Let me try. You know the concept of oppression, like "men oppress women" or "whites oppress blacks". You can talk about each of those separately. But what happe

Let me try. You know the concept of oppression, like "men oppress women" or "whites oppress blacks". You can talk about each of those separately. But what happens when you notice that everyone has both a gender and a race? Should e.g. a white woman be supported as a victim, or rather attacked as an oppressor? So you get intersectionalism, the updated philosophy of "Oppression 2.0", which says that there are multiple axes of oppression (such as gender, race, sexual orientation, etc.), and instead of dividing the world into 2 groups, you need to divide it into a matrix of 2^N groups. And the idea is that multi-oppressed people have more than the sum of oppression... for example, black women face all the oppression that white women face, plus all the oppression that black men face, plus some extra oppression unique for them. It is still black-and-white thinking along each axis of oppression. Like, it would be a heresy to suggest that women have some disadvantages, but men have some disadvantages (albeit less than women) too. No! Women have disadvantages, therefore men have no disadvantages, end of debate. Etc. However, it introduces the extra nuance that e.g. white women may have some disadvantages that black men don't have, and black men have some disadvantages that white women don't have. However, black women trump them all at being oppressed, absolutely (i.e. don't you ever dare to mention that e.g. police kills more black men than black women). So far the theory. What it means in practice is that now you can dismiss any person by finding someone who is more oppressed. For example, in the old days, if you were in a feminist group, and you were a (white) woman, you were considered a good person, end of debate. That means, white women were at the top of the pecking order. These days, if you are in a feminist group, and you are a white woman, you are considered a good person as long as the group complains about men... but if you try to make an argument about your own oppression, if any black woman decides that you take too much of the spotlight, she can silence you using the intersectional argument. Of course, she can in turn be silenced by a black lesbian woman. Who can in turn be silenced by a... well, it doesn't go on forever like this, because at some moment someone is a too tiny minority, so people will just ignore them. So, maybe the black lesbian woman actually does not have enough political power to silence the black straight woman. Sometimes the black woman doesn't have enough political power to silence the white woman. It depends. So, whether you are a victim or a villain, depends on who opposes you in the debate. Which is kinda what this story is about. There was a white woman, she tried to play a victim card. After losing against a stronger card, she failed to humbly accept the defeat according to the rules of the game. Therefore she received an exemplary punishment. According to the rules, she is a villain, therefore she deserves all she got. Maybe from our perspective, this is completely disproportionate. But arguably, she made the choice to play this game, so perhaps she deserves it partially.