But can I examine this *a little bit*?

I was just listening - for as long as I could bear to (I'm not a masochist) - an interview with Marrissa Jenae, one of the speakers who took over the event (which wasn't a Sanders event, it was just timed to hit Sanders - and that was a choice) in Seattle. The explanation for her use of the phrase "white liberal racists" (or whatever the exact enunciation) was something along the line of -- well, she actually meant *only* those who were trying to shout her down and stop her from taking over the stage and shutting down the event, were white liberal racists. Not *everyone* out there, not those out there who approved of her action.

That's a very loose and self-centered way of categorizing "racists", in my opinion. I don't believe anyone who thinks, talks and makes slanderous judgements like that on such self-centered and outre grounds should be taken seriously as any kind of authority on the subject of "racism".

Another example, following immediately in the interview upon the first, was her assertion that apparently she heard (or someone heard) someone in the crowd say that she should be "tazed". However, she didn't just relate this fact about what someone was heard saying. She described the "someone" as being a "white progressive" and used that allegation to describe *all* "white progressives" in the denunciations that followed.

At that point I couldn't bear to listen any longer.

I think *what* was said by the spokesperson for blacklivesmatter-Seattle ought to be subject to critique.
I won't allow myself to be used as a punching bag in a political battle between primary candidates for POTUS.
_____________________________

On not quite a tangent, in the same conceptual arc so to speak, I was reminded of my puzzlement on reading Mary Wollstonecraft on the Rights of Women, reading something of her biography, in my youth. Wollstonecraft used impeccable Aristotelian logic to build an airtight case, using the very words of the "progressive" intellectual establishment of her time, yet somehow she didn't get through to even her friends, her "natural allies". By "getting through" I mean a thorough taking up of the cause - or inclusion in the cause - leading to action and an actual change in the circumstances of women.

So Wollstonecraft moved and communicated in the same very progressive political milieu as some of the most brilliant and famous male "progressive thinkers" of her time, but they were "insider progressives" and she, being a woman, was an "outsider progressive", and what dawned on me was that "insider progressives" naturally, by virtue of their circumstances, are myopic. The issues of human rights and justice that progressive thinkers focus on, try to get right, are all life and death, are all Important with a capital 'I', but they are only visceral issues for the outsider. To cross that divide requires more than reason - it requires action, it requires forcing a wakeup.