| sebastian_dangerfield |
11-22-2013 08:36 AM |
Re: For Sebby
Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Bob
(Post 484699)
I'm Not Thurgreed (though I play him on TV), but maybe he was thinking of you when he read this part:
But I could be wrong.
|
I get that. Blow's just a dull writer, and that obvious point kind of proves it. Yep, there are loads of racism deniers. I am alleged to be one. The more interesting point is, do some of the people challenging the view that racism is the cause of all negative impacts felt by minorities have a point? Are some of them validated by facts or data or logical argument in noting what is knee-jerkedly always seen as racism might in fact, in many instances, be other factors at work?
General, broad pronouncements satisfy people. They reinforce our narratives. They allow us to adopt views and feel safe that those views are beyond challenge. Picking apart those views, destabilizing people's beliefs, is where interesting analysis starts. Blow is offering a safe point. He could offer something less safe, and lot more interesting.
If you see a strongly held belief, conviction, or assumption and don't feel the need to at least attempt to undermine it by asking people to view it from another perspective, or consider contrary arguments/facts/data, you're complicit in "intellectual herding."
And really - everything's ultimately subjective. The true answer to "Is it racism, or classism, or [something else]?" is, "Depends on the case." Stating "It's always/mostly/nearly-every-time this or that" in regard to anything is indefensible. It's like asking a doctor "To a strong degree of certainty, what - exactly - caused my cancer?" If he answers, get another doctor. |
