Untitled

Radfems on this site ALONE have said men literally CAN'T BE ABUSED, CANT BE RAPED.

Plenty refer to men with dehumanizing language, plenty have assumed if men are being hit they must have deserved it.

I have seen some demonize suicidal men, argue for profiling men, acting like the majority of men hurt or abuse women. Some act like ALL abuse claims by men are always lies, while turning around and acting like every abuse claim by women must be true etc, etc.

The people here equating not letting men watch porn and men claiming things that are not abuse are abuse as all that is being talked about are circlejerking dumbfucks trying to downplay when radfems say or do any of the shit I mentioned.

And with YOUR help, we can make him feel even worse!

It has to do with him writing an Instagram message complimenting his wife where he thanked her for giving him a healthy daughter, meanwhile his ex wife is currently taking care of their son who has numerous health issues.

Literally just “wow my wife is so sweet and cool and I’m a goober who helps her open jars of pickles.” It wasn’t “MY CURRENT WIFE IS SO MUCH BETTER, NOT LIKE THAT OTHER WIFE WHO BIRTHED A DISEASE-RIDDEN TROGLODYTE.” Saying that a child is healthy is a common thing parents do. The child is safe and being well cared for.

It’s not an attack on his former wife and other child. It’s him gushing about his current wife. Everyone does that! And yet people are calling it cringy and offensive??? It’s just a dude saying that he loves his wife. I thought Tumblr was all about guys loving their wives.

It’s just idiots on the Internet trying to pick apart someone because it’s trendy to do so. People call him a homophobe and a Trump supporter but I have yet to see any actual fucking proof of either of those. It’s just shitting on him for being Christian.

What did Rep. Ro Khanna think the antisemites he’s spent the last year courting were all about?

Vibes? Tweets?

The ambitious, chameleon-like California Democrat all but announced his longshot bid for the presidency after staging a thinly disguised stunt in the West Bank last week, when he tried to provoke the Israel Defense Forces.

But he may already be having second thoughts about his life choices after learning what his target audience really wants.

Khanna sat down with Jeremy Scahill, Ryan Grim and Maysa Mustafa of Drop Site News, the “independent” far-left outlet funded by the Soros family, on Tuesday.

The quartet were mere seconds into their conversation when Scahill blew up Khanna’s entire worldview and 2028 campaign thesis.

After thanking Khanna for promoting the popular “apartheid” and “genocide” blood libels against Israel, the professional propagandist quickly turned hostile over Khanna’s failure to prevent it from using Iron Dome missile-defense technology.

“A lot of the critique of you from pro-Palestine people, and from Palestinians, is that the position you’re advocating basically amounts to, ‘We need to make sure that the sniper is protected so that he can continue sniping,’ ” mused Scahill.

Bear in mind: Khanna already opposes American funding of Iron Dome, he just hasn’t done enough, to Scahill’s mind, to leave innocent Israelis defenseless.

It only got more unhinged from there.

“Israeli civilians are dying in these attacks because of the apartheid,” Scahill asserted before asking, “Do Palestinians have a right to kill Israeli soldiers, Congressman? On Oct. 7, when they attacked the military bases in the Gaza envelope, did the Qassam Brigades and Saraya Al-Quds have a right to kill Israeli soldiers, yes or no?”

The obvious implication being: the answer should be “yes.”

A visibly taken-aback Khanna managed only a stammer before an indignant Scahill interjected to repeat his question.

After finally gathering himself, Khanna replied, “I mean, I think [the] Oct. 7 attack was a terrorist attack. So I don’t justify . . .”

Scahill didn’t let him finish his thought, opting instead to whitewash the events of the deadliest day for Jews since the Holocaust by pretending that the barbarians responsible had their sights set on “military” targets.

Tell that to the victims of the Nova music festival massacre.

And Yarden Bibas, who was cruelly told by his captors of nearly a year and a half that they had murdered his wife and two children, four years and nine months old, respectively, at the time of their abduction.

The confused look of horror on Khanna’s face as Scahill delivered his psychotic, spit-flying rant — one better suited for a Munich beer hall circa 1923 than the United States of America a century later — betrayed him.

He had no idea what he signed up for.

The "apartheid" that's more accepting of Arabs (including Palestinians) in Israel than the converse in Palestine?

The specious argument they make is that misandry is not a thing because men are not systematically oppressed. Setting aside the fact that the patriarchy actually hurts everyone, you can say, yeah, as a gender men aren't oppressed, never mind the statistics that show that 80% of all murders are murdered men... but see, that's not what misandry would mean.

