What a selection of semantic fuckaboutery. It's about 'whiteness' - fine. You create an amorophous term that incapsulates everything you want it to include. Then confirmation bias yourself to a seemingly clever conclusion. If anyone can be performatively anything - then what's the point in defining such a thing?

Let's take Steve QJ as an example - because he's one of my favourite writers on this platform - he's a problem for white woke folks because he absolutey doesn't subscribe to the concepts or doctrines of identity politics in any meningful way. He also happens to be black. We write about lot of the same topics and pretty much agree on anything.

You can now safely dismiss his views because they are 'performative whiteness' and you've decided they don't count. So here's my question - if we're going to use this term 'whiteness' - isn't accusing black people like Steve, who don't worship at the altar of wokeology, of being 'performatively white' - just a form of linguistic suppression. Isn't this just intellectualised 'whiteness' exemplified?