But perhaps in your world, an abstract slight to a theoretical group is a greater offense than a false accusation (in this case, the intention to reframe a discussion to advance a racist agenda) against a real person. This is not necessarily true for all people who belong to the minorities you claim to defend.

Secondly, I think you’ve completely misinterpreted my comment. From my point of view, it’s absurd that the columnist called the dress flesh-colored because it’s not even the “white-people’s-skin” color that often gets this inappropriate label, but rather a very pale gold (“champagne”) tone that doesn’t occur naturally in just about any skin I’ve seen. If the discussion is on the use of a single word in conjunction with an image, then the meaning of that word and its relevance to the image are at least worthy of mention. As far as I can tell, my remark did not preclude anyone from also discussing racism. This is, after all, an open forum and not a single-track discussion that must be moved toward a single consensus.

Finally, there are other viewpoints you’re free to consider regarding the Oscar trivia discussion you overheard. The first speaker, based on somewhat incomplete information (only 6 Oscars for Best Song have gone to black artists, as opposed to 15 acting awards), made an emotional and personal assumption that something is “awful.” The other person had a different qualitative judgment of the awfulness of this thing, based on his opinion that the awards are rubbish (an opinion shared by many people of color). So far, both have simply expressed their individual feelings about something that – unless they’re in the film industry – doesn’t really affect their quality of life much.

Now, the “white guy” (whose opinion is no less valid just because of his race) could have instead followed up with a comment about how institutional racism has prevented black artists and technicians from getting opportunities to work on the kind of films that Academy voters like, or how virtually every minority group, as well as women, are also underrepresented in the industry and its awards. And he would’ve been had a much stronger point than she did. But by your definition, he would’ve still been expanding the topic to include variables beyond what the woman wished to complain about, thus “derailing” the dialogue that she may have intended to start.

But hey, since when did a good discussion ever sound like an echo chamber?

Author: calling Michelle Obama’s dress flesh coloured is racist.
Andrew: Ah, but is ANYONE’S flesh really that colour? I’ve never seen flesh that colour – if anyone had that colour skin, they would be ill!

It’s a way of derailing discussions about racism.

I heard a similar discussion recently about the Oscars.

Woman of colour: It’s awful how few people of colour have won anything in the Oscars apart from the best song award.
White man: Well, I hate the Oscars anyway, I’ve always thought they were rubbish.

Once again, discussion of racism derailed so that whites can avoid talking about it.