Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder
They are the same old "discourse about the discourse" that is nonsense. They boil down to "it's too hard to argue that some groups of people are less than other groups." Tedious. (Yes, you may take that as me confirming your point, which is also tedious).
I assume you also enjoyed the Harper's letter?
|
You know, as does anyone following, that your characterization of the discourse about the discourse is untrue. You just flagrantly dodged. No sane person can characterize what I wrote as a desire to be able to argue for superiority of one race or nationality over another.
And you know that was a dodge.
The fact is, you’re litigating the right to be an extremist with me. You know that’s an absurd position, so rather than engage my point - that being open to discussion is preferable - you duck it. You’re as unfair as Taibbi was with his criticisms of DiAngelo.
But hey, it’s all cool! The ends justify the means when you are absolutely certain about the propriety of your self righteousness.
Of course I agree with the Harpers letter. The better question is, does anyone disagree? Do you disagree with that letter? If you do, by all means, please explain what logic you employ to take such a position.
