessary to catharsis. It’s up to a lot of people to decide if they want to purge themselves or if they want to be purged. Either way, the catharsis will happen, and it will not be fun.

UPDATE: I was going to stop there, but what the Hell: here’s my reaction:

1 The sticker is brilliant no matter who came up with it or what the motive was.

2. Anyone who is troubled by the message is part of the problem the stickers are responding to.

3. The stickers would be harmless if they were treated as harmless, and they should have been.

4. The Dean’s response was not only irresponsible, but incompetent.

_______________________

Source: Harvard Crimson

58 Comments

Filed under "bias makes you stupid", Education, Ethics Alarms Award Nominee, Ethics Dunces, Ethics Train Wrecks, Government & Politics, Law & Law Enforcement, Quizzes, Race, Rights, U.S. Society

58 responses to “Ethics Quiz: “The Stickering”

  1. Chris

    The stickers are stupid. No one disputes that it’s OK to be white. The final 4chan quote demonstrates well how hysterical, oversensitive and wanna-be-oppressed the distributors of the stickers are.

    The correct response from average citizens to this display of faux persecution should be mockery and ridicule, not outrage. The correct response from Harvard should have been to say nothing.

  2. Rick M.

    I’ll stick with this.

  3. JP

    I think it is unethical to do it under the cover of darkness. It is ok to be white and you should be able to stand on their merits. I understand that current cultural environment is hostile to straight white male Christians, but I still think you should be able to stand up for your self.

    I guess if I wrote the sticker I would say: “Given the current political environment, it is ok to be white.”

    Other than that I agree with all your points.

    • Greg

      Not ethical to do it under cover of darkness? It’s only ethical If you do it in a way that opens you to denunciation by The NY Times and Washington Post as a white supremicist, harassment if not physical assault by Stalinist left-wing students, academic discipline by the left-wing law school dean and possible arrest by the Cambridge police?

      • Yes, “ethical” and “suicidal” are not usually thought of as synonyms.

      • JP

        I’m not sure posting the stickers constitutes a crime worthy of arrest, other than that, yes, I believe it is unethical. It is a hit and run tactic.

        If the posters really thought there was a problem (and I have no doubt there is) they had an obligation to report it to the dean first. Furthermore, I believe its intent is to be provocative, which is fine, as long as your willing to accept the consequences of what happens next. True, it would not be fair to have the full force of the mainstream media to come down on you, but the golden rule applies. When it comes to the golden rule it rarely matters what the other person does. You should still act accordingly.

        • JP: “I’m not sure posting the stickers constitutes a crime worthy of arrest, other than that, yes, I believe it is unethical. It is a hit and run tactic.”

          I would propose that a “hit and run tactic” is only unethical if the act being done is itself unethical. Remaining anonymous to avoid an unethical and disproportionate retaliation seems merely reasonable.

        • That’s a novel way of thinking about it. Someone putting up stickers that say “It’s OK to be white” is doing something so hostile that it can be considered “hit and run”?

  4. Ash

    Two ways the Harvard Dean could have played it:

    1. Properly (imho): “We at Harvard welcome and appreciate our students and staff from all backgrounds”

    2. More cleverly PC in your face trolling 4chan back. “Regarding 4chan’s trolling, ‘It’s Okay To Be White’, Yes, 4chan, that’s the point. It is okay to be white. It’s more than okay, it’s privileged, and at Harvard we are working to make sure it is at least okay to be a person of color. #BlackLivesMatter”

  5. If the sticker is completely uncontroversial, like “The sky is blue” or “The Earth is round,” then why would it be divisive? It is obviously divisive to the Dean because the assertion that there is nothing wrong with being white IS controversial in academia and among a significant segment on campus.

