Glad you found value in the piece; thank you for commenting.

here is my response to your points:

Certainly, there are non-white Trump supporters. He got 8% of the Black vote, and 28 percent of the Latino and Asian vote. This article was less about converting Trump supporters, but was more about engaging racism deniers. There certainly are non-white racism deniers though (and they probably tend toward supporting Trump).

The principles I was advocating were universal, so anyone can use them. Of course, leaning into agreeing with racist views is harder for POCs but not impossible. But it is true that I pitched the framing of using these principles at white folks talking to folks of color, since this is the most common scenario.

On the ally issue: the intention of the language is to distinguish between people who are direct targets of racism against people of color and those who not. As I mentioned, the ability of people to lean toward agreement about racism as a way of rapport building with a racism skeptic (someone who questions the reality of racism against POCs) is significantly impacted by whether you feel personally targeted by racism against people of color.

What language have you found non-alienating/non-problematic to make distinctions between people who are 1) targeted by racism, 2) are not targeted by racism but acknowledge its existence, and 3) are not targeted by racism and do not acknowledge its existence?