Misandry and misogyny are cognates to misanthropy, hatred of humans. Misanthropes do not systematically oppress humans. They do not have broad power over humans. The mis- or miso- prefix literally means "hatred of", and says nothing about it being systematic.

As it happens, women are systematically oppressed, so these people are pulling a bait and switch, claiming that misogyny means "systematic oppression of women" rather than just "hatred of women". If it meant that, then yeah, misandry couldn't exist. But it doesn't. Imagine a society where women are completely and wholly equal to men, you could still have a misogynist. (Though it'd be a lot less likely.)

Misandrists don't have systematic power over men in general. But boy oh boy, they sure have power over trans people (if they're cis). And if they're trans women, they have very little power, but they definitely can use what they do have to do a lateral oppression on trans men, enbies, intersex people, etc. If they're trans men... well, I feel deeply sorry for them, but they can use what little power they have to be One Of The Good Ones (tm) and argue that trans men aren't oppressed, which, um, dude, what if you developed uterine cancer? And no one would see you for it because you're a man? And insurance wouldn't cover treatment, because you're a man? This is not a hypothetical, men have died of this. Trans men are definitely oppressed, and if you don't believe it, and you're a trans man... wow, you've led a pretty charmed life so far, aside from the shit you get just for being trans at all. Did you ever talk to a different trans man, not from your socioeconomic class, before flapping your lips to betray your own people?

Then there's the thing where people go to great lengths to talk about "what men are like" and "what women are like" while completely forgetting about the existence of cis people.

like, pizzey has a lot of beliefs i disagree with & it seems like she became turned off to feminism & never really tried to interrogate that belief & it lead her down a bad road. but ultimately she is herself a survivor of abuse who clearly has always cared deeply about abuse, and importantly, she was abused worse by her mother than her father. she described how her mother beat her until she was bloody. and i can absolutely understand how frustrating it must be to be a woman survivor of abuse by a woman, in the 1970s, and be trying to add more nuance to the discussion of domestic violence and talk about male victims and cycles of violence, and to be dealing with feminists who viewed DV solely through the lens of "males are sick and want power over women." even today so many radfems are so callous towards women victims of abuse from women, brushing it off as a non-issue, or acting like "its internalized misogyny!" magically makes it better than when a man does it. i can absolutely understand how that experience would lead a person to be turned off from feminism entirely and want to take a stand against it, out of a genuine belief that that is what will help all survivors of abuse more.

when feminism doesn't make men's issues a feminist issue, it falls to anti-feminists. it falls to hurting men and women who have felt burned (rightly and wrongly) by feminism. feminists have been saying "men suffer under patriarchy too!" since the inception of feminism, yet men's issues have never really been a feminist talking point, and so whose talking point does it become? meanwhile we keep waiting around for all abused suffering cis men to one day magically organize and establish men's advocacy groups that are also fully aligned with the goals and ideology of a movement that is unwilling to vocally or materially support those efforts.

and how many women have been abused by women, and then been fucked over by the very people who proclaim to be the defenders of battered women, because of feminists who were unwilling to reflect on their own oppositional sexism?

you know if i had a nickle for every time i made a post about how feminism has failed people abused by women & it ended up getting found by anti-feminists who think the idea that domestic violence is connected to misogyny is a feminist conspiracy against men......

to be clear, i don't think its right that she got bomb threats, or any threats at all! second wave feminism was full of people with deathly strong opinions who would be cruel, vindictive, and even violent to other women! notably, many of the people who experienced cruelty from feminists, were also feminists, continued identifying as feminists, and even feminist-ed even harder in response to being told they weren't feminists.

like, pizzey has a lot of beliefs i disagree with & it seems like she became turned off to feminism & never really tried to interrogate that belief & it lead her down a bad road. but ultimately she is herself a survivor of abuse who clearly has always cared deeply about abuse, and importantly, she was abused worse by her mother than her father. she described how her mother beat her until she was bloody. and i can absolutely understand how frustrating it must be to be a woman survivor of abuse by a woman, in the 1970s, and be trying to add more nuance to the discussion of domestic violence and talk about male victims and cycles of violence, and to be dealing with feminists who viewed DV solely through the lens of "males are sick and want power over women." even today so many radfems are so callous towards women victims of abuse from women, brushing it off as a non-issue, or acting like "its internalized misogyny!" magically makes it better than when a man does it. i can absolutely understand how that experience would lead a person to be turned off from feminism entirely and want to take a stand against it, out of a genuine belief that that is what will help all survivors of abuse more.