    If I post a “The Red Sox Are Terrific” sticker in Yankee Stadium, it is obviously intended to be divisive, because most people there don’t believe that. In Fenway Park, the sticker would be not only benign, but invisible. So if “everyone” agrees that it’s okay to be white, why the over-heated reaction? Obviously, it’s because the statement points out the inherent hypocrisy in so much of the progressive rhetoric, including from Black Lives Matters. “It’s OK to be male” would be my favorite sticker right now.

    Yes, the sticker is designed to cause trouble, but it’s the right kind of trouble. Why isn’t this catalyst part of “open, respectful, and constructive discourse”? It’s because it reveals an inconvenient truth, and there’s no way the Left can deal with the question honestly, So they condemn it and censor it.

  6. The only reason people have such trouble with racial/ethnic issues is that they don’t know how to articulate paradigms and emotions, so they use appearance and lineage as a cheap and inadequate shorthand. Of course, not everyone has the same definition for words like “oppression”, “privilege”, “racism”, et cetera, and rather than try to establish mutual understanding with more neutral terms, people convince themselves that other people understand perfectly and are just selfish, thus absolving themselves of any contribution to the problem.

    On a related note, I will vote for any politician who vows to push for a law designating Difficult Conversations to be required reading in every primary education curriculum, public, private, or home, for the curriculum to qualify as “education”.

  7. Jack,
    I completely agree with all four of your conclusions in your update; spot on evaluation!

  8. 4chan is so underrated. People don’t seem to understand the power of weaponised autism. I’m not saying these people are good, I’m saying that these people are collectively smart and influential.

    But this isn’t the first time this has happened.

    Carl Benjamin, also known as Sargon of Akkad, is kind of a similar, but he’s also fairly well put together, and his voice is liquid honey. Carl is… hard to place in a box, he calls himself a liberal, agrees with things like gay marriage and universal healthcare, but disagrees with identity politics as a whole, and he constantly hot takes everything, which has at one time of another put him in bed with some really toxic people.

    Regardless,

    Quite a while ago, a British MP, Jess Phillips, was coordinating support to try to pass legislation to make it so that British citizens could not be anonymous on the internet, and to pass more strict online harassment laws. I don’t think that Americans quite understand how special the American flavor of freedom of speech is, because as unthinkable as this would be in America, it was close to reality in the UK.

    Part of Phillip’s evidence for the “need” of this law was all the harassment she got, which as a screeching feminist harpy (no, I don’t refer to all feminists that way, look her up, she deserves it), she got a lot of. But she also included innocuous messages of disagreement as evidence of harassment. I don’t know if she wanted to pad her numbers, or if she couldn’t tell the difference between actual harassment and people telling their member of parliament that they disagreed with her…. But the vast majority of the correspondence she presented wasn’t what would fit into the normal wheelhouse of harassment, especially considering the purview of her job.

    Carl assumed the latter of my choices: That Jess Phillips was a hair trigger feminist that couldn’t recognize the difference between actual harassment and real harassment. So in response to a tweet from Phillips about the number of rape threats she receives, Carl tweeted back something that was obviously not a rape threat, was not meant to be a rape threat, and could not be seen as a reasonable person as a rape threat, but had the word rape in it: He tweeted “I wouldn’t rape you.”

    Phillips, and hundreds of like minded individuals, took the bait, hook line and sinker, and even years later, he still gets called on the “rape threat” he made to a British MP.

    Part of what makes this so… Brilliant… I think, is that it speaks to normal people. Chris said that “No one disputes that it’s OK to be white.”, this is stupid, a quick Google search can come back with hundreds of examples to the contrary. But it SHOULD be OK to be white, just like it SHOULD be OK to be any racial group, gender, sexuality, or whatever identity you hold. And because it SHOULD be OK to be white, these stickers should be neutral. The response should be “Well duh”, if even that, and a return to normalcy. The stickers aren’t the point. The reaction is the point. And it doesn’t matter if that’s disclosed before the sticker is posted, or the tweet is sent; The kind of people triggered by these issues cannot but help themselves.

