So here’s the problem: the visual electronic media, which is so over-produced it makes me ill to think about what can be taken out, added in or just ignored, has taken the whole issue of a two-sided dialectic to the extreme. So when a person of one race comments about people of another race, there is a presumption that the communication is going to be about conflict of a two-sided nature. What if, the real conflict is not between two perspectives but involves a third, fourth, even fifth level of consideration that is essentially invisible to the two people in conflict?
As for Medium’s involvement: the part of me that remembers working for the ACLU has this position: as long as the communication is in words, its just that — words. Trying to interpret attitude and intent defeats the underlying purpose of a platform such as Medium: giving individuals an opportunity to write and publish opinions, thoughts and musings on a peer to peer level.
If this is an issue that keeps recurring, the members of the Medium community should consider creating moderated discussions on specific issues so that input on both sides is provided within the parameters of if this is what you believe, fine. If this is your opinion based on fact, provide the facts, at least as you understand them.
Finally, from my perspective by choosing to define issues of poverty as issues of race, ignores the fact that organized interest groups have persisted in dividing the working class against itself at every possible opportunity. If you are coming from an essentially conservative perspective, please share your point of view with those who may not look like you.
One more thing: I am going to betray my feminist leanings: stop referring to someone you disagree with in demeaning sexual terms.