Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder
No, I said that a specious attack on an antiracist book is itself an act of racism. That it’s actively upholding racist systems is probably enough, but that it’s also specious makes it crystal clear.
I don’t think Tiabbi thought to himself that he wanted to defend the racist status quo, but that is what he did. Conscious or not all of this discussion of the discourse is a distraction that allows people to avoid uncomfortable substantive discussion. Way easier to complain about woke kids and just leave things how they are.
|
If you want to use the word that way, no one can stop you, but I don't see any daylight between what you and I are saying. A specious attack on something antiracist is necessarily racist? Because it hurts the cause? So any that defends the racist status quo is racist? Sounds like bad Marxist thought. The police are racist, so a children's book with a benign depiction of a policeman must be racist, by your way of thinking. Again, you can use the word that way if you want to, but I don't get the point. And using it that way makes it harder to distinguish between different steps on a continuum between, say, Bull Connor, Trump's July 4 speech, Matt Taibbi's review, and that children's book. They're all racist.
