|
Post by daveythefatboy on Jul 22, 2020 6:11:09 GMT
From all reports it is a bad book about a valid subject.
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Jul 22, 2020 11:45:20 GMT
theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/dehumanizing-condescension-white-fragility/614146/ John McWhorter's take down of DiAngelo's White Fragility is the best deconstruction I've read of it. That is a pretty strong charge to make against people who, according to DiAngelo, don’t even conceive of their own whiteness. But if you are white, make no mistake: You will never succeed in the “work” she demands of you. It is lifelong, and you will die a racist just as you will die a sinner.
Doesn't she charge up to 10g for training? Nice work if you can get it!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2020 11:57:52 GMT
Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeere's Davy
|
|
|
Post by daveythefatboy on Jul 22, 2020 16:15:44 GMT
Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeere's Davy Hi Markus.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2020 21:50:51 GMT
2020 1992
|
|
|
Post by Sneelock on Jul 24, 2020 22:31:16 GMT
so, Kid number two. where do you think his parents got that adorable outfit? 1.) they MADE it 2.) there is a KKK Baby Gap 3.) the Internet
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Jul 29, 2020 10:46:41 GMT
So cute!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2020 11:23:02 GMT
The matching runners.
|
|
|
Post by tory on Jul 31, 2020 18:33:39 GMT
This, from the new book by Lindsay & Pluckrose, critiquing social justice, strikes me as a correct take on what is happening.
|
|
|
Post by Sneelock on Jul 31, 2020 21:37:57 GMT
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2020 0:55:21 GMT
That should be jumps. There's no S otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by Sneelock on Aug 1, 2020 1:27:04 GMT
Thanks, I have to learn to live in the moment if I want my "s"
|
|
|
Post by daveythefatboy on Aug 1, 2020 13:42:25 GMT
This, from the new book by Lindsay & Pluckrose, critiquing social justice, strikes me as a correct take on what is happening. Fuck this. Let’s break their argument down: - They start by using the 60s civil rights movement against contemporary efforts for social justice. That’s a standard tactic of so-called intellectuals who invest themselves in defending the existing social hierarchy. It is a very great of indicator that what follows will be sophistry. - Next they build a strawman, essentially ascribing opinions to an entire movement: “white people are racist, men are sexist, and straight people are homophobic.” This is an intentional misread (these folks know better) of most modern theory on the subject, which would hold that white people benefit from a racist system, men benefit from a gendered system, and straight people benefit from a heteronormative system - as opposed to being actively and definitively racist, sexist, homophobic. - From there, they pivot to the premise that even acknowledging the existence of systemic racism, sexism, heteronormativity is supposedly a violation of liberal ideals, because they acknowledge the existence of race, gender and sexual identity itself. Basically they are playing the Stephen Colbert “I don’t see race” card. - Finally they wind it all up with the implied threat of a backlash based on white/male/straight fragility. If such a backlash happens - it supposedly will be the fault of those rocking the boat. It is a desperately stupid argument, tarted-up in quasi-intellectual language in order to appear scholarly. Again. Fuck this.
|
|
|
Post by sloopjohnc on Aug 1, 2020 14:53:49 GMT
This, from the new book by Lindsay & Pluckrose, critiquing social justice, strikes me as a correct take on what is happening. Fuck this. Let’s break their argument down: - They start by using the 60s civil rights movement against contemporary efforts for social justice. That’s a standard tactic of so-called intellectuals who invest themselves in defending the existing social hierarchy. It is a very great of indicator that what follows will be sophistry. - Next they build a strawman, essentially ascribing opinions to an entire movement: “white people are racist, men are sexist, and straight people are homophobic.” This is an intentional misread (these folks know better) of most modern theory on the subject, which would hold that white people benefit from a racist system, men benefit from a gendered system, and straight people benefit from a heteronormative system - as opposed to being actively and definitively racist, sexist, homophobic. - From there, they pivot to the premise that even acknowledging the existence of systemic racism, sexism, heteronormativity is supposedly a violation of liberal ideals, because they acknowledge the existence of race, gender and sexual identity itself. Basically they are playing the Stephen Colbert “I don’t see race” card. - Finally they wind it all up with the implied threat of a backlash based on white/male/straight fragility. If such a backlash happens - it supposedly will be the fault of those rocking the boat. It is a desperately stupid argument, tarted-up in quasi-intellectual language in order to appear scholarly. Again. Fuck this. I gave you a thumbs up for two reasons: your rebuttal and seeing that you wrote it up over a phone. I cannot muster the energy or am dextrous enough to write that much over a phone or tablet.
|
|
|
Post by Sneelock on Aug 1, 2020 15:48:38 GMT
He had me at “fuck this”
|
|