Objectively intelligent.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

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.

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.

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.

Get your white, male head out of your white, male ass and care about anything beyond yourself.

FWIW, I don’t read ANY of these “think pieces” any of you post. As to “calling out” anyone, the entire fights that happen here are definitional. Like you are clearly not one to do harm to people of color, but you recognize you carry racial baggage. So you say you are”racist.”

Seb does not want to do harm to people of color so he say he is not racist.

I posted a anecdote when my son was living in a neighborhood where I did not belong, a very poor part of Detroit. I was dropping him off and parked in front of the only open business in the area; a liquor store. There was a 60 yo black man in front staring at me. I did not belong there. My car did not belong there. I realized I had an unbalanced fear or a 60 yo rummy who would not harm me, beyond maybe asking for a dollar. I realized I would not have the fear for a white rummy.

Seb said that didn’t make me racist, meaning I was a good person, and not hateful. He is right. But given your definition (and mine) it shows I’m racist.

The two of you have differences, but if you don’t get this disconnect you just throw feces at each other.

Edit: I left a “not” out at first.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

OK, so here's the main point I was trying to make about the piece: There's some preamble that I didn't quote about how the author used to have great conversations in the olden days when everyone was reasonable. Then there are the three paragraphs I quoted, which are a discursive mess but lay out something like an argument about what has changed. Let's leave alone for a second whether we agree or disagree with him there -- it's such a mess that, as you say, one can find something to like in it if one tries hard enough. But take those three paragraphs as his argument. My point to you is, there is *nothing* in the two paragraphs that follow about the 1619 Project that support his argument *at all.* If you are already familiar with the 1619 Project and you already share his views, you will nod out of tribal affinity, but only because he uses rhetorical tricks to sympathize with the eminent historians who weren't listened to, not because he actually shows anything about who said what to or about them. This from someone extolling the lost art of evidence-based argument! There's nothing in it at all. Is that what he thinks we lost? It's shite.

It doesn't mean that his larger argument, whatever it is, is right or wrong. It just means his writing is crap. He blows off anything the 1619 Project people said without considering it or them in any serious way. Isn't that exactly what he is complaining about?

Yes. I think the competition of ideas, the criticism of ideas, deserves the criticism you’ve applied to his essay. Which is a lacking essay in regards you’ve pinpointed.

I think there’s cheap argument and sophistry in his piece. And I think your approach to it, and my response to it, which will both agree and disagree with you (on different points) will be useful.

But I owe you a fair and thoughtful response in the morning, when I’m not in the gin with kin. (Mom insisted on a dinner today. It started early.)

I’ll reply in detail tomorrow.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

(Mom insisted on a dinner today. It started early.)

big tits?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

big tits?

Post implants? If she wasn’t a butterface, and dad wasn’t terminally ill...

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

FWIW, I don’t read ANY of these “think pieces” any of you post. As to “calling out” anyone, the entire fights that happen here are definitional. Like you are clearly not one to do harm to people of color, but you recognize you carry racial baggage. So you say you are”racist.”

Seb does not want to do harm to people of color so he say he is not racist.

I posted a anecdote when my son was living in a neighborhood where I did not belong, a very poor part of Detroit. I was dropping him off and parked in front of the only open business in the area; a liquor store. There was a 60 yo black man in front staring at me. I did not belong there. My car did not belong there. I realized I had an unbalanced fear or a 60 yo rummy who would not harm me, beyond maybe asking for a dollar. I realized I would not have the fear for a white rummy.

Seb said that didn’t make me racist, meaning I was a good person, and not hateful. He is right. But given your definition (and mine) it shows I’m racist.

The two of you have differences, but if you don’t get this disconnect you just throw feces at each other.

Edit: I left a “not” out at first.

Yes, we have had extensive discussion about why Sebby's definition of racist doesn't work, and yet every time the discussion of racial bias comes up, he retreats right back to it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

Yes, we have had extensive discussion about why Sebby's definition of racist doesn't work, and yet every time the discussion of racial bias comes up, he retreats right back to it.

His definition "works" just fine as a definition, but it excludes meanings that you think are important to discuss and need a word for. If you used his definition, you could find another way to say everything you want to say.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

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.

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

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.

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.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

His definition "works" just fine as a definition, but it excludes meanings that you think are important to discuss and need a word for. If you used his definition, you could find another way to say everything you want to say.

I'm actually not using the definition you assume I am using. I am using the broadest one possible. I long ago accepted the concept of systemic racism and that intent was not necessary.

He's only arguing that I am using the narrow intent based definition because he has nothing else in the quiver. It's a deflection. He can't have the argument where he advocates that criticism of what he deems antiracist should be dismissed out of hand as racist because he knows that argument is ludicrous and easy to dismantle.

Having read him now at length, I realize, he has no capacity for logic in regard to this subject. It's rambling and smacks of a demented zealotry. That's perhaps understandable. He seems to feel very deeply. Were it he thought as deeply this might be a useful discussion.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Yes, we have had extensive discussion about why Sebby's definition of racist doesn't work, and yet every time the discussion of racial bias comes up, he retreats right back to it.

