Objectively intelligent.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I appreciate this post for explaining what you are thinking -- I didn't mean to misquote you, but my objection to the last one was that you called the piece racist without saying anything more.

I don't think disparaging antiracist writing is necessarily racist. If an antiracist tract is poorly written and hard to read, saying that could be fair. Do you agree with Akila Lacy's attack on Lee Fang?

Im not letting him off the hook so easily.

For all I know, Taibbi is a secret racist. I am more focused on the piece. Taibbi is critiquing the concept of white fragility. ALL concepts - let me repeat, ALL of them - are subject to critique.

His critique is not automatically racist and defense of it is not, either. There are no doubt loads of antiracists out there who think the concept of white fragility has flaws in it. Would they be converted to racists if they say so? To say so in a dismissive manner as Taibbi has? No, and no.

That his words may delegitimize the concept of white fragility does not mean they are automatically racist. It means they are automatically anti-white-fragility-as-a-concept.

One can be antiracist and be anti-white-fragility-as—concept at once. Driving this notion through some heads seems difficult, but these are not mutually exclusive positions.

But nevermind the logic there.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Im not letting him off the hook so easily.

For all I know, Taibbi is a secret racist. I am more focused on the piece. Taibbi is critiquing the concept of white fragility. ALL concepts - let me repeat, ALL of them - are subject to critique.

So you think he is "critiquing the concept of white fragility"? Not sure what he said that gave you that idea. If he were going to critique it, he would have to engage with the concept, and although I haven't read the book, it's pretty clear to me that he hasn't done that, because he doesn't quote it at length and his characterizations of what the author said seem suspect and unfair. "White Fragility is based upon the idea that human beings are incapable of judging each other by the content of their character, and if people of different races think they are getting along or even loving one another, they probably need immediate antiracism training." If that were true, don't you think he'd be able to quote something from the book to that effect? Less critique than drive-by shooting.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Oh my but are you a truly deluded fuck. Seriously.

Suppose I am antiracist and I critique another antiracist’s book because I think there are flaws in her reasoning. Does that make me racist? Suppose she replies back by critiquing my antiracist views? Is she now racist too?

And if either of us calls each other racist, are our responsive defenses to be immediately discounted as fragility?

You see how see how absurd this becomes.

You have no logic. It degrades to silliness.

You don’t even try to engage with the ideas you want to reject, so you write this crap. Okay.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Im not letting him off the hook so easily.

For all I know, Taibbi is a secret racist. I am more focused on the piece. Taibbi is critiquing the concept of white fragility. ALL concepts - let me repeat, ALL of them - are subject to critique.

His critique is not automatically racist and defense of it is not, either. There are no doubt loads of antiracists out there who think the concept of white fragility has flaws in it. Would they be converted to racists if they say so? To say so in a dismissive manner as Taibbi has? No, and no.

That his words may delegitimize the concept of white fragility does not mean they are automatically racist. It means they are automatically anti-white-fragility-as-a-concept.

One can be antiracist and be anti-white-fragility-as—concept at once. Driving this notion through some heads seems difficult, but these are not mutually exclusive positions.

But nevermind the logic there.

Taibbi wrote a racist piece. Do you have a response beyond, “nah hah?” I’m perfectly happy to discuss, but you need to start with an acknowledgment of why I think his response was racist, which you’ve not yet engaged with beyond denial.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Taibbi wrote a racist piece. Do you have a response beyond, “nah hah?” I’m perfectly happy to discuss, but you need to start with an acknowledgment of why I think his response was racist, which you’ve not yet engaged with beyond denial.

Burden of proof lies with you. Why is it racist?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

You don’t even try to engage with the ideas you want to reject, so you write this crap. Okay.

You don’t even understand the “ideas” you profess to offer. You don’t even grasp that DiAngelo described you as a problem.

You’re frivolous.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

So you think he is "critiquing the concept of white fragility"? Not sure what he said that gave you that idea. If he were going to critique it, he would have to engage with the concept, and although I haven't read the book, it's pretty clear to me that he hasn't done that, because he doesn't quote it at length and his characterizations of what the author said seem suspect and unfair. "White Fragility is based upon the idea that human beings are incapable of judging each other by the content of their character, and if people of different races think they are getting along or even loving one another, they probably need immediate antiracism training." If that were true, don't you think he'd be able to quote something from the book to that effect? Less critique than drive-by shooting.

