Objectively intelligent.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

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.

I understand where you're coming from, but I don't recall Adder ever saying that a mocking tone makes something racist. I think his point is that you need to look to the effects on systemic racism, not intent, and a mocking tone goes to intent.