Not at first — but what your model does is hands over the notion of what constitutes oppression into pure subjectivity with no recourse to discussion or objectivity. You began your comment without checking to see if I’m BIPOC, let’s presume for a second I am. I don’t play identity politics, so it doesn’t matter to me what you think I am — but skin colour matters to you.

I find your comment offensive and oppressive and racist. I’m the victim of your comment. There’s no discussion needed. You must listen to me. I demand that you remove your racist comment from my wall. I also find your continuing presence on Medium distressing. You should close down your account.

Now you’ve got very good reasons for why you’ve written your views on my wall and they’re good reasons. You seem like a good person. What gives me the right to unequivocally boot you out of the conversation? Objectively you haven’t been offensive, you’ve engaged me politely, my response seems out of proportion and based on what? My subjective worldview and your deference to anyone with a particular skin colour.

How does that forward the discussion or end the blight of racism in society in any meaningful way whatsoever? It generates a subjective pissing competition in which the loudest people define the rules.

Of course we should listen to BIPOC, that doesn’t mean the end of disagreement and dissent — and let’s not treat BIPOC like they act and think the same way. Jeremy Helligar and Steve QJ both wrote articles this week about the N-word and their relationship with it. They have very different reactions and responses — so who is right? Who is the voice of BIPOC on Medium?