Quote:
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.
