The problem with this retort is that of course it is okay to be white, and the details of such a campaign are what make all the difference. But the person who isn't already with you on this will just ask "how is it not ok to be white?"
It is truly a subversive phrase because it takes control of the argument from a place that requires, IMO, a lot of basics to be explained and/or challenged... which most people don't want to sit through. It's like a self-generating mine field of arguments.
It depends on the context of the comment.
This phasing in particular was literally created by 4chan people, for the purpose of demonstrating some sort of anti SJW agenda.
> This means people who know both terms are at constant risk of arguments of the form "You're weak-manning me!" "No, you're motte-and-baileying me!".
Have you ever considered that if you need to do a lot of explaining, and not even your own parents follow your logic, but the other person can persuasively summarize their argument... you might just be wrong?
A question for people downvoting:
Do you think I’m wrong or do you just not like what I’m saying?
It seems easy to correct me about the Harvard admissions point, if I’m just factually mistaken.
Por qué no los dos?