How do you interpret "it's okay to be X" to "it's not okay to be non-X"?. When somebody says "it's okay the be gay" they're actually saying it's not okay to be straight? This line of reasoning doesn't seem to hold up to scrutiny.
In my view the phrase "it's okay to be White" means exactly what is says: that it's okay to be White. It's totally fine to say "it's okay to be White and it's okay to be {Asian, Black, Latino, etc.}".
> Obviously. Perhaps emphasizing that view in this context does more harm than dood? Is that possible? Perhaps when someone says something obscene and stupid, you don't pile on with additional obscene and stupid responses?
But there's nothing obscene or stupid about saying "it's okay to be White" or "it's okay to be gay" or "it's okay to be X" (at least as long as X isn't something illegal or otherwise objectively harmful).
What's stupid are the people getting riled up about the phrase "it's okay to be White". It's needless outrage that fuels resentment. The fact that it got started by 4chan makes it even worse. The people that insist on taking offense are fostering needless outrage and they're being played by 4chan.
I'm particularly confused at why you persist in trying to condemn the phrase when you are fully aware that 4chan intended for people to condemn the phrase and thus portray themselves as harboring negativity towards whites. Why are you doing exactly what 4chan wants you to do?
The article you posted even advises against the bevhavior you're engaging in:
> Lundberg’s expert suggestion is not to reject the phrase. “I think that the best response is to deny them the pleasure of the fight—of course it is ok to be white: now how can we make it ok to be a person of any color?”