    It is OK to be white.
    I wouldn’t rape you.
    And I like soup.

    • Chris

      You honestly don’t see why “I wouldn’t rape you” is offensive?

      • I really don’t. Chris, I promise you; I will never rape you. Maybe one day I’ll meet you, and we can catch a beer, but I will never rape you.

        • Chris

          You are being obtuse. “I wouldn’t rape you” is designed to be a personal insult, implying that the target is too unattractive to rape. That is exactly how Carl Benjamin meant it.

          You know this. Why are you pretending not to know this?

          • ““I wouldn’t rape you” is designed to be a personal insult, implying that the target is too unattractive to rape.”

            and “It’s OK to be white” is a dog whistle to white supremacists, right?

            Except they aren’t, they aren’t meant to be, they aren’t designed to be… You hear them that way. And your interpretation doesn’t change the reality of the intent with which these statements are made. Carl Benjamin posted a YouTube video before sending the tweet explaining what he was doing, why he was doing it, and what he expected out of Jess Philips and Progressive Twitter. He wasn’t calling Jess Philips ugly, he was calling her a hair trigger reactionary, and she proved him right. You are perhaps unwittingly exemplifying my point. This is something progressiveness has warped in your inner ear, you’re taking offense where none is meant, and insisting that it’s there.

            I promise you, Chris, that when I say “I wouldn’t rape you”, it’s not because I don’t find you attractive enough to rape. Do you really think otherwise?

            • Chris

              Dude. If one has to make an entire YouTube video explaining why they are making what they claim is an innocuous statement, it’s because they know it’s an innocuous statement.

              What you are describing is called trolling, and Carl Benjamin is a troll. He knew that saying “I wouldn’t rape you” would be offensive, which is why he said it. And let me be clear: Normal people do not say “I wouldn’t rape you,” it is not a normal thing to say, and it doesn’t take a knee-jerk reactionary to find it bizarre and insulting, though the target in this case very well may be. It absolutely does imply that there is something wrong with the target, and Benjamin knew it would be taken that way; he just wanted to claim plausible deniability. That’s what trolls do.

              No, I don’t believe you’re saying “I wouldn’t rape you” because you don’t find me attractive enough to rape. You are saying it because you like to play devil’s advocate and defend trolls.

              • Chris

                The first paragraph should end “it’s because they know it’s NOT an innocuous statement.”

              • I agree that the stickers are likely trolling. And they are dog whistles, just not to white supremacists. Dog whistles are covert virtue signalling for unpopular positions, and the stickers are anonymous, which defeats the point of virtue signalling. (Mentioning that because HT brought it up; I know you never said they were dog whistles for white supremacists.)

                No, the stickers are dog whistles for the Left, who are barking like mad. Or possibly just barking mad. The goal was likely to show them up for being rabid paranoiacs, and it sounds like it worked.

                “You’re not fooling anyone with your civil behavior and your oh-so-harmless messages! I know the hatred you secretly harbor in your festering heart!
                ‘It’s okay to be white.’ ‘All lives matter.’ I’m onto you, you Nazi scum!

                Those are the kinds of people who might eventually accept me and respect me despite my lineage, as opposed to… not caring about it. I have no intention of leaving the future of public thought in their hands.

                Do they even mention Frederick Douglass’s name during Black History Month anymore? Has anyone in Black Lives Matter heard the phrase, “I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong”? I wrote an article going into detail about how important that is.

                • “Dog whistles are covert virtue signalling for unpopular positions, and the stickers are anonymous, which defeats the point of virtue signalling.”

                  We use the term differently.

                  Dog whistles are neat little devices that emit pitches outside the range of human hearing, but within the range of canine hearing. It’s a neat subject actually… hearing ranges; During puberty, something changes in our inner ears so that we actually process a more narrow tonal range, that is we hear less pitch range as adults than we did as adolescents. There is a company that developed a speaker that is supposed to act as crowd control for kids; It’s called the Mosquito, and it emits a annoying noise that only kids and a very small subset of adults can hear. I know about this because I happen to be one of those adults, and a corner store near me turns one on after 7PM on weekdays, it’s like nails on a chalkboard, but it pulses instead of scratches.

