I think I’m starting to figure out the intersectional formula.
You put together a string of key, evocative words together to explain away anything remotely sensible that might actually work.
You don’t actually have to present a sensible argument, but just suggest that “marginalized people” might be “more marginalized” by something “because racism.”
See? It’s easy!
Take for example a recent report in the New York Times that Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos is considering allowing states to use federal funding to supply teachers who wish to conceal carry with firearms in an effort to defend students against school shooters.
One MSNBC contributor, when asked to respond to this news, performed an incredible feat of intersectional wordplay, suggesting that, somehow, this would result in minority students being shot.
“Advocates are very worried about the racial impacts this will have,” claimed Yaminche Alcindor, an expert in Lord-knows-what. Obviously something uber progressive.
“If you start arming teachers, there are black and brown students being, who are being disciplined more than their white counterparts, you could then start seeing statistics where potentially black students are getting shot or in accidents when their teachers are trying to shoot or do gun safety measures.”
Hahahaha, right Yaminche. Because we were all planning on the teachers using their weapons to discipline students.
I mean…I’m guessing that was her logic…I can’t really tell. Can you?
Because all I heard was “something something students of color something something more dead than the white kids.”
Is one of the many benefits of white privilege being bulletproof or something?
Oh! I’ve got it! Is she saying that students of color might be more likely to threaten lives in the classroom than white students and hence might end up being shot by these teachers?
Because…that sounds racist. Like, really, really racist.
No, I’m sorry, I give up.
This doesn’t make a lick of sense one way or the other.
Well, anyway, here it is: