I was not particularly insulted by the article. It was one man’s opinion; and as they say: “Opinions are like a**holes, everybody has one;” and I will add - everybody has to clean one. (The quote is attributed to a movie character named, appropriately enough, “Dirty Harry.”)

Indi Samarajiva obviously believes that the way he cleans his tuchas is superior to all others. That is his opinion and he is entitled to it. His opinion is not binding upon me and I am not seeking his approval for the way I clean my tuchas, therefore I have no reason to be insulted. Since there is no one watching me when I clean my tuchas, no one will actually know what method I employed. I am aware that people in different areas of the world clean their tuchases differently.

Unrelated to what I perceive to be his main topic - tuchas hygiene - he also expressed his opinion of “white people” - he doesn't like us. To that I say, “Thanks for the warning.”

Mr. Samarajiva decided to conflate his opinion of “white people” with his analysis and opinion of various tuchas cleaning methods and that is his prerogative. I neither criticize nor affirm his choice to do so.

My comment was intended to report a pattern that I observed. The pattern occurs across many articles, published here and elsewhere. When the title of an article refers to a group of people in a critical manner it is predictable that members of that group will challenge the criticism. That is inevitable.

It has become the practice of certain factions who advocate social reforms, those who commonly refer to themselves as being “woke,” to respond to those challenges. The typical response is to accuse the challenger of being “oversensitive” or “easily baited” or “…they can’t take some commentary about the way they wipe…” or some other dismissive response. That is the pattern that I observe.

“Maybe he was trying to draw a lot of readers with his evocative headline.”

No doubt he was. And he was successful. I, myself, was drawn by the headline. But I do not believe that he was unaware of the side effect of that tactic. Only the most naïve would not anticipate that besides drawing readers, it would draw comments of protest. The “woke” reactions to those comments are equally predicable. The contempt, indignance and particularly the surprise expressed in those “woke” reactions, however, is contrived. Since the challengers’ comments are predictable no one is legitimately surprised by them.

I thought it useful to expose the contrived nature of the “surprise” expressed in comments that seek to dismiss the well anticipated protests against the gratuitous criticism of “white people.”

If you consider yourself guilty of some transgression because some scoundrels have a skin complexion similar to yours, then that is your prerogative. I think differently. What “white people” may or may not have done in the past has nothing to do with the predictable human reaction by members of a group when that group has been gratuitously criticized.