                  Regardless!

                  I’ve always used “Dog Whistles” in the sense that certain people hear things differently, and “dog whistles” are terms where certain people hear things that no one else hears.

                  • More information, if anyone cares:

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mosquito

                    Apparently, most adults over the age of 30 don’t hear frequencies much over 10,000 hertz. This device operates at about 17,000 hertz and 108 decibels, which means that if you can hear it, which is about as loud as a factory car stereo can get on the loudest setting. I avoid that store, because it gives me a headache.

              • I think we agree, but you got stuck somewhere. Of course this is trolling, but it’s trolling that only works on a very specific subset of people.

                As odd as this would be… If I walked up to a random stranger on the street and said “I wouldn’t rape you” or “it’s OK to be white” or “All lives matter” or “God Bless America” or “Merry Christmas” Then chances are that the person might have a reaction ranging from “you’re a little strange and oh look, someone else to talk to” to “Well Duh” to some kind of mutual assertion of goodwill…. It takes a certain type of person to hear these comments in a very specific way and interpret those, yes, innocuous phrases as something sinister.

                If all you have is a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail. If you’re mired in rape-culture culture, then every sentence containing the word “rape” sounds like a rape threat, if you’re mired in racial identity politics, any mention of “white” in a positive sense sounds like racism. And the deeper in you are, I think the less able you are to see how unusual your point of view actually is.

                These acts of trolling should shake your worldview, they should serve as proof that normal people, the vast majority of people who are just trying to get along, they don’t have your back on this. This trolling makes people like you look ridiculous, because you are ridiculous. And that’s why I love it. It’s effective. The more shrill and unhinged you look like to normal people, the less likely they are to take you seriously… You’ve been dragged kicking and screaming (literally, sometimes at the sky, for instance) into the arena of ideas and people are finding you wanting.

                • Chris

                  As odd as this would be… If I walked up to a random stranger on the street and said “I wouldn’t rape you” or “it’s OK to be white” or “All lives matter” or “God Bless America” or “Merry Christmas” Then chances are that the person might have a reaction ranging from “you’re a little strange and oh look, someone else to talk to” to “Well Duh” to some kind of mutual assertion of goodwill…. It takes a certain type of person to hear these comments in a very specific way and interpret those, yes, innocuous phrases as something sinister.

                  I think the fact that you equate these statements shows how far removed from “normal people” you are.

                  If you tell a random stranger on the street “Merry Christmas,” they will most likely say it back. I don’t think I’ve ever had someone not say it back to me, nor have I ever not responded in kind.

                  If you tell a random stranger “All lives matter” or “It’s OK to be white,” they will probably think you’re an aggressively political weirdo.

                  If you tell a random stranger “I wouldn’t rape you?” Yes, I think a rational person would find that threatening. I’d also find it threatening if a stranger approached me and said “I wouldn’t murder you.” People don’t talk like that. I would have no reason to wonder if a random stranger would want to rape or murder me, until they actually come up and say they wouldn’t. That is something a crazy person would do.

                  The fact that you are trying to act as if such an interaction would be “innocuous” is proving your point about living in bubbles, but not in the way you think. I suppose if you spend all day watching contrarian, trolling YouTubers you might see such interactions as normal. But in the real world, it is fucking creepy. I almost feel like suggesting you should try it just to see what happens, but you really, really shouldn’t try it.

                  • I feel like you’re purposefully misconstruing what I’m saying. I never said that the examples were equal… I’m saying that the average person wouldn’t interpret them the same way as you do. And there are people out there absolutely triggered by “Merry Christmas”, not many I’ll grant you, but they’re out there.

