So, in this analogy, the cargo truck would be accused white guys? I.e., you feel we can measure truck mass and size with an albedometer?
Why would that be a requirement for the analogy to work? We can't measure truck mass with an albedometer, but we can measure racial privilege and give a number to it, as we do with mass.
And, assuming for the sake of discussion that we can do that, then furthermore, continuing with your analogy, you feel that pointing out that the traffic participant who was killed was killed by a massive cargo truck, and some accused white guys' massive cargo trucks are also massive cargo trucks, qualifies as an intellectually honest justification for labeling the accident victim "their" victim?
It doesn't. Again, why would that be a requirement? The whole point of working on reducing blind spots is that, in small ways, everyone of us can fall victim of inadvertently hurting others without even knowing, and the very idea that reducing those blind spots can help at all assumes that we're basically good people who would, in most cases, avoid doing so if only we were aware.
Even the very same cargo truck driver who shoved the moped off the road may not be personally culpable in any meaningful sense - he may be if he was truly reckless and signalled the turn too late, or didn't look in the rear mirror properly, or we may want to blame the company for refusing to retrofit the truck with a blind spot monitor as they value a few hundred bucks more than a human life, or the legislator for not demanding such, or the moped rider for sneaking up to close, where he should have known he's in the truck's blind spot, or his instructor for not teaching him properly about trucks' blind spots. None of is the focus of the discussion - a solution oriented approach simply takes into account that the moped rider is now dead, and would likely be alive had the truck had a blind spot monitor installed. You call yourself a utilitarian, don't you? Well, time to live to live up to your words.
Your objection is a bit like lamenting that we can't demand blind spot monitors because by doing so, we implicitly blame all accidents involving trucks on the truck drivers - and that unfairness is obviously a greater evil than dead moped riders, and therefore, the prudent thing to do about this problem is - nothing (or maybe, banning mopeds).
Recognising that acts have unintended consequences, that due to power imbalances, some agents' acts are prone to have more dire consequences than others', that some of these unintended and unwanted consequences can be mitigated by reducing the blind spots that make agents unable to see their acts' unintended consequences, and that not all agents' blind spots have an identical potential to produce harm and thus some agents' blind spots are more of a problem for society than others', isn't accusing anyone of being personally culpable for those consequences.
No, it isn't.
In contrast, saying somebody is personally culpable is, in point of fact, accusing him of being personally culpable.
It is. However, noone has said that you or I are personally culpable, and your quote mine doesn't show otherwise. For the record, here's the complete sentence from which you pulled it. If you actually bother to read the whole sentence, you will find that it talks about how the criticisms that attack CRT on the basis that it burdens innocent people with personal culpability are misguided precisely because it isn't about personal culpability in the first place. I know, it's a bit of an awkward run-on sentence, but if I, as a non-native speaker, can attribute a meaning to it, you too should be able to:
Accepting injury without protest is a completely inadequate way to challenge the common belief that such offenses are acceptable, earned, or "trivial". Again, this obsession with guilt and personal culpability is distracting from the actual problems, preventing true inequlaities from being addressed by derailing the conversation into a discussion about the aggrieved feelings of the accused, in which it is assumed but never stated that the feelings of the accused should be considered more important or more justified than those of their original victim. This was literally the central thesis of White Fragility, the book all the conservatives are so afraid of but haven't read.
Of course, if you prefer to ignore the context and work yourself up on a couple of decontextualized words instead, there's little I can do to stop you. In that case, I shall continue to call your behaviour disingenuous. Your choice, really.
