Of course you didn’t see empathy in what I’ve said — it conflicts with your viewpoint.
I have not said blacks and whites are spouses. I implied that the author had drawn a man into a conversation that mimicked the situation of a spousal dispute, wherein the listener is at the mercy of the speaker’s personal whims.
Here lies a root example of your problem. You took an individual case and construed it to be a collective judgment on people who are like you, even with heavy implication that that wasn’t what I had meant (see my choice of wording).
You believe that any dissent on the topic in question is an affront to morality and common sense, which is not unexpected, as you are probably heavily immersed your own biases toward the subject. Regardless of the truth value of your belief, it does not and cannot merit the subversion of other people’s thoughts on the basis that they not a part of your group. You can’t expect people to participate in a negotiation where you alone make the rules.
“If the ‘white guy’ should not have to ‘idly sit’ and listen to an ‘emotional, illogical, intellectually lazy’ black person who is traumatized due to the cultural affectations of systematic racism and their impacts on every white And black person born in America, no person of color who lives in -at best- an oppressively white State.”
The structure of this sentence had me confused, but I can agree to at least the assumption made , for clarity’s sake. The author is angry because he believes he’s opressed. Let’s say he is oppressed. Then his anger is justified. But the oppression of an entire race of people is a large undertaking. No single person can be held responsible for creating these systems of oppression. Why then, should any single person be expected to absorb the anger of any other, without reproach or dissent in the slightest form? They can’t be expected to, because it is contrary to nature — contrary to reason.
Also, these systems of oppression are complex. The “white guy” cannot be expected to understand them. He can not be expected to affirm their exsistence. But is willing to investigate them, and that fact reflects well on his character. But as with anything we do not understand, the best way to approach is with logic and an open mind. But having an open mind does not mean rejecting logic, and jumping into another’s emotional frame of mind. This is impossible. You simply cannot feel exactly what another feels. The two must communicate using reason and logic. But the author refuses this proposition. He expects others to listen without reason. He is being selfish. If he truly wants to give his listener a better understanding of his situation, he must be willing to communicate in a way that can be understood by one and all — not by his subjective experience. This attempt will always disappoint him.