Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

John McWhorter: The Neoracists

persuasion.community

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 261 posts

Re: John McWhorter: The Neoracists

#201

Post by pseudalopex »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #185
olivierlacan wrote: post #33

I'd recommend reading Ibram X. Kendi's counter to another piece by McWorther which demonstrates similar straw man rhetoric (pointed out by lisper) as this piece: agglomerating disparate positions from hundreds of people and pointing to a lack of internal consistency in such disparate points of view. Well yeah, if you assemble myriad opinions about racism in society in a long list, many of them won't be coherent. It's…

I agree that if you aggregate opinions from a bunch of people, you're going to find inconsistencies. Using that to point out the intellectual incoherence of their position is a flawed argument. But maybe I'm not trying to refute these "Elect" intellectually. Maybe I'm just trying to live my life. Their diverse opinions means that there is nothing I can do to keep them from yelling at me and trying to destroy me. Forg…

The point is there is no such group actually.

Re: John McWhorter: The Neoracists

#202

Post by anm89 »

ceilingcorner wrote: post #181
anm89 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It’s continually amusing to me that some of the most outwardly “anti-religious” people (I’m reminded of this Silicon Valley scene [1]) adopt belief systems and act in ways that are nearly indistinguishable from American Protestantism, This is an empty statement. You accuse him of somehow behaving similar to "protestants" with zero further description of why or how this is true. Lot's of disparate intellectual moveme…

I’m quoting the author, who made the comparison. If you disagree, take it up with him.

fixed above to show the context I'm commenting on your response, not the author's quote.

Re: John McWhorter: The Neoracists

#203

Post by f154hfds »

pseudalopex wrote: post #197
f154hfds wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many books does one have to put out on a subject before you decide they can be called an expert? ( https://www.goodreads.com/author/list/17151107.John_McWhorte... ) John McWhorter (and Glen Loury) have hosted a podcast for 14 years on the issue of race in America. You may not like what they have to say, but to say they aren't 'qualified' is ridiculous and it denigrates their work. They are as capable of lending i…

I don't know if John McWhorter is an expert on racial politics. I do know having opinions and a platform isn't the same thing.

I have opinions on you, but I wouldn't call myself an expert. If, however, I held a podcast on you discussing your actions and behaviors for 14 years, and had written 4 books chronicling your exploits (not including a new one about to be published) and had reached hundreds of thousands of people with a robust interpretation of who you are and what you care about - I'd say most would call me an expert? If some random person on the internet refused to call me an expert after devoting such an extensive portion of my life to understanding you, does that say more about them or about me? This whole credentialism has got to stop. If you don't want to hear opposing ideology so be it but flippantly saying McWhorter's ideas aren't worth your time because he doesn't have a sociology PhD is offensive.

Re: John McWhorter: The Neoracists

#204

Post by leereeves »

thisiscorrect wrote: post #49
wilsocr88 wrote: post #41

The angle nobody ever mentions on this issue is that nothing mass-produces racism and extremist political views more than treating an entire generation of young men as though they are automatically racist, regardless of their actions, or lack of action. Most people under 40 right now were raised to be completely ready to forget about race and treat it like a non-issue. In response, a lot of well-intentioned and non-b…

"It, ironically, has the strong stink of a racial slur when it is flung at one's feet in this way." That's because it is used as a slur, a powerful one which can end careers, almost exclusively against members of a single racial group. If that's not a racial slur, then what is?

In the view of the "NeoRacists", it's not a racial slur, it's opposition to:

> The marginalization and/or oppression of people of color based on a socially constructed racial hierarchy that privileges white people.

White people are racist by default unless they accept that paradigm and try (hopelessly) to atone for that history.

https://www.adl.org/racism

Re: John McWhorter: The Neoracists

#205

Post by ardy42 »

ceilingcorner wrote: post #34

Religion has no place in the classroom, in the halls of ivy, in our codes of ethics, or in deciding how we express ourselves, and almost all of us spontaneously understand that and see any misunderstanding of the premise as backward. Yet since about 2015, a peculiar contingent has been slowly headlocking us into making an exception, supposing that this new religion is so incontestably good, so gorgeously surpassing m…

> It’s continually amusing to me that some of the most outwardly “anti-religious” people (I’m reminded of this Silicon Valley scene [1]) adopt belief systems and act in ways that are nearly indistinguishable from American Protestantism, with the minor difference of the content of beliefs being different.

I used to hang out with a bunch of ex-Evangelicals, and I noticed the same thing. The content of their beliefs changed (radically), but their outlook and habits of mind stayed the same.

> They adjust and build on already-established modes of thought. I think this is called the Horseshoe theory, but that’s usually applied to politics.

I don't think that's Horseshoe theory. IIRC horseshoe theory is more about extremists from different "ends" of the political spectrum having uncanny commonalities, and establishing a kind of moderate/extremist political axis as its own thing.

Re: John McWhorter: The Neoracists

#206

Post by watwut »

disposekinetics wrote: post #122
mam2 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From a european perspective there is currently no nation more divided that the USA in terms of culture and politics. In france, equality means making nation-wide republican programs where everyone should be treated the same at all part of society. This is a bottom up approach. In this US, equality means there are grants for women, black, disabled, asians, mulims, jews, blinds, deafs, natives... and pretty much none f…

> In this US, equality means there are grants for women, black, disabled, asians, mulims, jews, blinds, deafs, natives... and pretty much none for white people. Or it's Positive Discrimination. Pretty much everyone is doing stuff for its own group, AGAINST the other groups. If you want evidence of this look at how COVID vaccines are discussed in the US media. The constant refrain isn't about getting the vaccine out t…

American minority is more likely to get covid and more likely to die from it. There are multiple reasons from that (biology, the types of jobs they have, etc).