As I noted, his critique is flawed. But on balance, his is a conceptual criticism. To reply that he’s racist is actually irrelevant. The only proper reply is to assert where he’s lacking in logic in terms of his criticism.

I think he’s lacking in several places. I think he dismantled her worst points and held that out as proof she was entirely flawed. I’m not bothering to look up the fallacy that employs, but we both agree it employs one.

But is that racist? No. That’s a writer scoring points off another writer.

Adder’s perverse definition of racism (anything that conceivably works against anything that seeks to undo racial hierarchy) would label it racism. Thankfully, serious people don’t apply that sort of Orwellian obligation to groupthink.

But I feel bad to cite Orwell there. It must be slammed upon Adder that his is an infantile view, and quite personal. He’s a fool on this, and he soils the board with his Pavlovian accusations. Orwell shouldn’t be mentioned within 3000 miles of anything he has to say on this subject. Virtue signaling is for Twitter.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Orwellian

when you use this word should we focus on 1984 and Animal Farm and act as if he didn't write Keep the Aspidistra Flying and Coming Up for Air?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

when you use this word should we focus on 1984 and Animal Farm and act as if he didn't write Keep the Aspidistra Flying and Coming Up for Air?

I’m partial to “A Hanging.” If that doesn’t leave you cold, and convert you against the death penalty, nothing will.

In any event, his name shouldn’t be raised in a conversation regarding Adders’s bleatings.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Incorrect. You have no reply.

And you know it. Logically, all you can do is say I’m fragile. But I don’t care. So I can’t be fragile. My issue is with the construct. Adder can’t just declare everything racist and then when called to the carpet, cry, “Fragility!” It destroys conversation. It places subjects beyond scrutiny. It smacks of religious thinking.

You can only win this debate by avoiding logic.

ETA: Or abusing semantics. But I’m not allowing that, either. I’m using the broad definition of racism. I’m talking about systemic racism.

No that’s not it. I didn’t read one word of your treatise on being sebby. But I know nothing has changed. You dominate this board by saying stupid sebby shit and people spend their time debating it in some never ending, pointless exercise while you just keep repeating yourself without ever actually hearing anything.

Same old bullshit.

TM

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I don't think I accused you of spreading anything. You're not a political advocate. I said yours are naive progressive politics. Tell me where I'm wrong. Where do you deviate from the progressive platform?

You pretend you know everything about my politics, but when I ask you to back that up, this is the weaselly little dodge of a response you come up with? Let’s try again, and I’ll make it real easy for you. You said: “He probably thinks Trump is responsible significantly for the racism that led to George Floyd's death.”* What is the basis for this statement? Please point to specific things I have written that support your assertion that I have this view.

I’m waiting . . . .




*When I use quotations marks to “quote” you, that means I am actually using the words that you used. I know this is not your practice, so I want to make that clear.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

No that’s not it. I didn’t read one word of your treatise on being sebby. But I know nothing has changed. You dominate this board by saying stupid sebby shit and people spend their time debating it in some never ending, pointless exercise while you just keep repeating yourself without ever actually hearing anything.

Same old bullshit.

TM

I listened to you, I read the book, and I buy systemic racism.

My complaint is with Adder and frivolous people like him who've abused those notions. He's dumb. People like him are dumb. I don't like the well-intentioned dumb any more than I like the nefarious dumb.

How is he dumb? Here, finally, he has explained why he thinks Taibbi's piece was racist:

"[T]he piece and the ideas it expressed were racist, in that it disparaged antiracist ideas and upheld racists ones."

"What he said had the inherent character of reinforcing existing racial hierarchies and dismissing attempts to dismantle them."

[/QUOTE]

This "logic" asserts that anything that disparages antiracist ideas is racist. That necessarily means ALL antiracist ideas are beyond criticism. Obviously, this is moronic, as nothing can be beyond criticism.

Now to his second point, that Taibbi held up racist ideas. He of course does not explain that with specifics. He just declares Taibbi's criticisms as racist using his own subjective view that anything that criticizes antiracist ideas is racist. This takes "putting the rabbit in the hat" to levels I've never seen before.

This kind of thinking is, again, just fucking dumb. I struggle to even call it thinking. DiAngelo herself would likely bristle at the notion that she was beyond criticism.

