[ SECRET POST #6564 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #6564 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 17 secrets from Secret Submission Post #938.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I just finished Woke Racism, by John McWhorter, one of the few black public intellectuals who's taken time from his career as a professor (of linguistics) to outline exactly what he thinks is defective and harmful about the ideology that wants to appropriate for itself the word "anti-racism," but champions incoherence like this: https://imgur.com/a/wC67w58

It's not you, anon. They're complete fanatics, and I empathize entirely with your being fucking done.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm kind of sleep deprived and getting over being sick, so sorry for not getting it, but what exactly is that image trying to portray? Which side of the graphic does this book claim is the "right" view? Which people are you calling fanatics?

[(Anonymous)]

The two sides of the infographic are *both* things that anti-racist activists assert, but usually with enough space between the ideas that people miss the contradiction. To rephrase three examples:

-> White people are admonished not to dare be quiet about racism, AND shamed for speaking out when they could signal-boost the voices of PoC.

-> If white people move away from a black neighborhood, that's "white flight" (i.e. shunning black people) AND if they move to a black neighborhood, that's "gentrification" (i.e. chasing the black people out).

-> Holding any black person responsible for things a different black person did is wrong AND all white people are guilty of everything other whites have done.

The point isn't giving helpful tips. It's setting up the accepted definition of "racism" in such a way that all whites can be condemned as racists. And, similar to what the Christian church pulled when it claimed everyone whose parents had sex is a sinner, it can't be justified logically.

I was calling the Star Wars fans who were claiming Cassian was a PoC in one movie and white in the next fanatics. Whatever they think "anti-racism" is, acting like they can decide someone's race based on whether they approve of their choices is shitty.

[(Anonymous)]

ayrt

Oh, yeah, the contradictions were obvious, that's why I was wondering which view was supposed to be the "right" one. I guess I was wondering what the point was, other than basically saying that white people are wrong no matter what they do, but I guess there wasn't one.

the Christian church pulled when it claimed everyone whose parents had sex is a sinner

Wow. I'm an atheist and haven't been to a church since I was forced to as a kid, so I somehow missed that one. That's, uh...something.

acting like they can decide someone's race based on whether they approve of their choices is shitty.

Yeah. A lot of people are just weird and crappy about race in general.

[(Anonymous)]

Eh, some things on that list are stupid, others are good. The book you're talking about sounds like stealth right-wing babble tbqh.

[(Anonymous)]

The book is a liberal black man arguing that white people who buy into the extremes of identity politics are engaging in a kind of benevolent racism. The only people who think it's "stealth right wing" are whites who don't want to face the fact that holding beliefs such as, "we need to segregate people by race in order to address historical injustices" aren't as enlightened as they think they are.

[(Anonymous)]

So much this.

[(Anonymous)]

+billions

[(Anonymous)]

This, honestly.

[(Anonymous)]

Full offense, but why are you judging a book and claiming that it "sounds" a certain way without even reading it?

[meadowphoenix]

john mcwhorter is a hack who'd get along with clarence thomas. just because he learned about getting rich by pandering to reactionaries before it was cool doesn't mean he's being honest, sincere, or critically analytical, intellectually or otherwise.

[(Anonymous)]

He would not get along with Clarence Thomas, and has been very critical of him, something you'd know if you actually engaged with what he has to say instead of leaning into your kneejerk emotional response to a black man having the audacity to disagree with you.

[meadowphoenix]

stated like someone who has never had to read McWhorter say that black people are victimizing themselves lmao.

[(Anonymous)]

da

As it happens, I have read McWhorter, and that's a gross misrepresentation of what he writes.

[meadowphoenix]

that's literally his stated thesis in "Losing the Race: Self-Sabatoge in Black America" and his continued point in "What’s Holding Blacks Back?:It’s black attitudes, not white racism, that’s to blame." article where he citelessly tries to argue the statistics for black life are incorrect and that affirmative action hurts black people (....like Clarence Thomas). I don't think either of you have read shit.

[(Anonymous)]

Well, I haven't read the other book you're mentioning, but the one I did read has plenty of citations, and isn't about blaming black people. I'd say the only people who really, inevitably will take issue with the one I just read are invested in one particular take on how to advance the cause of anti-racism. And they think they have a right to claim all disagreement is nefarious.

[meadowphoenix]

Cool. well once you actually engage with his body of work, in this discussion about his whole deal instead of projecting your own ignorance on me as some anons have done, I'll be here.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't know if you're still checking this thread, but I'm working my way through his Our Magnificent Bastard Tongue and finding it interesting. It's not a given that I'll get around to his older social commentary books, though.

[meadowphoenix]

you just unlocked my other irritation that he is by profession a linguist and not a social scientist lmao. but yeah, we're talking about his social science work, which is why i think he's an opportunist and not an earnest academic.