Okay, so let me catch you up—you too, Vanguard—in case you missed my post from Monday, July 18.  

Alternatively, you can read Monday’s post in its entirety with my July 18 article.

Background

Though not a connection of mine and never “liking” or supporting (to my knowledge) my content, a white male employee of Vanguard, Tyler Kiser, who has now changed his official profile name to Tyler K., was feeling especially entitled Sunday morning and decided to try “it” with an inmail.

What’s “it,” you ask?

Pull up a chair and join me to find out.

This is not just about one incident; this is not just about one white man. It’s about a pattern of harmful behavior exhibited in workplaces all over. Because racist and bigoted members of LinkedIn are leaders and colleagues with direct reports and colleagues, Tyler should be a huge concern for all of us.

Let it sink in that so burning was Tyler’s mission that he made a deliberate choice to spend an inmail credit on a Black woman, a stranger with whom he’s never engaged, for the express purpose of exerting white-dominant gaslighting passive-aggressiveness.

For. No. Other. Purpose.

And as all “good racist white people” do, he made sure to disguise “it” so it would show up in my inbox as “just a question.”

Tyler: “Hello Theresa, I have a question that I was hoping you could answer. Are racial stereotypes considered anti-diversity and racist?”

Not my first rodeo with the “innocent questions” of “good racist white people” on LinkedIn, but just to be sure, I vetted his page and newsfeed. Multiple red flags confirmed what I had initially picked up on. Here are some of those flags:

• his agreeing with someone’s “justification” of the non-inclusive term “guys” to refer to everybody…..a justification without regard for impact
• his “like” of a post gushing over the white men who signed the U.S. Declaration of Independence
• the sheer lack of content of Black and Brown folks on which he comments or “likes”
• the absence of any DEI-related engagement and discussion with any of his own connections
• “Christian access” to “at-risk youth” (Yes, this is a red flag for me. IYKYK)

Armed with confirmation of what Tyler is and his intentions to “low-key” gaslight and police me, here is my response to his inmail…

Me: “This feels like a gaslighting question to me, Tyler. I’ll post your inmail question in the newsfeed this week. And in the meantime, please have the courage to say what you really intend to say to me instead of positioning it as an “innocent” question on which you spend an inmail credit. This tactic is not my first rodeo with your type. Oh, and don’t worry. I’ll get Vanguard engaged in the conversation as well. If one of their employees is using inmails to ask “such a basic” question that you’ve asked, that means they are not supplying employees with the training/education they need. Happy to help you out by tagging them in my post. \o/ tmr”

Late-Breaking Update

Before I get to the translation and analysis, I need to tell you something.

The same day I exposed Tyler, I received an interesting DM which does not surprise me and neither should it surprise you.

The source of the message? Let’s call her “Me Too #2.”

Here is the text of her message:

Me Too #2: “That little nerd tried to mess with me a few weeks ago, so I started trolling his page. He then sent me a message asking me to stay off his page and blocked me. Thanks for writing this! That guys [sic] is a huge piece of crap!”

 “Me Too #2” elaborated further by informing me of a “Me Too #3.”

“Me Too #2”: “He was on ‘Me Too #3’s’ post…..trying to teach about…..”

I don’t even have to complete the sentiment because you get the policing idea.

Tyler Kiser appears to be a repeat offender with a preferred target demographic—melanated or not.

Hmm. I wonder how many “Me Too’s” have been on the receiving end of Tyler’s dominant white maleness nonsense.

I’ll speculate later in the analysis on the primary enabling factor that allows Tyler to continue his dumbfukkkery spree on a “professional” social media platform like LinkedIn.

Anyhoo…..

The Translation

First, a reality check.

“What’s the big deal? He only asked her a question.”

“I don’t see anything wrong with his initial inmail message.”

“It sounds like a fair and reasonable question to me?”

“What’s wrong with asking a question?”

“I think she over-reacted.”

“She took it too far.”

“It wasn’t necessary to get his employer involved.”

Let’s go ahead and get this out of the way now. If you are one of the folks who’ve said to yourself any of the above or said it out loud to other folks, then guess what…..you are a “Tyler” or a “Tyler” in the making.

Periodt.

As I mentioned in Monday’s post, Black people have been studying how whiteness works for our entire life. I would even say that we hold Ph.D-level expertise in “the workings of whiteness”—not because we choose to, but because we have to in order to navigate and survive under a system built to disadvantage and harm us at every turn.

I pay attention to any member of a people-group that historically and consistently does three things—kill, steal, destroy. Tyler invaded a space to bait me, trap me, and destroy my voice….all because he thought he could. He ultimately was offended over the encounter he instead got. His outdated primer on enslaved negroes is no match for my doctoral dissertation on entitled whiteness. 