when feminism doesn't make men's issues a feminist issue, it falls to anti-feminists. it falls to hurting men and women who have felt burned (rightly and wrongly) by feminism. feminists have been saying "men suffer under patriarchy too!" since the inception of feminism, yet men's issues have never really been a feminist talking point, and so whose talking point does it become? meanwhile we keep waiting around for all abused suffering cis men to one day magically organize and establish men's advocacy groups that are also fully aligned with the goals and ideology of a movement that is unwilling to vocally or materially support those efforts.

and how many women have been abused by women, and then been fucked over by the very people who proclaim to be the defenders of battered women, because of feminists who were unwilling to reflect on their own oppositional sexism?

you know if i had a nickle for every time i made a post about how feminism has failed people abused by women & it ended up getting found by anti-feminists who think the idea that domestic violence is connected to misogyny is a feminist conspiracy against men......

That's why when Orange Jackass took office and incompetently tried to take over and destroy the government, the opposition party did not even try to destroy the tools he was using when they got into power. "We will use them correctly! We will need them so we can do that!"

And now here's Orange Jackass again, but with assistance to help him use the same tools more effectively. He's probably still going to fail, but he's going to do a lot more damage, because we didn't take the tools away.

I mean, I'm mostly pleading to the choir here I suppose, but given that males of our species have the protruding organ that they have sexual urges to poke inside of other humans and are biologically granted the higher sex drive and are also more prone (culturally and biologically) to physical violence and are also (culturally and biologically) put into the role of actively pursuing sex (and typically, anti-feminists proudly refuse to shy away from acknowledging the biological element!), am I brainwashed into male self-loathing by feminists if I imagine the common-sense default outcome is that a solid majority of the raping within humanity is done by men? (Not that this overrides actual data or excuses my misreading of data.)

I'd also be hesitant to make inferences from reported figures given that (and this assumption is re-enacted in your very framing of this issue! why does it matter who has protruding genitalia? did we not begin this by talking about rape in which that very specifically isn't relevant in the expected way?) there's a strong sociocultural and, in some places, legal bias towards defining rape in a way that necessarily produces the outcome "it is mostly committed by people with protruding sexual organs" since without penetration (by the perpetrator of the victim) a lot of folk won't see (and therefore won't report or record) something as "really" being rape!

Which is of course why, when you say that trans people are "biologically prone" to do or be anything, that's horribly transphobic and ignorant. Appeals to "biological sex" have nearly no bearing on reality, because gender is entirely a construct of society, and sexual biology is actually extraordinarily flexible in ways that we stumbling ignorant fools are only just beginning to discover.

Like for instance, claiming that men and women experience equal amounts of sexual violence. There are no large-scale studies that indicate this. The NISVS study that this guy supplied- I've read it. I've read it repeatedly. It does not say this. It indicates that, historically women have suffered roughly four times the amount of sexual violence as men, and that every year they suffer a little less than twice the sexual violence of men.

These numbers are important, and they are a damning indictment of how feminism treats male victimization, because they still treat male victims as rare. Like they're unicorns. Especially male victims of female perpetrators. It is still incredibly common for them to claim that it is mostly men who rape men, despite the fact this has not been evidenced by the literature in decades.

The large disparity in prevalence between all time male and precious year male victims is also troubling. Something is going on that is increasing the number of men to report being victimized per year. There are several possibilities here, none of which have been unambiguously proven, but we'll never figure out which one is real if we don't try to figure it out.

What's more, this person was so sloppy they never bothered to quote actual statistics. Almost 80% of the 1.6million men made-to-pentrate in 2017, and almost 80% of the 2.7million who were sexually coerced (blackmailed, emotionally abused into, exploited by an authority figure, etc) were victimized by women. You can find these rates by combining the "by women only" and "by women and men" perpetrator rates.

The only category where men were raped by other men more often than women was rape itself, defined as being forcefully penetrated. Some 300,000 men a year suffer from this, and it's almost exclusively men who do it.

Taken together, it proves that men are more likely to be assaulted by other men than women are to be assaulted by other women, but at no point does it prove men are in greater danger from other men than women. In fact, it proves the opposite: the biggest predators of men, right now, are women, and it's not even close.

