Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
But wouldn't Taibbi say the same?
eta: Also what Hank said.
|
I think Adder's argument that Taibbi was racist was based on Taibbi's dismissive, mocking tone toward
White Fragility. By mocking the book, Taibbi harmed the cause of antiracism. Had Taibbi written a piece merely critiquing some of the flaws in
WF and pointing out how DiAngelo could have made better arguments, as Schor did in criticizing violent protest, I don't think under Adder's definition of racism Taibbi could be deemed a racist.*
The criticisms of
WF authored by black people would fall into the same analysis. If it denigrates
WF and thus harms the cause of antiracism, it's racist. If it's mere criticism offered to assist the cause of antiracism, it is not racist.
_____
ETA: * Taibbi did offer several sober critical points, but he mixed them with several comedic jabs and a few unfair critiques.