                    At the end of the day… I suppose I don’t much care whether you believe me or not. Because this isn’t really meant for you… I mean, it wouldn’t work without you… you’re the star… but it’s meant for the audience. I just find it… amazing… That the trolls can tell you exactly what they’re doing and why, and you fall face first into it anyway. Does anyone remember that scene from the Simpson’s? i’ll find it.

                    • Chris

                      Again, if you walk up to an average person on the street and tell them “I wouldn’t rape you,” they are very likely going to take that as threatening behavior.

                    • Seriously Chris, what the hell is wrong with you?

                      Stop beating this ridiculous dead horse with your trolling nonsense.

                    • I feel like we’ve gotten completely lost. Not only do I not believe that’s true, But it’s also not a good representation of what Carl did.

                      Remember that Jess Philips had just finished tweeting about rape threats, and is a survivor of sexual assault… If someone is already talking about rape, someone saying “I wouldn’t rape you” I think, is a whole lot more understandable than saying it to a random person on the street… Perhaps it’s tone deaf or awkward, but obviously not hostile. So while we obviously disagree on whether or not saying “I wouldn’t rape you” to a stranger on the street constitutes a rape threat, can you at least concede that in the context of a conversation started by Phillips, about rape, it is less reasonable to assume the words “I wouldn’t rape you” constitute a rape threat?

                    • No, they’d take it as weird behavior.

                      This has to be the most bizarre side debate in the history of Ethics Alarms, if not civilization itself.

                    • Chris

                      HT,

                      You brought up the idea of walking up to random people on the street and saying those things. I agree that is not exactly the same as what Benjamin did, which was to say “I wouldn’t rape you” to someone in the context of a conversation they were having about rape.

                      That isn’t threatening, but it’s still a weird and unnecessary thing to say. and it still carries all the implications I described earlier that you’re choosing to ignore. Normal people don’t say this. To argue that normal people wouldn’t be “triggered” (ugh, where am I) by this is to already miss the point, which is that it shouldn’t have been said in the first place.

                      Zoltar,

                      I am literally explaining why trolling is wrong and stupid, and you call that trolling? You don’t know what words mean.

                    • Chris wrote, “I am literally explaining why trolling is wrong and stupid, and you call that trolling? You don’t know what words mean.”

                      So in your highly educated teacher brain this comment “Again, if you walk up to an average person on the street and tell them “I wouldn’t rape you,” they are very likely going to take that as threatening behavior.” is an explanation of how trolling is wrong and stupid?

                      Chris wrote, “You don’t know what words mean.”

                      Again Chris, you’re choosing to be an asshole and again I’m done with another conversation with you.

    • charlesgreen

      “It is OK to be white.
      I wouldn’t rape you.
      And I like soup.”

      You honesty think those three statements are equally innoffensive (or offensive)?

      Chris is absolutely right, and you’re down a quart on your understanding of social relations in the real world

      • I had forgotten the thread, so I tried to guess what you could possibly mean. “I like soup” is statement that can’t be disputed. If you like it, you like it, and no sane person would think less of you for your opinion.

        It’s OK to be white should be a statement of uncontroversial fact. Since so my race-baiters and hate-mongers are writing and tweeting that white people are toxic blights on the earth, the statement is also an objection. Nonetheless, it is an inoffensive objection: what it is objecting to is the offense: anti-white bigotry. It doesn’t matter why someone is an anti-white bigot. I don’t care. It’s OK to be white is as unequivocally irrefutable as “I like soup.” As with someone objecting to the pro soup statement, anyone objecting to “OK to be white”—not good to be white, not better to be white, not white is beautiful—has a problem, or is a problem.

        “I wouldn’t rape you,” unlike the other two, might be legitimately offensive, depending on the context. It could be an insult, for example. In “The End,” when Emma Watson comes to the house where a bunch of boorish young movie actors are hiding from the apocalypse, she overhears them talking about how less trustworthy guys might be thinking of raping her, but they would never do that. She overhears them, is offended that their minds would even go there, and leaves, calling them assholes.