This is a silver bullet to the classic arguments that men are primarily victimized by other men, that female perpetrators are rare, and that male victims are rare. One in ten men are victims. Almost two percent of the male population in the United States is victimized by women per year. That's not insubstantial.

And the denial of this reality is so very clearly linked to the idea that men are predatory and women are not. Women's predatory actions are sanitized at a staggering rate, both by conservative and progressive sexists.

It's very clear that the primary party at fault for the rape of men is women. No amount of male participation in structural sexism can force women to be rapists. They are actively choosing to rape millions of men a year.

Within this context it becomes clear that the refusal to use gender inclusive language when talking about victims of sexual violence is part of the erasure of male (and nonbinary) victims. Furthermore, the defensiveness with which some women act in regards to this issue is not only undeserved, it's really no different than the kind of "not all men" deflections misogynists are so fond of.

That is an example of how advocates of male victims should be engaging with this topic. You'll notice that at no point do I go on a rant about feminism being evil despite many of these behaviors being common to self identified feminists and feminist spaces. That's because they are hardly limited to feminists or feminist spaces, and it's often times feminists who are challenging them in real or meaningful ways.

Notice that the manosphere does not make these arguments. Notice where their focus lies. They use the stories of male victims instrumentally, to transition to a greater argument on why feminism is evil and they should get to harass female streamers.

The arguments I make do not substantiate that response. It is not necessary to diminish the suffering of women to acknowledge my points. "Men are raped more often than you think, and rape culture applies to them" does not necessitate believing that women are liars making shit up for attention. Especially because I never make the argument that men are raped at equal numbers or more than women. There are still more female victims than male, just somewhere betwe 4:1 and 2:1 instead of whatever bat shit insane 300:1 people think.

Millions of men being raped a year is enough to push for a greater focus on male victims than is currently afforded. It's enough to push for funding for research into the problem, for support groups, for academic study, for political reform.

It is not, however, a jumping off point for ranting about how female victims are liars, feminism should be abolished, and we should get rid of no fault divorce.

What's more, all of the logic for dismissing male victims really comes from classical sexism. It's the idea that men are uniquely, inherently powerful regardless of context. It's the inability to understand power dynamics when one intimate partner refuses to accept a 'no.' It's the refusal to teach boys that they also have the right to refuse sex and shouldn't allow others to pressure them into something they aren't ready for. It's the idea that men consent by default and that a refusal is an insult and devaluation of his partner. Etc etc.

None of these concepts were created by feminists. Individual feminists may be guilty of sexism, but it is the same kind of sexism that has always existed. Feminists are not hatched fully formed from the unyolked egg of a virgin swan. They are subject to the same sexist brainwashing the rest of us are. These biases inform their actions and beliefs just like the rest of us. They do this because they are human and humans are just like that. Not because they are evil conspiracists trying to maintain a gyno centric society.

The same thing cannot be said of radfems or femmosphere grifters though. They are very clearly driven by a deeply held bigoted hatred of men, or at the very least bigotry in their apathy, the kind where they just don't care about how their actions affect men.

The point I'm getting at, is that there is a way to engage with this topic that does not involve demonizing all of feminism or demanding the rejection of women's oppression. I can even criticize common feminist attitudes or talking points without insisting they're demonic hypergamists whose ultimate goal is to create a blood tax for divorced middle aged dads or to destroy America or whatever other such nonsense.

the thing is i'm not talking about the individual level of "sometimes trans men act like jerks"

i mean saying shit like "the legal system is designed by and for men." structural systemic examples of androcentrism and misogyny that trans men objectively were not privileged in considering, and in fact are actively fucked over just as much if not more than cis women. there is no excuse for not saying "cis men" here (& as people pointed out in the notes, there's also a lot of other ways in which various marginalized men are excluded, but even just focusing on gender/sex as a lens here).

its not even about individuals internalizing toxic masculinity. and its also not even about individuals who just individually don't care about trans men! i am not making a point about how individuals think here really. the point is that across the spectrum of political ideology and feminist identification and genuine trans allyship, people consistently. CONSISTENTLY. will overlook using a three letter word to clarify that they understand trans men are not cis men and that the "men" privileged on a systemic level under patriarchy are cis men, even when its a situation which would genuinely be absurd to think trans men were considered or valued.

