And boiled down to its essence, it is essentially the challenge of accurately gauging the appropriate response, even when complicated by conscious and/or subconscious bias, and/or the intersection with potentially legitimate and valid grievance.
It's a problem that spans nearly every aspect of our culture, from differentiating programmed and subconscious racial bias that impacts one's decision-making but of which they may not even be aware from actual bonafide malicious racism, to cops determining when the use of deadly force is and is not actually justified (in those cases where racial anamice is genuinely not present, which I am in NO way suggesting is not a serious and widespread problem in its own right), to differentiating between Trump's two buckets of supporters.
And I think, honestly, that we should all take pause from the mere fact that although it was horribly and effectively used against Secretary Clinton, the whole point she was making in the "deplorables" section of that speech was that NUANCES MATTER.
That is why she DID bother to identify the existence of that OTHER bucket, and acknowledge the fundamental decency (albeit untempered by adequate recognition and judgment OF the most negative nuances of Trump's message) of the people in it.
For any who may have forgotten, or never known, I encourage you to go back and read the transcript carefully, because she was in fact encouraging us, on THIS side, to exercise exactly this kind of careful, objective scrutiny, and properly differentiate dedicated foe from misinformed or under-informed fellow decent American.
= new reply since forum marked as read
