It's clear that ignorance is the privilege of the majority and that minorities are subject to the consequences of that ignorance, and while that's understandable and worth highlighting I'd say the next question is where do we go from here? Progress is rolling back ignorance, and the unfortunate reality is that a new majority must be created to right those wrongs, and even more people need to have their minds changed to normalize it. Obviously there are some who will never have their minds changed and are so rooted in racism, homophobia, or any other kind of hate that they are a lost cause, but I don't think what Booker said was in defense of those people or trying to persuade those critical of them to be tolerant. To me, what he was trying to say - albeit poorly and over maybe one of the worst topics to make this point about - is that if you want progress, you're gonna have to change minds, and writing someone off because they don't understand that something is wrong and denying them the chance to learn may not be the best way of doing this. Personally, I've been ignorant about things when I was younger, whether it be something like cultural appropriation or the sheer scale of sexual harassment women are subject to, but I was educated on that by people talking to me about it. Of course, this requires one to have the willingness to listen, but nonetheless a conversation was at least started. Now I'm not a fan of Booker and I think that criticism of his statement is valid, but what annoyed me is people dismissing him completely as a candidate from a sound bite of a message with a larger context. That's how I see it at least.