the thing is i'm not talking about the individual level of "sometimes trans men act like jerks"

i mean saying shit like "the legal system is designed by and for men." structural systemic examples of androcentrism and misogyny that trans men objectively were not privileged in considering, and in fact are actively fucked over just as much if not more than cis women. there is no excuse for not saying "cis men" here (& as people pointed out in the notes, there's also a lot of other ways in which various marginalized men are excluded, but even just focusing on gender/sex as a lens here).

its not even about individuals internalizing toxic masculinity. and its also not even about individuals who just individually don't care about trans men! i am not making a point about how individuals think here really. the point is that across the spectrum of political ideology and feminist identification and genuine trans allyship, people consistently. CONSISTENTLY. will overlook using a three letter word to clarify that they understand trans men are not cis men and that the "men" privileged on a systemic level under patriarchy are cis men, even when its a situation which would genuinely be absurd to think trans men were considered or valued.

cis men did in fact make the legal system, bud, because cis men have been the only ones allowed to vote and become politicians and make laws. cis men have fucked over other cis men. that many feminists have been shitty about men and have presented sexism as black and white "men always benefit and women always suffer" does not mean we can ignore the fact that cis men have dominated all spheres of public life. this is a basic fact of history. it was objectively designed by cis men - wealthy cis men, white cis men, etc. but just pointing to incidences of benevolent misogyny, or ways in which men are harmed by the system, does not actually disprove the points made by feminism. if you have to pretend that the structural exclusion from people classed as women from politics and governance, and the structural suppression of these people, something no one in history ever gave a fuck about denying until after feminism had forced social change, didn't exist in order to make your points about the issues with how feminism has approached men? your point is incredibly, profoundly weak.

feminism is not a unified singular ideology. every criticism you have made of feminism as a whole has been made already, and made better with far more objective and subjective grounding, by people who you would call feminists. you are trying to counter harmful, black-and-white feminism with harmful, black-and-white anti-feminism, which is not convincing! you are getting mad at people for denying the suffering of men by denying the suffering of women, which is entirely unnecessary. you are trying to challenge a lack of nuance with a lack of nuance, etc etc. and i'm not going to debate with you on this because i know this information is freely available in plenty of places & your mind is not open to being convinced by any information at this moment.

anyways, if you ever do find yourself willing

read it or listen to it

And in any case, the interlocutor here is actually an anti-feminist who believes feminists are a bunch of man-hating bitches, which is why their position is so incoherent. they are trying to convince you to not be a feminist because feminists hate men, while simultaneously say trans men are responsible for the cisheteropatriarchy. i think they are either a troll or deeply stupid, so it's probably best to block and move on.

the thing is i'm not talking about the individual level of "sometimes trans men act like jerks"

i mean saying shit like "the legal system is designed by and for men." structural systemic examples of androcentrism and misogyny that trans men objectively were not privileged in considering, and in fact are actively fucked over just as much if not more than cis women. there is no excuse for not saying "cis men" here (& as people pointed out in the notes, there's also a lot of other ways in which various marginalized men are excluded, but even just focusing on gender/sex as a lens here).

its not even about individuals internalizing toxic masculinity. and its also not even about individuals who just individually don't care about trans men! i am not making a point about how individuals think here really. the point is that across the spectrum of political ideology and feminist identification and genuine trans allyship, people consistently. CONSISTENTLY. will overlook using a three letter word to clarify that they understand trans men are not cis men and that the "men" privileged on a systemic level under patriarchy are cis men, even when its a situation which would genuinely be absurd to think trans men were considered or valued.

cis men did in fact make the legal system, bud, because cis men have been the only ones allowed to vote and become politicians and make laws. cis men have fucked over other cis men. that many feminists have been shitty about men and have presented sexism as black and white "men always benefit and women always suffer" does not mean we can ignore the fact that cis men have dominated all spheres of public life. this is a basic fact of history. it was objectively designed by cis men - wealthy cis men, white cis men, etc. but just pointing to incidences of benevolent misogyny, or ways in which men are harmed by the system, does not actually disprove the points made by feminism. if you have to pretend that the structural exclusion from people classed as women from politics and governance, and the structural suppression of these people, something no one in history ever gave a fuck about denying until after feminism had forced social change, didn't exist in order to make your points about the issues with how feminism has approached men? your point is incredibly, profoundly weak.

feminism is not a unified singular ideology. every criticism you have made of feminism as a whole has been made already, and made better with far more objective and subjective grounding, by people who you would call feminists. you are trying to counter harmful, black-and-white feminism with harmful, black-and-white anti-feminism, which is not convincing! you are getting mad at people for denying the suffering of men by denying the suffering of women, which is entirely unnecessary. you are trying to challenge a lack of nuance with a lack of nuance, etc etc. and i'm not going to debate with you on this because i know this information is freely available in plenty of places & your mind is not open to being convinced by any information at this moment.

anyways, if you ever do find yourself willing

read it or listen to it

What I was addressing was that this phrase was/is a call to genocide.

