Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
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.
|
To be fair to Adder, he didn't call Taibbi a racist. He said it was a racist piece. I mischaracterized that.
Even so, I said the same thing that Sebby said. Adder seems to say that something if racist if you think it doesn't help the cause of antiracism. That's one way to define the term, but does it advance any conversation? I personally think there's some latent racism in the way sports broadcaster describe what they see. There is pretty strong empirical evidence that light skinned players are likelier to be described as smart, and dark skinned players are likelier to be defined as athletic. The broadcasters recapitulate stereotypes in a way that strengthens and passes them on. So is a promo spot for an upcoming broadcast "racist"? In Adder's sense, yes, because it promotes something that is racist and doesn't help the cause of antiracism. But does it advance any kind of useful conversation to point that out in that way? It's important to capture the ways that racism is systematic and hegemonic and pervasive, but the language that we need to talk about the broad picture doesn't particularly help clarify specific stories about individuals.
