Slop.

I was replying to your comment there, not BRG's

You were replying to my comment about BRG's tweet, don't be obtuse

The marginalized identity being potentially harmed here by the contextless statement in the tweet "a lot of slaveowners were disabled" is disabled people, not white people who are not marginalized.

Ok, so now you're back to talking about BRG, got it, let's figure out what the operative word in BRG's tweet was, hint it wasn't "disabled", it was "Slaveowners". Why? Because in the context of the wider discourse about Black people being subjected to racial abuse, he's making a point that even the densest cracker can understand, which helps illustrate the wider argument he's advancing which is "disability does not negate racial abuse"

Which, by the way already you agreed with

If this was BRG's point (which makes sense) then I agree with it. However, I feel it was expressed in a careless way which harms disabled people

OH NOW WE START TO GET IT, after paragraphs and an entire thread trashing BRG (and anyone defending him), suddenly his point (that every Black person in his replies immediately understood) becomes clear, despite that fact it was always clear

Also why is BRG supposedly "careless" maybe your whiteness got in the way of seeing the obvious, you ever think of that?