It's men who are denied victim services for being male.

It's men who are statistically more likely to be blamed when seeking help than to actually receive help.

It's men who face oppositions to gender equality being treated as progressive.

It's men who get falsely accused/punished at disproportionate rates.

It's men who are constantly told that their consent doesnt matter.

It's men who lead in almost every major cause of death, but we still put the spotlight (and funding) on women.

It's men who have their black of reproductive and parental rights turned into women's rights.

It's men who can face serious systematic/systemic inequality and no one will care.

It's men who arent even allowed to talk about the inequalities they face.

It always fascinates me when they say this. Because why? Why would men want to be oppressed so bad that you use it as a taunt?

It's basically them admitting that being a supposed oppressed group has certain benefits that they want to hold onto. It's why they fight against men's issues so hard, even when the issue doesn't involve them.

It granted them the right for widespread activism again FGM while male circumcision is less likely to be opposed and even have certain organizations like many u.n. ones to encourage. It got them the ability in many parts of the world to be exempt from the draft. The ability for their sexism and profiling of men to get excused and defended.

Whenever men and women suffer issues it grants them a society more likely to put more aid for helping women even when men suffer it more.

I have zero idea what the fuck you are even doing here. How is this a GOP fail. Are you a moron who thinks only right wingers can believe women can have advantages over men?

We are allowed to mock men, insult them, and generalize them in ways that are more likely to be condemned when aimed at women. Being seen as an oppressed group leads to people caring more about your suffering and putting more effort into ending it.

What I was addressing was that this phrase was/is a call to genocide.

A post by @ndncommie on Jul 23, 2026, who says "Some white trans people on here need to hear this". Also included is an image using a big triangle to diagram actions that count as overt white supremacy (socially unacceptable), which are written in the upper tip of the triangle, and actions that are covert white supremacy (socially acceptable), which take up the vast majority of the triangle.

The text reads:

Overt white supremacy (socially unacceptable)

Lynching

Hate Crimes

Blackface

The N-word

Swastikas

Neo-Nazis

Burning Crosses

Racist Jokes

Racial Slurs

KKK

Covert white supremacy (socially acceptable)

Calling the Police on Black People

White Silence

Colorblindness

White Parents Self-Segregating Neighborhoods and Schools

Eurocentric Curriculum

White Savior Complex

Spiritual Bypassing

Education Funding from Property Taxes

Discriminatory Lending

Mass Incarceration

Respectability Politics

Tone Policing

Racist Mascots

Not Believing Experiences of BIPOC

Paternalism

"Make America Great Again"

Blaming the Victim

Hiring Discrimination

"You don't sound Black"

"Don't Blame Me, I Never Owned Slaves"

Bootstrap Theory

School-to-Prison Pipeline

Police Murdering BIPOC

Virtuous Victim Narrative

Higher Infant & Maternal Mortality Rate for BIPOC

"But What About Me?"

"All Lives Matter"

BIPOC as Halloween Costumes

Racial Profiling

Denial of White Privilege

Prioritizing White Voices as Experts

Treating Kids of Color as Adults

Inequitable Healthcare

Assuming Good Intentions Are Enough

Not Challenging Racist jokes

Cultural Appropriation

Eurocentric Beauty Standards

Anti-Immigration Policies

Considering AAVE "Uneducated"

Denial of Racism

Tokenism

English-Only Initiatives

Self-Appointed White Ally

Exceptionalism

Fearing People of Color

Police Brutality

Fetishizing BIPOC

Meritocracy Myth

"You're So Articulate"

Celebration of Columbus Day

Claiming Reverse-Racism

Paternalism

Weaponized Whiteness

Expecting BIPOC to Teach White People

Believing We Are "Post-Racial"

"But We're All One Big Human Family" / "There's Only One Human Race"

Housing Discrimination

ID for image 2:

A screenshot of someone's tags on this tumblr post, which reads:

"#damn no naunce? #i didn't realize everyone with *checks smudged writing on hand* white parents are white supremacists #and me now because I didn't silently share this smh"