Except I'm not. You're using that to dodge my criticism of your sophomoric thinking.

This wasn't about me. This was about you.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

His definition "works" just fine as a definition, but it excludes meanings that you think are important to discuss and need a word for. If you used his definition, you could find another way to say everything you want to say.

Right. He gets to be his own lexicographer.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

OK, so here's the main point I was trying to make about the piece: There's some preamble that I didn't quote about how the author used to have great conversations in the olden days when everyone was reasonable. Then there are the three paragraphs I quoted, which are a discursive mess but lay out something like an argument about what has changed. Let's leave alone for a second whether we agree or disagree with him there -- it's such a mess that, as you say, one can find something to like in it if one tries hard enough. But take those three paragraphs as his argument. My point to you is, there is *nothing* in the two paragraphs that follow about the 1619 Project that support his argument *at all.* If you are already familiar with the 1619 Project and you already share his views, you will nod out of tribal affinity, but only because he uses rhetorical tricks to sympathize with the eminent historians who weren't listened to, not because he actually shows anything about who said what to or about them. This from someone extolling the lost art of evidence-based argument! There's nothing in it at all. Is that what he thinks we lost? It's shite.

It doesn't mean that his larger argument, whatever it is, is right or wrong. It just means his writing is crap. He blows off anything the 1619 Project people said without considering it or them in any serious way. Isn't that exactly what he is complaining about?

As I noted earlier, that isn't the greatest piece. I can't defend it against your criticism of the way it treats 1619. But it does touch a subject that few others have -- the intolerant "new truth" emerging on the extreme left. And it does describe that new truth, and the logic or lack thereof behind it. That broader argument can be made without reference to specific facts showing the new truth's intolerance because those facts are around us every day. It's near impossible to argue against the presence of a growing intolerance and orthodoxy on the extreme left.

This new truth is really hard to understand. I used to think it worked like the right wing's delusions, but it's more complex than that. The right wing simply lives in fantasyland. They make shit up, convince themselves it's real and run with it. Mostly immoral rather than amoral.

The new truth of the left appears to assert that when a grievance is so deeply felt, so long standing, so severe, those seeking to redress it must be allowed to do so. That even where they fail to make sense in some of their positions, where data may not bear out certain of their claims, such critiques must be squelched in service to the urgency of what they are doing. Hence, Taibbi is not considered a critic. He is dismissed as a racist - banished. No time is lost considering what he says, debating his points, for those would only Slow Down the Movement.

The new truth seems to believe that logic and facts used to critique its points can be dismissed as a form of violence. They are wrong. They are tools of those Adder would call racists for merely arguing with antiracists.

It's binary thinking. It's all or nothing thinking. But I don't think it's intentional delusion of the sort practiced by the right. These people really believe that their cause is so urgent and so important that no critique may be applied. Debate can only invite reconsideration, and reconsideration could harm the movement.

The new truth understands momentum. It understands the power of numbers, of mobbing those in its way.

I think this article tries to explain the new truth's incoherence. I'm not sure anyone can do that quite well as what's incoherent is by definition quite difficult to describe. And I agree with you that it is cheap and goes against the author's message for him to dismiss 1619 out of hand the same way Adder dismissed Taibbi.

But I think the article is a good example of what's become of our discourse in this country, sadly. The author argues for empirical rigor and then violates his own rule. But in so failing, and attempting to describe this "new truth," he's caused me to analyze what it is. I've found it looks a lot like religion. Urgency, stridency, anger... the belief one is on the side of righteousness, and that the train must not be held up, for anything, even our belief in free speech and exchange of ideas.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

This article is the most interesting thing I've read about national politics in a few days.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

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.

I don't think its productive to dismiss a piece as racist and offer no credible explanation for doing so other than that it argued with something that was antiracist. It's just reflexive labeling. Explain why the piece is racist. Or better yet, explain where it fails. I actually explained where I thought Taibbi failed in certain of his assessments of DiAngelo. But Adder didn't want that. He wanted to shout, "Racist!"

I see the same subtle racism you've noted in various forms of media every day. I think we all do. But when one does see it, one ought to flag it as you have. Explain the facts as you did. And if someone should assert that it is not racism in response, make your argument for why it is, rather than saying that disagreement with you is itself racism.

This is what renders the assertion that to argue something is not racist is proof of fragility so embarrassing. It's a dodge of the worst kind. All discussion why a thing may not in fact be racist is precluded. For a person to fail to recognize this is mere rhetorical gamesmanship telecasts either a frightening immaturity or bad faith.

I think because the concept of white fragility can be so easily abused in this manner, a lot of white people refuse to engage it. It's an incredibly effective debate cudgel. To not accept it 100% is to to find oneself accused of trafficking in it. I don't think DiAngelo intended that perverse result.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Sebby, take this thread by John Holbo, a response to the Harper's letter, as a sort of response to the Quillette and Tablet pieces you posted yesterday.

eta: DeLong puts it in a more readable form here. It does a better job of articulating something I've been trying to get at lately.