Because I’m “fluent” in whiteness dumbfukkkery, I’m able to provide reachable and teachable folks who have listening ears with the following “translation” of both Tyler’s initial inmail and also his “last words” to me.

Please note that instead of skulking away quietly when he got exposed for what he is and called out, Tyler did what whiteness often does—double-down on white-dominance, go into DARVO mode, and threaten harm.

“Hello Theresa, I have a question that I was hoping you could answer. Are racial stereotypes considered anti-diversity and racist?” [Entitled white man here, Theresa. I have a problem with you and fully expect to bait and trap you with my fake ass question in order to use your own words to correct you, to report you, and to ultimately put you back in your place.]

After I sent him a “not today, white man” message, this is what he reverted to:

“Racial stereotypes are obviously wrong and my question in no way implies otherwise. Neither does it imply I or my employer are uneducated.” [You caught on to me too fast before I could fully activate my trap—which I didn’t anticipate, but nevertheless you need to be reminded that my white male self and my employer are “superior” to you in every way. Don’t you forget that.]

“My question was intended to open up the door to a professional conversation about the term ‘caucacity,’ a term in which you have used on this platform, which is categorized as a deragatory [sic] racial stereotype.” [With my question, I was trying to give you the opportunity to be a reasonable negro open to being shown the error of your ways. You should have welcomed the opportunity to be corrected and be shown what is acceptable and “professional” by white standards. I’ve decided that your use of “caucacity” does not fit white standards. Plus, I’ve been watching you on this platform, and clearly you have violated the established rules of white comfort as well as other rules on what WE deem inappropriate in your portrayals of white people in a negative light.]

“I sought to understand why you use this term, and prefaced by asking a question that is directly related. [Sure, my tactic was rooted in motives that I did not disclose upfront, but as a power-dominant white man, it is my birthright to approach you in any manner I deem necessary regardless of my motives. As I am an automatic recipient of benefit-of-the-doubt, my white male nonsense is not to be questioned and is to be regarded by you as always valid, always relevant, always prioritized.]

“Needless to say, I am no longer interested in having a conversation.” [Now that you have made the huge mistake of challenging and defending yourself against a white man such as myself, it’s too grave of an affront on your part that I cannot overlook. I no longer care to correct you or compel you to be a properly compliant negro adhering to the white standards of this white platform.]

“Threatening defamation is an unexpected, shocking, and disappointing response for someone of your stature.” [I must say, though, before I dismiss you that I am very surprised that a well-educated negro such as yourself does not know how to behave—you’re not supposed to be like common negroes. That you would dare to address me the way you have is appalling. And that you would even think to hold me accountable is totally unacceptable. I expect no less than acquiescence and subservience.]

“I would advise against it, as it is against LinkedIn’s terms, is misconstruing material facts collected in our conversation, and the legal ramifications can be quite severe.” [Let me make something very clear so you don’t think you can make trouble for me. I will crush and destroy you, you uppity negro. And I will summon all the forces and power-structures of whiteness at my disposal to do it. That includes reporting you to LinkedIn, which we both know only needs to hear one word from a white man against a Black woman, and they’ll swoop in and deal with you so fast for violating “our professional standards of whiteness.” And I’ll also get the legal system involved, which we also both know works in my favor. So, I’m warning you to not take this any further or you’ll be very sorry. A Black woman will not win against a white man in either a court of law or the “court” of LinkedIn.]

“Goodbye” [That’s my final word to you. If you know what’s good for you, you’ll be a good lil’ quiet negro. This matter is now closed because I’m closing it.]

The Analysis

“Hello Theresa, I have a question that I was hoping you could answer. Are racial stereotypes considered anti-diversity and racist?”

There are no such things as basic or innocent questions when it comes to racists and bigots. As Sabrina McClimans so rightly reminded us on my Monday post, this strategy is demonstrated frequently by Republicans. They tried “it” with Kamala Harris. They tried “it” with Ketanji Brown Jackson. Most recently, Josh Hawley tried “it” with U.C. Professor Khiara Bridges.

And let’s not forget how “fragile” anti-CRT folks kept trying “it” with Nikole Hannah-Jones.

Republicans, however, are not the only ones who use the “gaslighting questioning strategy.” “Good racist white people” who like to serve up their racism “low-key” style, often resort to this strategy. Make no mistake. Questioners like Tyler know exactly what they’re doing. And so do we. Notice how he railed and fell back on white harm and violence when I exposed him and called him out—both are traits of mediocre minds that can’t hold a candle to those they attempt to trap. The only thing they have going for them is “whiteness logikkk,” which really is no logic at all.

