Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

Most of the time if a board or CEO comes to me to talk about terminating someone senior in their operation I spend a lot of time asking them what they want and getting them to think through the pros and cons and I weigh in on legal pros and cons. I try to be dispassionate about it.

If their CEO had brought this one to me, I would have been "come on, X, don't be an ass, this is stupid."

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

I think the boss was just worried about losing lefty clients.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

I thought that by Adder's reasoning, intent is irrelevant: If you say or do things that tend to perpetuate systemic racism, you're a racist.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

Schor is not perpetuating racism. He's assisting antiracism by advising antiracists to avoid counterproductive action.

Hence the Danton reference. Danton (I believe... it's been a while) was insufficiently supportive of extreme actions against the aristocracy. He viewed the Terror as a thing which would eat itself. Robespierre thought otherwise. Neither ultimately did well.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

I haven’t followed it closely, because, again, there is no more tedious topic, but that tweet is not racist.

ETA: It was sent in the middle of a storm of disingenuous concern trolling and got swept up in the backlash. A little tone-deaf (oh, I bet that’s unPC these days) but not a firing offense on my view. But hey, it’s an at-will world we’ve created so it’s not my call.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

I think you’ll find I very rarely say a person “is a racist”. People do and say racist things and support racist policies. Intent does not generally matter to whether actions or statements support racist policies or systems and pointing that out is not inherently a critique of the person.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

If he was concern trolling Bernie Bros he was doing God's good work.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

Have you read the criticisms of White Fragility from black people (I assume they are not the usual R suspects?)? Are those critics doing a racist thing?

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

But wouldn't Taibbi say the same?

eta: Also what Hank said.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

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.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

Is this "cancel culture"?

Philly Inquirer

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

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.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

No. If he merely argued that Cannon got a raw deal, a point with which I agree, I'd say this was cancel culture at its worst.

But putting up what sounds like a Nazi cartoon of Jews is beyond the pale. Clearly within the sphere of deviancy.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

I see your point. But I think it’s the mocking that denigrates the antiracist effort, which is the adverse impact that makes Taibbi’s piece racist. (I am reading Adder’s mind, so I could be dead wrong.) In Schor’s case, he doesn’t denigrate. He merely states that violence is not as helpful as nonviolent protest. Had he denigrated those engaged in violence, he may have achieved the necessary adverse impact. But he was respectful and understanding of the violence. Killer Mike took a similar position. So did I believe John Lewis.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

Right Winger Facebook fun!!!

"Wash your mask. Wake up!!!
A caller to a radio talk show recently shared that his wife was hospitalized and told she had COVID and only a couple of days left to live. A doctor friend suggested she be tested for legionnaires disease because she wore the same mask every day all day long. Turns out it WAS legionnaires disease from the moisture and bacteria in her mask. She was given antibiotics and within two days was better. WHAT IF these "spikes" in COVID are really something else due to improper mask wearing?? COPIED!"