Thank you for the thoughful response, especially given how negative your interpretation was of my comments.

(Aside--despite my disagreements, your original post was one of the better pieces I've read on Medium on the topic, so if you're in a position to get paid for more writing on the topic, that's awesome! Even if I end up disagreeing, more articulate and passionate voices are a net win, I think.)

However, I disagree, for good reason, about just about every aspect of your response to me. I'll try to be clear at the expense of brevity, and if you don't care to pay attention, well, just skip it.

Unless a writer makes it clear that they have a different perspective, I tend to assume that they have a desire for a just society; one where people have every opportunity to have rich, fulfilling lives, with all that entails--safety, strong community, being individually valued, developing talents that make one of value to others, and so on. Reasonable people can disagree on the details both of what a better society would look like, and on how to get there, but I tend to assume a good-faith desire to have a better society. And I tend to assume that we want to help each other get in that direction.

I think it's abundantly clear that the current society of the United States has huge flaws in this regard, especially including, but not limited to, how it works for people it decides to categorize as "non-white". I think it's also abundantly clear that there are quite a number of "white"-categorized people who are quite horrible at an individual level to non-"white" people. And I think it's abundantly clear that there are institutional structures that disproportionately benefit "white" people or disproportionately harm non-"white" people, in some cases completely intentionally to elevate "white" people above the others and in some other cases due to malign neglect where only the impact on "white" people is considered and who cares about the rest. These structures are relatively invisible to a lot of the "white" people who benefit from them, and if they do benefit from them many are understandably (if not justly) nervous about losing the benefit, resulting in a lot of motivated thinking and skepticism.

Does this sound like "soft white supremacy" so far? Is anything I said in my first reply inconsistent with the above?

Okay, now let's get to particulars. I thought, though maybe I'm wrong, that when you wrote, "We have to help each other. We CAN help each other. We can learn to open our hearts to our neighbors that have long been closed (even the ones eating dewormer)" that you were trying to rally a more unified response.

It makes especially much sense to hope for a more unified response since, "So I’m past the point of serving fucks and say plainly that the State is failing under the combined stress of plague, fire, debt, extreme weather and a slow, bloated, corrupt apparatus calling itself our government. I’m used to being failed by my supposed leaders and representatives— I’m finding a lot of white folk I know are realizing painful lessons." so clearly white folk are being impacted. The State isn't protecting them: "It will cannibalize its own with a fury of a starved, rabid dog that no longer recognizes its “benevolent” owners."

We have here what seems like a pretty clear, consistent, and dire picture: a state failing its own people, not just non-"white" ones, but a lot of the "white" ones too. Being "white" isn't good enough to be saved, to be okay. Nope, you need a "net worth containing a certain amount of zeros".

You're arguing that the state is elitist, classist. Your natural allies, therefore, include those in lower classes, the ones without all those zeros. Your natural allies include the ones being failed badly, just not quite as badly as the ones who also happen to be non-"white".

So we have a state that is failing white people too because when push comes to shove, power is more important; and you claim you want to appeal to more people to fix this, including people who are "white". These "white" people are being told that they're victims of reverse racism, that the lazy and greedy (who somehow will take their jobs?) hate them because they're white, that non-white immigrants will destroy their way of life--all the regular Fox News crap. And you have a different perspective for them to consider: the state doesn't care a whit about you, either. We're in this together.

Given this setup, to launch your rallying cry against a failing state, what label do use to point out what we need to work against, a label that will encourage people to open their hearts to each other?

Why, "whiteness".

Yes, you chose the word most likely to drive away the people that it seemed that you were trying to appeal to (or at least extend compassion to). You chose it even though by your own admission state power is not even working to shield the white any longer, so "whiteness" is losing its accuracy as a descriptor. Don't you see how this is counterproductive to your stated goals? Maybe it's how you understand and classify the phenomenon, but in the context you seem to be working in, it seems inordinately ill-conceived.

I understand the choice if you're going to take a confrontational approach. But you paint a picture of something better than individual victory over dastardly enemies: "If this plague has not demonstrated that we, humanity, are all interconnected then little else will."

So, yes, I admit I was a bit patronizing in some of my language while trying to suggest a reasonable explanation for what seems like a major blunder. However, I didn't suggest you were angry--why do you think that? Just because I pointed out that the language you use seems to provoke tribalism (and highlighting tribal boundaries tends to induce conflict)? And I don't know why you're bringing up respectability politics as something I'm pushing when you were the one saying that we need to open our hearts even to people who are "eating dewormer". You were the one calling for unity!

I'm not sure what to do with the rest of the charges you level against me. I think you're reacting to historical experiences with people who are not me, not to what I actually wrote. I'm totally open to being called on any particular flaw in thinking or attitude--but it's super-effective when you include direct quotes (thank you for those two cases where you did!) and much harder to understand when you don't. Obviously, there's no requirement to do so, but if you want me to say something about it, details help a lot.

Sorry for the length; hopefully this clarifies matters. Either way, I wish you the best in your writing: there's a lot of compelling stuff in there.