Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Just because you disagree with his conclusions doesn't mean he isn't thoughtful. And you should know that he's right about race way more than you are.

I don't disagree with all of his conclusions. But he's run Diangelo's argument to an absurd conclusion. Are there times that a comment about Chinese products is based in racism? Yes. Are all comments about Chinese products based in racism? No. Are they all based in racism because racism is omnipresent? No. A thing can be omnipresent, but not a factor in certain circumstances. He's arguing he has the right to assert that all criticisms have a racial component. Diangelo did not say that. She said racism can be a component of any expression because it's everywhere. That's entirely true.

Adder could have asserted that a percentage of the complaints I cited about Chinese products were borne of racism. That'd be a statement with which I'd agree. But he didn't say that. He said they were all racist and then mangled Diangelo's argument in service of that assertion. He's too blunt and too general, which I take as the opposite of "thoughtful."

Did you take a look at the Times weekend section relating to race this past weekend? I haven't read it all yet, but they are taking a look at how slavery and racism has impacted every single aspect of American life. Are you saying they aren't "making a case" because they won't approach the topic in a way that speaks to white people in a way that makes them comfortable?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...a-slavery.html

Huh? I don't even know how to respond to this.

I did see the 1619 Project. I was talking about it this weekend with two friends. We actually wound up talking about White Fragility as a result of one of them raising the project. I recommended the book. The person who raised the 1619 Project, a foreign policy and fiscal conservative/social liberal, recommended reading 1619 as it's rolled out.

Must be nice. I value all of our allies.

I'll put it bluntly. You discussing this stuff? People will listen. Not because of your background. Because of delivery and analyses applied. I think you're interested in understanding the subject in depth and trying to fix what of it can be fixed. Adder? He's too Javert, too blunt and generalizing. Too "purist." People will write him off as some lightweight throwing around extreme and naive arguments, as someone else here has done.

TM[/QUOTE]