Objectively intelligent.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I think because the concept of white fragility can be so easily abused in this manner, a lot of white people refuse to engage it. It's an incredibly effective debate cudgel.

Dude. Please think about what you just said. If the reason that *white people* refuse to engage were an intellectually fear that the "concept" is "easily abused," people of any background would not want to engage. The reason why white people refuse to engage is that they are implicated. Many (most?) white people are OK accepting that someone else is racist so long as they can believe in their own innocence and are not affected. White people refuse to engage with white fragility because of their white fragility.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Dude. Please think about what you just said. If the reason that *white people* refuse to engage were an intellectually fear that the "concept" is "easily abused," people of any background would not want to engage. The reason why white people refuse to engage is that they are implicated. Many (most?) white people are OK accepting that someone else is racist so long as they can believe in their own innocence and are not affected. White people refuse to engage with white fragility because of their white fragility.

Who else can be accused of exhibiting white fragility but white people? People of other backgrounds can engage it without it being used as a cudgel by those acting in bad faith. If an Asian person rejects it and a person like Adder says he's exhibiting white fragility, he'd say, "How? It's impossible."

None of this undoes the fact that white people exhibit white fragility all the time. But it's bad faith to assert that every criticism of the concept is proof of the concept. That has to be shown on a case by case basis. Otherwise, we're generalizing, and as I noted before, generalizing is a form of bigoted thinking.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Sebby, take this thread by John Holbo, a response to the Harper's letter, as a sort of response to the Quillette and Tablet pieces you posted yesterday.

eta: DeLong puts it in a more readable form here. It does a better job of articulating something I've been trying to get at lately.

That's a bit ellipitcal. But where it makes clear points, they seem to be:

1. Right wing trolls acting in bad faith deserve to be canceled
2. They're ruining it for everyone

On 1, agreed. On 2, no.

Right wing trolls can be easily ignored. We do it every day. The extreme left is not afraid of right wing trolls.

The extreme left is afraid of smart people who pick apart its arguments. The thread you cite lumps smart conservatives in with Nazis and slippery slope alarmists, and that's dishonest. The critics of the left are myriad and varied. We can separate the psychos from the reasonable people acting in good faith.

But we aren't.

The mob is seeking to eliminate the smart debate that would put some of its shibboleths to the test.

The mob actually likes the Nazis. They make its case for it. "Look at all those horrible racists!" It's afraid of people like Taibbi or Harris, who say, "Yeah, um... This movement is generally good, but in some regards, it's also batshit." Those are the moderate voices it seeks to silence because those voices can convince other moderates that they ought not to join the movement.

I'm not woke, and I never will be. I'm exactly the kind of voice people will find infuriating. I look at the woke movement and, as is the case with any movement, I see zealotry. So while I support BLM's motives, I do not genuflect blindly as one like Adder will. I hold a more pragmatic view. (I find all movements of people generally suspect, as they require an intentional loss of skepticism on the part of their members.)

I'm the most dangerous sort of thinker because I'm not the enemy. I'm just a skeptic (and also largely a supporter... except when the woke say batshit stuff). But I can take apart a zealot's thinking (as can anyone) pretty easily. That's the analytical thinking the New Left wants banished.

That Twitter thread goes a long way to defend this essential point none of the New Left dare say aloud:

We're doing this, dammit. All in or all out.

His only defense of it seems to be that the right is awful and acting in bad faith. I agree. So perhaps it's excusable in the political realm. But whacking editors and authors and pundits (often on the left!) for being insufficiently doctrinaire isn't political. It's just a mob engaging in mob violence.

For an excellent outline of the extremism one finds in moral panics like the one we're experiencing, here's a truly funny read: https://www.amazon.com/Mobs-Messiahs.../dp/0470474807

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

None of this undoes the fact that white people exhibit white fragility all the time. But it's bad faith to assert that every criticism of the concept is proof of the concept. That has to be shown on a case by case basis. Otherwise, we're generalizing, and as I noted before, generalizing is a form of bigoted thinking.

There has to be some middle ground between "anyone who objects in any way to the concept of white fragility is exhibiting white fragility" (something, btw, that no one is saying) and "you can't assume that anyone is exhibiting white fragility without 'showing' it on a case by case basis" (whatever that means -- how would you even do that?).