        Then again, if someone is being confronted by a feminist, misandrous bigot, “I won’t rape you” is equivalent to “it’s OK to be white.”

        And it’s not easy being Green…

        • Chris

          As with someone objecting to the pro soup statement, anyone objecting to “OK to be white”—not good to be white, not better to be white, not white is beautiful—has a problem, or is a problem.

          Is the same true of people who object to the statement “Black lives matter?”

          • The statement? Sure. The movement has more baggage.

          • Sure. Nobody should object to the statement in a vacuum, but like “fair and balanced,” and “Make America Great Again,” it’s the message behind the words based on the people using them that can justify offense. I can’t see how “it’s OK to be white” can possibly be read negatively. “BLack Lives Matter,” in the context of police shootings, suggests that black lives don’t matter to police. That’s hate and bigotry, divisive and inflammatory.

            • Chris

              I suspect if we took a closer look at the people behind he “It’s ok to be white” posters, we’d find stuff at least as problematic as the radicals in BLM. I’m curious as to what the Venn diagram is between these people and the group that worries about the grave threat of “white genocide.” I imagine it looks not dissimilar to a perfect circle.

              • I suspect that the people who put up such signs are trolling the people who talk and write about people being evil because they are white, because such racists deserve to be trolled, mocked, ridiculed and shunned. When did you come up with the new theory that racists wishes, recommendations and assertions are only intolerable if they describe an act that is likely or plausible? “Every black American should be set on fire” is not objectionable because it won’t happen? Hateful and divisive speech is acceptable when it just inflames division and enmity, as long as everyone’s sure it can’t be executed, eh?

                Tell it the concentration camp victims.

                • Chris

                  When did you come up with the new theory that racists wishes, recommendations and assertions are only intolerable if they describe an act that is likely or plausible?

                  Not sure where you’re getting that idea from my comment. I’ve spoken out against anti-white racism on this blog as recently today.

                  The people who say they’re concerned with “white genocide” often use that term to describe things like movies having more than one non-white character, or interracial relationships. They believe America should be a white majority nation. In other words, they want ethnic cleansing, and project that onto other groups to claim they are being cleansed. Think Alizia, for example. That’s who I meant when I said that’s who the “It’s OK to be white” people are probably a part of. But I don’t know how to verify that suspicion.

                  • No white supremacist would say it’s just OK to be white. Hence the term white SUPREME-acist. Is there a white mediocrity group?

                    • Chris

                      “No white supremacist would ever say it’s just OK to be white.”

                      The cool thing about this theory is that it’s testable. So I went to Twitter, typed in “It’s OK to be white” in the search bar, clicked the first profile name that included that phrase (there were a lot!), and found him despairing over the fact that the new princess by marriage will ruin the royal family’s white bloodline.

                      I’d investigate further, but I think this is enough to disprove the theory that “No white supremacist would ever say it’s OK to be white.”

      • Equally offensive or inoffensive? Who cares? The fact that some neurotic out there might not like soup won’t effect me.

  9. Other Bill

    Didn’t this occur on Halloween night? The traditional night for pranks? And turning the social order on its head and dressing up as if you’re someone you’re not but would like to be. I remember being in Ireland and driving through a town that has a festival dating from who knows what century where they crown a billy goat mayor for the day, or a week, I forget. It’s a chance to invert the power structure and give everybody a chance to laugh and have a good time. I think this stunt of putting up these post its draws on this longstanding cultural tradition of a night of mockery. I think it’s brilliant. It shows you in a few words and a simple action how entrenched the concept of “white privilege” has become in woke circles. It’s the entrenched order which needs to be turned on its head. The action is not only ethical, it’s deliciously human in a wonderfully antique, Bruegel way.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.