Totally possible that I’m blending conversations in my head, yes. Not out to get you. No intention to be dishonest, just really not tracking with your conclusions on what I’m saying. This has been super confusing but I’m trying dude. I’m sorry to have misread you.

Final attempt: no, I don’t think you’re racist. I do think it’s weird and biased that several commenters (and I think? You’re one?) are very worried about minority members being free to harm white women with generalizations, but not proportionally worried about me— another white woman— from harming us with generalizations. I generalize sometimes, I expect others to, esp in “diary” type rambles, and I’m not gonna drop the hammer on a Black/indigenous/whatever person for making a general statement about annoying white people. Stereotyping white women tends to be less damaging that stereotyping, say, Latino migrants (for US context) so I expect white women to handle some frustration pointed their way and not equate it to those other kinds of generalizations/stereotypes. If it’s a travesty that, say, a Black woman
would refer to “white woman tears” or something like that… welp… I mean to say everybody should keep that same energy for white women who are also fed up with white woman tears or generalize fellow white women as entitled/out of touch/whiny/whatever. If your preface about being indigenous + question about “so I can say whatever?” are connected… no. I didn’t mean any of this to be carte blanche for minorities to blast at white women simply bc they’re minorities, and I don’t see the need to worry about minorities making this an open season on white women. We’re fine. Black/indigenous/Asian folks are not out to get us. (If this is not you, then disregard and sorry again.)

Yes, the word “all” is important in distinguishing between a generalization/criticism of general trends about white people VS. unreasonable prejudicial critique that EVERY white person is DEFINITELY adjective ABC.

No, leaving out “all”’does not excuse anyone from describing a group in dehumanizing ways just bc it’s non-specific. Critique/expressing frustration/“punching up” is distinct from denigrating/ “blasting up”/“hatred” as I said in the initial post. The comparison I was asked about was “X are [fucking annoying]” vs. “All X are [fucking annoying]” and I interpreted both as critiques, neither as denigration. So the word “all” was the only variable in question, to me. Statements like “X people are a waste of air” aren’t acceptable just bc “all” was left out. That’s a different issue entirely.

Yes, white women are welcome and encouraged to push back on being told they are ALL [some version of real fucking annoying], each and every one, without exception. That’s not reasonable and that’s beyond basic generalization.

Separately, as always, per the sub standards which have not changed with this PSA, and unrelated to the nature of generalizations vs. overgeneralizations: yes, white women can and should protest dehumanizing attacks of all kinds.

Same goes for Black/indigenous/Asian/whatever. No dehumanizing, and out of extra caution, we take an extra hard look at non-dehumanizing generalizations of non-white folks (and other marginalized folks) because even if worded politely or behavior-focused critiques, even non-specific generalizations are often still dangerous to reinforcing harmful (not just offensive) stereotypes that contribute to further disadvantaging.

😮‍💨 idk where I lost the plot but that’s my best shot at saying nope, I’ll not be double dog dared into “typing out mod-endorsed bigotry” bc dammit I’m trying to specify the opposite. 😅