I thought it was very interesting that someone who addresses the marginalization of the queer and colored minority populations would use terms like “narrow” to describe the liberal political thought surrounding resource partitioning for civil services like welfare policies. I think it is somewhat novel to see in this line of thought (maybe because of personal bias) expressed because the group of people and the media I am exposed to are increasingly liberal in the new sense (ie: sexual identity is not chosen; gender identity does not have ramifications on what housing you choose; rather, other economic, social and political factors decide what housing you get). However, there is a fine line between radicalism on either end of the spectrum of political alignment and I think it is important to address that because a statement like this that expresses that there are extremist liberals who think that gender has nothing to do with resource partitioning would not be looking at the situation from enough of an intersectionalist perspective. In order to fully assess any circumstance, the intersection of factors liker race, gender identity, financial politics and other social constructs must be taken into account.

Question: The text focused quite a bit on the younger demographic that is affected by police brutality and other consequences of marginalizing policies. A lot of the resistance described (against these youth) is said to come from older folk. How can we go about educating a group of older people whose argument against the youth is to “sit down” or “shut up?”