Adder seems to have a binary view that there is racism and there is antiracism, and that anything that critiques antiracism must be racism. There is no ground in between. That's something one would expect to hear from a person who is mentally challenged.

He'll of course walk it back here by saying he was only talking about Taibbi, and now that he's pressed, he'll cherry pick some of what Taibbi said and j'accuse!-- he'll declare it racism. But that'll be bullshit. His history of overuse of the pejorative here renders his silliness - a silliness shared with loads of less than rigorous thinkers like him - bare:

He believes that what is said in favor of dismantling racism is beyond criticism and what criticizes it may automatically be dismissed as racism.

TL;DR: The Ends Justify the Means.

He said it. And it's pretty fucking dumb.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

when you use this word should we focus on 1984 and Animal Farm and act as if he didn't write Keep the Aspidistra Flying and Coming Up for Air?

The Road to Wigan Pier is underrated, but isn't Politics and the English Language the one that really matters for this board?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

You pretend you know everything about my politics, but when I ask you to back that up, this is the weaselly little dodge of a response you come up with? Let’s try again, and I’ll make it real easy for you. You said: “He probably thinks Trump is responsible significantly for the racism that led to George Floyd's death.”* What is the basis for this statement? Please point to specific things I have written that support your assertion that I have this view.

I’m waiting . . . .




*When I use quotations marks to “quote” you, that means I am actually using the words that you used. I know this is not your practice, so I want to make that clear.

Flower : All your costumes are just participation in some kind of phoney theater. I'm only telling you this for your own good. It's a freak show.

Sebby : Oh, are you trying to say that your blue jeans weren't theater?

Flower : It's not the same thing.

Sebby : So your professor wore a three-piece suit and blamed you for your jeans. And your jeans were "too much." And he didn't understand that his suit was also a costume. You thought your jeans stood for love, freedom and sexual equality; I at least know that I'm in costume.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I listened to you, I read the book, and I buy systemic racism.

My complaint is with Adder and frivolous people like him who've abused those notions. He's dumb. People like him are dumb. I don't like the well-intentioned dumb any more than I like the nefarious dumb.

How is he dumb? Here, finally, he has explained why he thinks Taibbi's piece was racist:

"[T]he piece and the ideas it expressed were racist, in that it disparaged antiracist ideas and upheld racists ones."

"What he said had the inherent character of reinforcing existing racial hierarchies and dismissing attempts to dismantle them."

This "logic" asserts that anything that disparages antiracist ideas is racist. That necessarily means ALL antiracist ideas are beyond criticism. Obviously, this is moronic, as nothing can be beyond criticism.

Now to his second point, that Taibbi held up racist ideas. He of course does not explain that with specifics. He just declares Taibbi's criticisms as racist using his own subjective view that anything that criticizes antiracist ideas is racist. This takes "putting the rabbit in the hat" to levels I've never seen before.

This kind of thinking is, again, just fucking dumb. I struggle to even call it thinking. DiAngelo herself would likely bristle at the notion that she was beyond criticism.

Adder seems to have a binary view that there is racism and there is antiracism, and that anything that critiques antiracism must be racism. There is no ground in between. That's something one would expect to hear from a person who is mentally challenged.

He'll of course walk it back here by saying he was only talking about Taibbi, and now that he's pressed, he'll cherry pick some of what Taibbi said and j'accuse!-- he'll declare it racism. But that'll be bullshit. His history of overuse of the pejorative here renders his silliness - a silliness shared with loads of less than rigorous thinkers like him - bare:

He believes that what is said in favor of dismantling racism is beyond criticism and what criticizes it may automatically be dismissed as racism.

TL;DR: The Ends Justify the Means.

He said it. And it's pretty fucking dumb.

I kinda agree with Sebby here, although not about Adder being dumb. What Taibbi wrote about White Fragility is very similar to his reviews of Thomas Friedman books. IMO, Friedman deserves it, because of his sloppy thinking and writing. If an anti-racist author were similarly sloppy in his thinking or writing, would be racist to point that out? I don't think that Taibbi's review really engages with what they book is saying, though I haven't read the book so what do I know. But calling the piece "racist" without saying anything else is doing the same thing. It sounds like Adder's view is that the piece is racist because it is not helpful to the cause. Maybe that's arguable if you define terms in a certain way, but what's the reason to do that here? One wouldn't dismiss Taibbi's reviews of Friedman as anti-capitalist.