I wonder what the point of the conclusion is? I don't really think it's that evil is non-discriminatory. Also, a better specified observation may be that evil arises within people/their actions without discrimination...because obviously, both these instances of evil are evil partly because they are acts of discrimination. But that is just getting into the wording of the end statement.

I think the setup of the article, made clear in its conclusion, is what is too simplistic, and in its effort toward simplicity and making a broad statement that doesn't really hold as much sagacious wisdom as the author is trying to give it, the writer ends up with a very questionable framework and logic.

Why does he set these two scenarios as a parallel? To prove this small point that evil does not discriminate? For this small lesson (I say small, because I don't think most of the readers are lacking this insight, although occasional re-affirmations are useful)? For the sake of imparting this small insight, Mudede has created a larger, messier, and very arguably much more problematic and incorrect imprint on readers, if they are inclined to absorb his article without much critical reflection.

This problematic mess is the structure of his article. Why are these two parallel? How are they comparable? They both exhibit instance of violence, oppression, and discrimination. One is toward a black immigrant, the other toward a woman. What is interesting to note is that there are three identities present in the two scenarios -- White or Hispanic males, black immigrant males, and women (likely a black immigrant woman or a woman of color).

However, the first and third are not found in common (in both scenarios). Only the black immigrant man is found in common. In this setup, we are led to view the black immigrant man as a victim in one case, and as a "pompous perpetrator" in the other (it is interesting their is no adjective the author uses to describe the action or words of the perpetrators in the first scenario). But in short -- the black immigrant man is both a victim and a perpetrator.

Now I ask what is the cause for this setup? After all, if the point was to say that "evil does not discriminate" (whatever that flawed collection of words can be construed to mean), then the only possible reason the author might have to use the same identity for a person to show that identity can be a victim as well as a perpetrator, would be to say....people you feel sorry for are also capable of evil. People who have evil done to them are also capable of evil.

Well, where is this supposed to take us? He ends the article abruptly, with little to deepen his points or explain his view any further. If we take it to the next logical areas, it would result in a cancelling out -- the black (immigrant) man is a victim, yes, but he is also a perpetrator. So, no, you don't necessarily have to loathe him and his sexism, but you also don't need to feel that sorry for him...after all, look what he is capable of. Do you sense something familiar in this framework? We can excuse our fear of the black man or immigrant man because of what he is capable of, or how he uses his uncivilized culture to justify his actions (in this case, why not use a white man as an example? A person who gets abused at his work or by his father, and then grows up and beats his wife?). But we don't have to say we hate him or don't want to be around him -- obviously we know bad things happen to oppressed people. But we can excuse the distance we place between ourselves and whichever of them, because of the alienation we feel from their crazy, pompous, sexist actions.

Mudede should take more time to be thoughtful and reach some depth with this example he uses, rather than use a cheap trick of a sharp sounding statement to wrap something up. It doesn't do dignity to the topic. Exploring sexism among men of color is a great thing to discuss, if you actually mean to discuss it. Bringing it up and making a quip, or a serious one, is just annoying and ignorant. Pairing it with violence against immigrants is furthermore disturbing and gross, as readers are opened to this incident, only to be told at the end, basically, focus on the second incident, as it cancels out the first one, or for some reason is supposed to "balance the scales" of the viewpoint. Both are bad, yes? Why are they brought together for comparison, if not to make you think something negative about the person they have in common (the black immigrant man).

Lastly, it is too predicable how sexism and violence against women is brought up, once again, shallowly and only to prove a point about men (of color). It's always about what men of color are doing to their women, and how their cultures absolve it -- unlike the black immigrant man who was attacked, he is protected by the laws of this country. What is the point there? Look, when the black man is attacked, we protect him, he has some recourse. But when the black man attacks, whether it be a woman in his own home or someone else (us?), we have no protection.