Quote:
|
No, I said that a specious attack on an antiracist book is itself an act of racism.
|
Suppose his attack had merit? Is the fact that it's a weak or flawed attack the thing that makes it racist where it otherwise wouldn't be if it didn't have such flaws?
Quote:
|
That it’s actively upholding racist systems is probably enough, but that it’s also specious makes it crystal clear.
|
Here, you're flat out Orwellian. You don't know that it's "actively upholding racist systems." That's your opinion. A competing opinion with at least the same if not considerably more veracity can be offered that he is merely criticizing a concept he thinks is specious.
Also, what does it mean to "uphold a racist system"? Those are wiggle words. Speak like someone who has a coherent thought in his head.
Quote:
|
I don’t think Tiabbi thought to himself that he wanted to defend the racist status quo, but that is what he did.
|
Says you. Again, with exactly the same level of credibility it can be said that this is one antiracist attacking another antiracist's idea.
Quote:
|
Conscious or not all of this discussion of the discourse is a distraction that allows people to avoid uncomfortable substantive discussion.
|
Orwellian again. You're telling us what conversations we are allowed to have about race. We must discuss racism in: (1) only a manner that aids antiracist aims (as you define them); and, (2) we must frame the conversations in a manner you think renders them substantive. By extension, this necessarily means that if we are discussing it in other ways, those are either unproductive or possibly counter to the goal and therefore racist, because that which does not advance things toward the antiracist goal is, as you have explicitly stated, racist.
Quote:
|
Way easier to complain about woke kids and just leave things how they are.
|
To criticize the woke is racist too? So then if I say the following, I am suborning racism:
DiAngelo has a pretty insightful idea -- that Whites are defensive about racism, and this holds back useful discussion on the topic. But then there are uber-woke screwballs like Adder who take the idea to absurd ends and ruin it for everybody else. These wingnuts even think it's okay to stifle free speech on the topic. So now the concept of White Fragility and DiAngelo's explanation of it are harmed because reasonable people are led to conclude it's more like the bastardized crazy version people like Adder spout rather than the nuanced version DiAngelo offered.
But now consider this, my silly friend... You are harming White Fragility's chance at acceptance far more than Taibbi or me. I can explain to skeptics that Taibbi is being unfair and the concept is important. I can't explain away people who listen to you and think, "That motherfucker's nuts." Because I can't help but agree with them.