(Generalizing is hardly a form of bigoted thinking. If I say, European cars handle well, that doesn't make me bigoted about European cars, it just means I'm generalizing instead of talking about Yugos.)

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Adder seems to say that something if racist if you think it doesn't help the cause of antiracism.

No, I said that a specious attack on an antiracist book is itself an act of racism. That it’s actively upholding racist systems is probably enough, but that it’s also specious makes it crystal clear.

I don’t think Tiabbi thought to himself that he wanted to defend the racist status quo, but that is what he did. Conscious or not all of this discussion of the discourse is a distraction that allows people to avoid uncomfortable substantive discussion. Way easier to complain about woke kids and just leave things how they are.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

This article is the most interesting thing I've read about national politics in a few days.

That GOP consultants and their candidates can’t break from 45 because they both fundamentally agree with him and it’s in their financial self interest if he loses anyway?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Who else can be accused of exhibiting white fragility but white people? People of other backgrounds can engage it without it being used as a cudgel by those acting in bad faith. If an Asian person rejects it and a person like Adder says he's exhibiting white fragility, he'd say, "How? It's impossible."

None of this undoes the fact that white people exhibit white fragility all the time. But it's bad faith to assert that every criticism of the concept is proof of the concept. That has to be shown on a case by case basis. Otherwise, we're generalizing, and as I noted before, generalizing is a form of bigoted thinking.

You remain fundamentally unserious about these issues. Of course an Asian person can have the same type of defensive reaction about his own racism. That the title of the book is specifically about white people doesn’t mean white people are somehow unique in their difficulty in seeing their own complicity.

Also, go read How to be Antiracist. In far too brief summary, it’s about a Black man learning to recognize his own racism.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

No, I said that a specious attack on an antiracist book is itself an act of racism. That it’s actively upholding racist systems is probably enough, but that it’s also specious makes it crystal clear.

I don’t think Tiabbi thought to himself that he wanted to defend the racist status quo, but that is what he did. Conscious or not all of this discussion of the discourse is a distraction that allows people to avoid uncomfortable substantive discussion. Way easier to complain about woke kids and just leave things how they are.

If you want to use the word that way, no one can stop you, but I don't see any daylight between what you and I are saying. A specious attack on something antiracist is necessarily racist? Because it hurts the cause? So any that defends the racist status quo is racist? Sounds like bad Marxist thought. The police are racist, so a children's book with a benign depiction of a policeman must be racist, by your way of thinking. Again, you can use the word that way if you want to, but I don't get the point. And using it that way makes it harder to distinguish between different steps on a continuum between, say, Bull Connor, Trump's July 4 speech, Matt Taibbi's review, and that children's book. They're all racist.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If you want to use the word that way, no one can stop you, but I don't see any daylight between what you and I are saying. A specious attack on something antiracist is necessarily racist? Because it hurts the cause? So any that defends the racist status quo is racist? Sounds like bad Marxist thought. The police are racist, so a children's book with a benign depiction of a policeman must be racist, by your way of thinking. Again, you can use the word that way if you want to, but I don't get the point. And using it that way makes it harder to distinguish between different steps on a continuum between, say, Bull Connor, Trump's July 4 speech, Matt Taibbi's review, and that children's book. They're all racist.

You might call his position Orwellian. You'd be using the term based upon the poor extent of your knowledge of the man's work, but you might still use it.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If you want to use the word that way, no one can stop you, but I don't see any daylight between what you and I are saying. A specious attack on something antiracist is necessarily racist? Because it hurts the cause? So any that defends the racist status quo is racist? Sounds like bad Marxist thought. The police are racist, so a children's book with a benign depiction of a policeman must be racist, by your way of thinking. Again, you can use the word that way if you want to, but I don't get the point. And using it that way makes it harder to distinguish between different steps on a continuum between, say, Bull Connor, Trump's July 4 speech, Matt Taibbi's review, and that children's book. They're all racist.

Is indoctrinating kids with pro-police propaganda more racist or more fascist? Hm. Either way, there is no Paw Patrol in our house although I’ve yet to figure out what to teach Tiny about the police beyond “it’s complicated.”

Anyway, I think there’s a distinction between something written in direct response to antiracist argument and something that merely passively upholds existing systems, so don’t much care how we label the children’s book as long as we’re thinking about its message and what other messages need to be included to put it in context.

