Quote:
|
You have racist beliefs. You have misogynistic beliefs. So do I. The difference between us is that I can accept that about myself and try to change and you need to retreat to denial.
|
That's not at all what we were talking about. We were talking about your refusal to entertain criticism of anything you view as antiracist, even when that criticism is based on mere observation of logical or factual fallacies in a particular antiracist argument.
You are changing the subject because on the point actually at hand, you're objectively absurd.
Quote:
|
You think calling me “idiotic” absolves you. (You even think that Ty or Hank not also calling you out absolves you.) It doesn’t. You are the problem. The reason we can’t move past these problems is your denial.
|
I'm not denying anything. I accept the definition of systemic racism. I've had racist and sexist thoughts. If you've generalized about any group, at any time, your thoughts were bigoted toward that group (unless in some bizarre situation, your generalization was exclusively positive). Who has not generalized? So yes, we have all been and may continue to be bigots (racists, sexists, anti-[insert religion or nationality here]) at one time or another, or perhaps continually.
So now that I've removed that red herring from the discussion, lets get back to your peculiar and illogical views, which actually:
1. Abuse and distort the well meaning arguments of people like DiAngelo; and,
2. Offend the most basic notions of logic and free speech
Quote:
|
You and I are racist. You and I are misogynistic. You have to admit these things to yourself or you’re going to keep beclowning yourself. The problem isn’t people telling us how we are failing. The problem is that we keep failing.
|
I am not failing. I admitted having engaged in and will likely in the future engage in bigoted behavior. I have no problem with your asserting that. I have a problem with your insistence in responding to any criticism of what you deem antiracist with the moronic retort, "That's racist!"
Beclowning? I'm arguing for sensible, open dialogue. I'm arguing for developing greater understanding. You are arguing for squelching of debate. I'm not sure that makes you a clown, but I know I certainly do not fit that descriptive as I am engaging in a normal discussion. You are a mix of delusional and vehemently orthodox. I think you don't even fully understand what you're saying, as what you are saying is not what DiAngelo is saying. You're incoherent, yet stridently so. It's bizarre.
Quote:
|
Get your white, male head out of your white, male ass and care about anything beyond yourself.
|
Get your head together. You need to make sense to have a discussion about this sort of thing. Throwing platitudes and ranting "Racist!" at everyone who isn't sufficiently doctrinaire as you are makes you sound like someone who is demented.
I've tried at length to discuss why I think you're wrong about Taibbi being racist in criticizing DiAngelo and you've still offered no sensible reply. Just blather. Then when cornered, you offered the absurd argument that anything that does not help the cause of antiracism is by definition racist. That's facially absurd and deserves no reply. But since we are in Adderland, which is a short hop to Absurdistan (I had to throw Taleb at you once here), I'll pretend that position is valid. My reply to it then would be, "How do you conclude Taibbi is not helping the cause of antiracism by critiquing DiAngelo?"
Surely you'd agree that ideas are strengthened by criticism. That is in fact how they are improved, how they are tested and refined. And you'd agree that criticism which fails, as part of Taibbi's did, only demonstrates the strength of the argument it failed to discredit. And finally, Taibbi, who has done far more to aid the cause of antiracism than you ever will, simply disagrees with DiAngelo. He seems to think there are different ways to attack racism. You seem to think that no antiracist may attack the thinking of another antiracist. You seem to think that all antiracists must agree on how to achieve their goals. This assumes untold millions of people would all be in agreement.
Your thinking is disorganized and strange. You sound like a confused religious zealot on the subject. I suggest if you want to engage on it, you accept that one must always engage in discussion -- that to argue that some ideas may not be critiqued is dangerous, foolish, and anathema to the core ideal on which a free society is built. No dialogue, no progress. That's an axiom.
