I just realized I had the authors of the tweets backwards lol. It makes sense for the second one at least. "Klacik wrote (in the first paragraph) in reply to the tweet (from Candace Owens): *insert Candace Owens' tweet here*."SB 43rd STREET OG said:wargograw said:SB 43rd STREET OG said:
My understanding is that Kim Klacik, out of nowhere, called out Candace Owens for not doing enough to help out black people at the community level or something like that.Quote:
In a now deleted tweet on June 18, Klacik quote-tweeted a post from Owens that said: "Sometimes I wonder when (if ever) Black America will wake up to the psychological warfare and perpetual brainwash to believe everything is racist."
Klacik wrote in reply to the tweet: "Believe it or not, many in 'Black America' are very aware the fight is classism rather racism. Unfortunately, the loudest mouths with the largest platforms represent the majority. This might come to a shock to you because of your lack of engagement with black people."
I don't understand how Klacik's tweet is in any way contrary to Candace's? Seems to me like you could easily argue Klacik was agreeing to Candace's assertion.
Did you read it? She clearly accuses Candace of not engaging with black people.
That's how I read it. But missing the first one is inexplicable. My bad. All makes sense now.