In another comment in this thread, you mention that a condition of being marginalized is being non-white. The logical inverse of that is white people cannot be marginalized. Yet here, you acknowledge that white people can be marginalized.

So, which is it?

The common thread seems to be economic status as another commenter stated.

He never said that was a condition. He only said that that serial killer targets black runaways, and that that is a marginalized group.

> ... because he attacks marginalized groups like black runaways rather than white people.

That strongly implies that a white person couldn't be marginalized.

That isn't that clear to me, I feel that you are reading to much into it and seem to be looking for a fight where there is none?

Alright, my previous comment was too fuzzy, let me try to be more clear.

Directly contrasting a specific "non-white marginalized group" with "all white people" does, for me, evoke the impression as if the assumption was that there were no people among "white people" that could be marginalized the same way.

> He only said that that serial killer targets black runaways, and that that is a marginalized group.

This is the part of the comment I was replying to that I took issue with and felt I had to rebut, because it's simply a false summary. The original comment definitely was a stronger statement than that through the broad comparison it drew.

If the original post had been phrased "... rather than white middle class people" (which I believe was the intention), I would completely agree with it.

No it doesn't.