And no, I am not exaggerating to reference “white harm and violence.” We have a saying where I come from: “Don’t start nuthin,’ there won’t be nuthin.” White people violate this all the time because they insist on inserting themselves ev-er-y-where.

This is where DARVO comes in. Tyler inserted himself into the personal mailbox space of a stranger. He was the aggressor with clear motives. When things didn’t go his way, he got defensive, attacked, and turned the tables with himself as the victim, all while abdicating any responsibility and railing against any potential consequences.

In its most extreme manifestation, for Black and Brown bodies, DARVO can result in violence and killing. Consider Trayvon Martin and Ahmaud Arbery, two among many examples. Neither Martin nor Arbery were the initiators. Both were simply minding their own business in a public space until a self-appointed and self-deputized aggressor took it upon themself to “start something” by policing a Black body. With both killings, the aggressors, in essence, pointed to their right to kill in the face of a situation they themselves had created .

That justice was served in the case of Arbery’s killers, Travis McMichael, Gregory McMichael, and William “Roddie” Bryan, is an exception to long-standing injustices. The existence of video was the critical piece of evidence that got the killers convicted.

Is it no wonder that I included screenshots in my Monday’s post, and that I have also included today a screenshot of the message from Me Too #2? Our “receipts” have always had to be “tight” against whiteness. But I digress….

“Racial stereotypes are obviously wrong and my question in no way implies otherwise. Neither does it imply I or my employer are uneducated. My question was intended to open up the door to a professional conversation about the term ‘caucacity,’ a term in which you have used on this platform, which is categorized as a deragatory [sic] racial stereotype.”

Boom! There it is!

Tyler never wanted to have a conversation with me. A conversation implies an exchange of ideas between two people. No. Tyler wanted to dictate to me what I cannot write/say. He wanted to scold and police me over the term “caucacity.” And it sounds about white that he would resort to both the caucacity of an inmail to do so and a LIE about his real motive. He likely didn’t even realize how much self-incriminating he was doing! Whew….this would be funny if it was so not funny.

“Innocents” like Tyler betray themselves the more words they use. As I pointed out in my earlier post, my last use of “caucacity” in writing a post was 5 months ago. One of my connections pointed out to me that someone in the comments on one of my recent posts had used the term “caucacity,” and that I had “liked” the comment. And so this was perhaps what was a final-straw trigger for Tyler, who presents more like someone who has been “passively policing” me for quite some time and reporting me to LinkedIn for quite some time. That he decided to go from passive to active via an inmail is indicative of what can happen when white maleness simmers and festers in a stew of entitled dominance and alleged “superiority” perceived to be getting weaker and weaker by the day. Methinks they know their time is nearly over.

“I sought to understand why you use this term, and prefaced by asking a question that is directly related.

This is a bold-faced lie that all “caught” racists like to spin. Again, he was trying the “gotcha” trap with me. He had zero interest in understanding my lived experience or the lived experience of Black people in general. His particular “brand of racism” is rooted in whiteness intentions that trump the lived experience of Black people. Neither the brand nor its adherents have a capacity for considering impact. The nature of their self-deception, deliberate or otherwise, housed inside a white “wrapper,” can rarely detect its own centering-habits because…..racism. Because the default setting is whiteness, things like impact-consideration, empathy, fairness, etc. are very difficult to gauge or foster within oneself.

“Needless to say, I am no longer interested in having a conversation. Threatening defamation is an unexpected, shocking, and disappointing response for someone of your stature. “I would advise against it, as it is against LinkedIn’s terms, is misconstruing material facts collected in our conversation, and the legal ramifications can be quite severe. Goodbye.”

Whiteness always believes that it can wreak havoc, threaten, and even kill without being held accountable. It’s the same mindset that the J6 “tourists” held which caused those—blocked from boarding their flight to return back to their lives as business-people, teachers, doctors, dentists—to be shocked that they as “insurrectionists” would not be allowed to return to normalcy without consequences after “pillaging (faux) democracy.” (If you want a well-known example that captures entitlement, caucacity, and zero expectation of being held accountable, check out “Republican Rioters Are Being Put on No-Fly Lists & Throwing Airport Tantrums.” It’s a delicious read.)

Tyler honestly thought that he “could come for me” in my DMs and not be held accountable for any of it. In addition, he felt at ease and comfortable within the system of whiteness to threaten me with LinkedIn discipline and with legal action. As Tiff Ryan reminded me, Tyler’s words are indicative of how he and other protected racists and bigots on this platform weaponize LinkedIn against Black, Brown, and other marginalized voices.

