https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zPtpRrpU-g&t=14s
"To be White is to be racist". Thereby, to be "anti-racist", one has to naturally be "anti-White".
Most people (with a brain) can recognize the obvious cognitive dissonance there. I.e. "to be anti-racist, one has to be racist".
But I think it has to be stressed, that the time of the "we all bleed red"/"I don't see colour" responses is way behind us.
When presented with the language used in this video, you have two possible options (as a White person):
1.) You end up (like some in the comments have) agreeing with the OP that Whites are racist, and that this is a horrible thing that has to be rectified. Thereby the only way a White person can truly not be racist is to kill themselves or to destroy their own line/people (of course, none of the responses say that, they just say some waffly phrase like "it made me really think". Yeah, it made you think about killing yourself).
2.) You agree with the OP, but for the wrong reasons. We are different; We do "see colour"; We are not all the same, and it would probably be better for everyone if we separated.
I'm sorry to say, but there isn't really a "middle ground" left anymore. This is increasingly the choice you are being left with. And the lolbert response of "I choose not to choose" is not going to help in any way whatsoever, except to just reinforce that lolbertarianism promotes a selfish egotism.
You can also see the cognitive dissonance in the "diverse" replies.
There's one that says "I agree, but not all White people". OK, so you agree that all White people but not all White people?
There isn't a "third option" for anyone, regardless of which race or ethnic group you belong to.
There is the straightfoward option, and there is the self-flagellation or self-imposed retardation option.
