Whiny Bitch accuses white adoptive parents of perpetuating racism

Maybe I am reading too much into this, but I genuinely think a lot of this faux-identification is psychological and comes down to an effort to escape one's privilege.

I'm guessing you're a conservative, so I'm also guessing that you see things in very pure material terms (i.e. people do things for money and sex), whereas speaking as a leftist, albeit a self-critical and non-partisan leftist with a VERY LOW tolerance for bullshit, I know how a lot of leftists think, and many of them are as motivated by ego and self-image, as they are by more tangible things like, say, a scholarship or even a job.

Look at how already wealthy and powerful celebrities feel the need to 'spice up' their identities by falsely claiming to be gay/bi, or non-binary, or in many cases, Jewish, Indigenous American or Black despite NO verifiable evidence of such ancestry. These people already have very fragile egos, so it helps their sense of self to be able to identify with the 'good guys' rather than the 'bad guys'.

This is one of the man reasons why relative 'centrists', rather than right-wingers (who are motivated by material power and success) and left-wingers (who are motivated by self-image/ego), are higher on the intellectual evolutionary scale. Centrists recognise the dynamics of systemic privilege, but they don't make-up bullshit and cowardly excuses to escape it. Instead, they face up to it, whilst also reasonably and sensibly refusing to condemn individuals simply on the basis of identities they were *born* with. Extremists see things in strict binary terms. Cowards try to escape any binary identity that frames them as the 'bad guys'. Intelligent, reasonable, well-balanced centrists see things in more complex terms and acknowledge their own personal identities without any BS.

Still, if what you say about Warren is true, and she's simply trying to cover-up for an early lie (and, to be fair, you may be right in this case), I guess she's more shallow than I thought...

I can't say I agree with your politics. I don't want to get into this debate here, but tax breaks for the rich *do not* incentivise the rich to put more money into their employers/workers. Trickle down hasn't been shown to work, because if you cut taxes for the 1%, you're not compelling them to put their money back into the economy/their businesses. You're simply allowing them to accumulate more wealth/interest on their savings.

But I *do* agree with your first paragraph, ironically from a more left-wing progressive POV. I once used to stigmatise people who had the good fortune to be born wealthy, like Harry and Colin, but I now see that they're no more responsible for their good fortune than I am for being born a straight white man.

That said, I htink it's actualaly healthy and important for straight white men *AND* rich people (whatever their sexuality, race and gender) to recognise their innate privileges WITHOUT feeling obliged to *beat themselves up* over something they had no say in.

Recognising one's privileges is not the same as being told to hate oneself, although on occasion the line can be a thin one. That's whyt it's important to say "Black people and women are at a systemic disadvantage because of x" without saying "You're to blame [because you were born a white man]." I think there are ways of teaching CRT (which I suspect you completely detest) without leaving anyone feeling guilty or ashamed of their identity, and, there are other ways which I personally think are unnecessarily stigmatising (I'm not sure that the 'walk of privilege' is helpful, because it singles people out, and turns them into pariahs in some people's mind; you can't help but make a subconscious target for someone's back when you single them out, and no matter how many intersectional factors one accounts for, including race, gender, sexuality, poverty, bereavement, mental health, and so on, there are always going to be discrete factors that one misses out; life isn't simple