They are confident in their knowledge that LinkedIn protects racists and bigots, upholds white supremacy, and penalizes us instead. And you know what? They are correct in that knowledge. Want an example? Consider a recent post by Khafre Jay from yesterday. Be sure to take a look at the comments while you’re there to get a sense of how common this is for racists and bigots to be protected while we and/or our content get shadow-banned, suspended, or banned.

Tyler basically “pulled a Karen” knowing full well what could likely be the result of him getting LinkedIn involved.

He knew what he was threatening just like Karens know that arrest, physical harm, or killing could likely be the outcome of them calling the police on Black and Brown people, particularly for Black men. And just like Karens know full well that Black and Brown lives are in danger at the hands of “pattyrollers,” so do racists and bigots on LinkedIn know that certain voices are in danger when reported to LinkedIn.

Racists and bigots are a protected class on LinkedIn.

Anyone subscribing to the established “professional” status-quo is part of the protected class on LinkedIn.

Various “virtue-signaling codes” for keeping LinkedIn white male dominant:

• “This doesn’t belong on LinkedIn. Take it to Facebook.”
• “This is a professional platform.”
• “LinkedIn is not the appropriate place for your political views.”
• “DEI work [a profession] is not right for LinkedIn.”
• “Anti-racism work [a profession] is not right for LinkedIn.”
• “Your anti-racism or DEI post is divisive.”

A common move of whiteness when it is questioned, challenged, threatened, or fearful is to activate the “appropriate” levers of whiteness in order to neutralize any “disturbance” and restore “the balance” and “natural order.” In Tyler’s case, his words to me make clear that he is no stranger to how patriarchal white dominance works in censuring voices and threatening harm.

As a white man, he knows that to threaten harm is the same as to cause harm.

Points from Monday’s Post Worth Repeating

• The block button is free and won’t cost racists and bigots a single inmail credit. If you’re inspired by song, I invite you to check out “Unfollow Me” by Tobe Nwigwe, who sums it up powerfully in little over a minute and thirty seconds.
• My content is unequivocally centered on anti-racism and anti-system-of-whiteness, and I prioritize the lived experience of Black people. I remain unapologetic regarding my chosen area of DEI and anti-racism focus.
• Racists and bigots should not act so surprised when they don’t get the “yassuh, massa” response they think they are entitled to get from Black people.
• In my best Samuel Jackson voice, Black people don’t owe white people a mutha-fudgin’ thing just because they fake ask….especially because they fake ask.
• If you’re a willful racist or bigot not onboard with DEI or anti-racism, fine. But please—for the love of generic viagra and stem-cell research—instead of trolling a Black woman under the fake ruse of “wanting to have a conversation” and then threatening me when I see right through you and call you out on it, please find yourself another hobby and stay out of my DMs. I’d appreciate that.

Final Thoughts Before “Laying Tyler to Rest”

I never expect help from LinkedIn, which continues to show us its true colors. That’s fine. I know what I signed up for the same way we know what we sign up for when we go to work in white-dominated spaces.

But I’ve not had any outreach from Vanguard. Just crickets.

It is my hope that the organization will take employees like Tyler Kiser seriously—an emboldened employee who has proven that he is not hesitant about using LinkedIn as his trolling ground for harassment.

P.S. You too? If you’ve been on the receiving end of racist or bigoted trolling by Tyler, please let Vanguard know. The three of us that I know about are three too many. More than three may lead to a “Harvey Weinstein-esque” reckoning in the making.

Let’s not let him—or any of the others—keep getting away with it.

Remember, it’s our silence that allows them to. Our collective voices are what stops them.

Thank you for reading all the way to the end. Today’s “translation” and “analysis” edition of the newsletter are being funded by a supporter who wishes to remain anonymous. If you found this article valuable, please consider supporting my work in one or more of the following ways. Thank you.

• Subscribe to this weekly newsletter.
• Purchase one or more of my four published books.
• Purchase enrollments for your team members in any one of my on-demand courses.
• Hire me as a speaker or facilitator for your organization.
• Apply for community membership in my new asynchronous “True Anti-Racism Allies Academy.” Virtual doors open August 1 for up to 50 members.
• Leave a recommendation or a skill endorsement on my LinkedIn page.
• Share my services with reachable and teachable decision-makers in your circle of influence.
• Make a financial contribution to help fund future projects:

 PayPal—theresamrobinson@hotmail.com

Venmo—@Theresa-Robinson-1  

Cash App—$tmr50