What's more likely, that you didn't understand the article or even read it to the end before commenting with unearned condescension or that I'm unaware of the history of racism? I'm certain it's the former. So I guess that means I get to keep writing whatever I want and can dismiss smug, empty-headed, virtue-signaling comments like yours, right? Or do you see another option, given that you don't know what you're talking about?

What you were supposed to write in your comment, given that you didn't understand what you read and didn't read the whole thing is this: "Are you saying that mowing the lawn is as bad as lynching Black people?" And then I'd get to say: "Do you see me saying anything like that in the article? Wouldn't that be preposterous?" And then you'd say, "But what do you mean, then, with your grass example?" Then I'd just have to quote from the article, since it's all explained nicely there for those who are interested in thinking: "To think is to generalize, and we typically adjust our generalizations to serve us one way or another. All concepts are partly unfaithful to their subject matter."

If you got around to the end of the article, you'd have seen this: 'To be clear, my point here isn’t to provide any excuse for white supremacy or to exacerbate the troubles of downtrodden peoples like African Americans. It goes without saying that racist crimes like lynching or more subtle subjugations are wrong, but those crimes would be wrong independent of the racism.

'Instead, my point is that the mindlessness of the liberal ban on “racism” is lame. Demonizing a concept or a generalization is bound to backfire if the concept is rooted in the purpose of cognition, which is to simplify data.'

And you'd have seen where I suggest that White culture is arguably worse than Black culture, so if anything white racists should be highly self-critical.