Re: John McWhorter: The Neoracists

#207

Post by posterboy »

slowmovintarget wrote: post #142
posterboy wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

just to be clear here, if you can sum it up in one phrase, Racism is the assumption that some racea are inferior, and antiracism holds that race is a concept that has no place in reality!? If labeling it anti- then because it only needs mention when contradicting racism, but it can be an independent position held by anyone who simply disregards at least the name, or one of the various concepts attached. This has befu…

In a proper English construction "antiracism" literally means "against racism." Note, this is not arguing that race has no "place" in perceived reality. But that racism has no place in our society. Being against racism is the norm. The problem is with using the word "Antiracist" as a label or name. There is a movement that tries to use the word as a name, but is a case of a wolf in sheep's clothing. This movement is…

Thanks for your reply. I'm not sure why it's being downvoted, perhaps your definition is too narrow and definitely not authoritative (and why should you care).

Post mortem: Yes, I frequently neglect that sense of anti-, and rebracket such compounds differently. I could go on in the same sense of manipulation on the word level. Is an anti-anti-anti-racist position tennable?

Re: John McWhorter: The Neoracists

#208

Post by f154hfds »

jfengel wrote: post #193
S_A_P wrote: post #31

Question, because I dont know. Do identity politics help or hurt racism? My knee jerk reaction is that is highlights differences and can cause folks to dig their heels in on issues surrounding race/gender/sexuality/ . However pretending that all of these sorts of differences dont exist seems a bit naive at best and boneheaded at worst. What is the path forward? How do you integrate different races/cultures/etc in a t…

An enormous amount of "being against identity politics" is itself identity politics. The most blatant example is "all lives matter", a deliberate misunderstanding of what "black lives matter" means. It's white identity politics, predicated on the assumption that whiteness is the default for human beings, and so anything that addresses issues that don't apply to them is ipso facto racist. I interpret accusations of "i…

This assessment is very wrong. While All Lives Matter as a slogan is completely tone deaf, it does not in any way demonstrate that 'whiteness is the default for human beings'. These people want to call attention to the fact that there doesn't appear to be racial bias in lethal police shootings, there's no clear evidence that blacks are disproportionately murdered by cops than whites when armed conflict disparities between the populations are taken into account[1]. While criticizing the slogan is warranted and arguing that the black community needs disproportionate _support_ because of the endemic crime in some communities resulting in an over-all more lethal situation (and resulting police violence), you can't just go around calling these 'All lives matter' folks white supremacists! Doing so is another example of the boxes we've been putting people in that has gotten us into this mess McWhorter is talking about.

[1] https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/701423

Re: John McWhorter: The Neoracists

#209

Post by pseudalopex »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #81
stncls wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed the strawman is so huge it is tempting to translate the purported 10-tenet list into what reasonable people may actually believe. > 1. When black people say you have insulted them, apologize with profound sincerity and guilt. But don’t put black people in a position where you expect them to forgive you. Yeah, indeed if anyone feels insulted it's quite a natural first reaction to apologize. On the other hand, u…

Point 2 is almost surely a reference to a famous incident where the African-American History Museum published a chart which identified things like hard work, self-reliance, and planning for the future as aspects of "white culture". ( https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/artic... )

That's a misleading summary. The graphic defined ideas like rugged individualism and Protestant work ethic. Saying self reliance is part of rugged individualism doesn't mean every other philosophy opposes it.

Re: John McWhorter: The Neoracists

#210

Post by dragonwriter »

f154hfds wrote: post #190
dragonwriter wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> McWhorter is both a bona-fide expert On linguistics? I'm willing to assume that for the sake of argument. On racial politics? Given his writing on that issue (and not just the current piece) the generous assumption is “no, not at all, he's just a blowhard that's been given a platform because he can spin a tale that people in power like to hear well”. Being a “bona fide expert” in a different field plus being black…

How many books does one have to put out on a subject before you decide they can be called an expert? ( https://www.goodreads.com/author/list/17151107.John_McWhorte... ) John McWhorter (and Glen Loury) have hosted a podcast for 14 years on the issue of race in America. You may not like what they have to say, but to say they aren't 'qualified' is ridiculous and it denigrates their work. They are as capable of lending i…

> How many books does one have to put out on a subject before you decide they can be called an expert?

Number of books “put out” (especially for popular audiences) doesn't distinguish between actual experts on subject matter from hacks that are good at telling a story people in positions of privilege like to hear. Except perhaps negatively, as it's a whole lot less work to produce volume if you are worried only about the latter, if you are a skilled storyteller.

> John McWhorter (and Glen Loury) have hosted a podcast for 14 years on the issue of race in America.

Yes, and that's very good evidence that he is a storyteller that is good at connecting a narrative to an audience.

“Successful pundit” and “expert” are not entirely non-overlapping categories, but membership in one of them rarely has much bearing on the other.

Post reply on HN