Tiny went through a Richard Scarry phase. I cringed every time through the section on the police (even though the officer eventually winds up making a bottle for his kid in the night, which seems fairly progressive for the time) and we actively tried to skip the section on the work moms do.

It’s complicated. Tiny loves Lupita Nwongo’s Sulwe, about a little girl uncomfortable with her dark skin, but I’m not sure she’s getting the right messages from it yet. She likes that it’s about sisters but prefers Day to Night.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

You remain fundamentally unserious about these issues. Of course an Asian person can have the same type of defensive reaction about his own racism. That the title of the book is specifically about white people doesn’t mean white people are somehow unique in their difficulty in seeing their own complicity.

Also, go read How to be Antiracist. In far too brief summary, it’s about a Black man learning to recognize his own racism.

That'd be Asian Fragility. I read DiAngelo, and she's pretty clear in the message that White Fragility applies to Whites as Whites are uniquely defensive about their racism.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

That'd be Asian Fragility. I read DiAngelo, and she's pretty clear in the message that White Fragility applies to Whites as Whites are uniquely defensive about their racism.

Yes, we should get all our thoughts from a single book. It’s better that way.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

No, I said that a specious attack on an antiracist book is itself an act of racism.

Suppose his attack had merit? Is the fact that it's a weak or flawed attack the thing that makes it racist where it otherwise wouldn't be if it didn't have such flaws?

That it’s actively upholding racist systems is probably enough, but that it’s also specious makes it crystal clear.

Here, you're flat out Orwellian. You don't know that it's "actively upholding racist systems." That's your opinion. A competing opinion with at least the same if not considerably more veracity can be offered that he is merely criticizing a concept he thinks is specious.

Also, what does it mean to "uphold a racist system"? Those are wiggle words. Speak like someone who has a coherent thought in his head.

I don’t think Tiabbi thought to himself that he wanted to defend the racist status quo, but that is what he did.

Says you. Again, with exactly the same level of credibility it can be said that this is one antiracist attacking another antiracist's idea.

Conscious or not all of this discussion of the discourse is a distraction that allows people to avoid uncomfortable substantive discussion.

Orwellian again. You're telling us what conversations we are allowed to have about race. We must discuss racism in: (1) only a manner that aids antiracist aims (as you define them); and, (2) we must frame the conversations in a manner you think renders them substantive. By extension, this necessarily means that if we are discussing it in other ways, those are either unproductive or possibly counter to the goal and therefore racist, because that which does not advance things toward the antiracist goal is, as you have explicitly stated, racist.

Way easier to complain about woke kids and just leave things how they are.

To criticize the woke is racist too? So then if I say the following, I am suborning racism:

DiAngelo has a pretty insightful idea -- that Whites are defensive about racism, and this holds back useful discussion on the topic. But then there are uber-woke screwballs like Adder who take the idea to absurd ends and ruin it for everybody else. These wingnuts even think it's okay to stifle free speech on the topic. So now the concept of White Fragility and DiAngelo's explanation of it are harmed because reasonable people are led to conclude it's more like the bastardized crazy version people like Adder spout rather than the nuanced version DiAngelo offered.

But now consider this, my silly friend... You are harming White Fragility's chance at acceptance far more than Taibbi or me. I can explain to skeptics that Taibbi is being unfair and the concept is important. I can't explain away people who listen to you and think, "That motherfucker's nuts." Because I can't help but agree with them.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

That'd be Asian Fragility. I read DiAngelo, and she's pretty clear in the message that White Fragility applies to Whites as Whites are uniquely defensive about their racism.

So serious question over here. Do Asians have real beet against whites? On FB there is a Chinese woman who started off railing against men, ran a storytelling show about awful shit men do. Mostly people seemed to let her go along, although she seemed quite angry, borderline insane.

With the recent protests she has stepped to lecturing white people about what we need to change. To me it tracks the white people telling other whites people what they need to do relative to interacting with black people.I just feel no one wants to engage her Cuz of the crazy card. Do you all think Asians have sone special place to speak?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Sebby, take this thread by John Holbo, a response to the Harper's letter, as a sort of response to the Quillette and Tablet pieces you posted yesterday.

eta: DeLong puts it in a more readable form here. It does a better job of articulating something I've been trying to get at lately.

Perhaps an even better thread: https://twitter.com/popehat/status/1...591689221?s=21