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

241–250 of 261 posts

Re: John McWhorter: The Neoracists

#241

Post by edbob »

lisper wrote: post #163
neonate wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The slogan "Silence is violence" was all over 2020. We must move in different circles.

Just because a slogan is "all over" doesn't mean that people actually believe in its literal meaning. It's kind of like the difference between "black lives matter" and "all lives matter". The literal meaning of both of these slogans is clearly true and so on their face they are not at odds with each other. But there is a sub-text to both slogans that pits them against each other. Likewise, "Silence is violence" doesn…

> But McWhorter was not talking about the slogan. His wording presents it as a literal truth.

You're making that up. This is everything he said about the slogan: "3. Silence about racism is violence. But elevate the voices of the oppressed over your own." There is absolutely nothing to suggest that he is forcing a literal meaning of the phrase.

Originally you said "I am highly skeptical that a significant number of people profess to believe this." Now that your claim has been proven false, you're moving the goal posts to "people don't believe in its literal meaning" and trying to pretend that McWhorter suggested otherwise. Yet you accuse McWhorter of strawmanning. Ironic.

Re: John McWhorter: The Neoracists

#242

Post by whythre »

dragonwriter wrote: post #239
tanseydavid wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> I think it's pretty clearly not true, because no recent generation of “young men” has been more effectively manufactured into an army of racist than has ever occurred by any other means. This is an astonishing claim, the likes of which I have not heard before. Could you elaborate on this please?

I'll turn it around: please provide some reason to believe that some recent generation of American young men has been more effectively manufactured into an army of racists than has ever occurred at any time or place in the past, excluding other times where the mechanism was the same kind of “treating an entire generation of young men as though they are automatically racist” as has supposedly occurred sometime recentl…

It is difficult to parse what you are saying, your post consists of a single run -on sentence is too long to follow.

Re: John McWhorter: The Neoracists

#243

Post by lisper »

edbob wrote: post #241
lisper wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because a slogan is "all over" doesn't mean that people actually believe in its literal meaning. It's kind of like the difference between "black lives matter" and "all lives matter". The literal meaning of both of these slogans is clearly true and so on their face they are not at odds with each other. But there is a sub-text to both slogans that pits them against each other. Likewise, "Silence is violence" doesn…

> But McWhorter was not talking about the slogan. His wording presents it as a literal truth. You're making that up. This is everything he said about the slogan: "3. Silence about racism is violence. But elevate the voices of the oppressed over your own." There is absolutely nothing to suggest that he is forcing a literal meaning of the phrase. Originally you said "I am highly skeptical that a significant number of p…

> There is absolutely nothing to suggest that he is forcing a literal meaning of the phrase.

Actually there is: the inclusion of the words "about racism". "Silence is violence" is a catchy slogan. "Silence about racism is violence" is less catchy, so it is not at all implausible that he did not intend it to be read as a slogan, but rather an actual literal assertion.

Re: John McWhorter: The Neoracists

#244

Post by [deleted] »

lisper wrote: post #243
edbob wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But McWhorter was not talking about the slogan. His wording presents it as a literal truth. You're making that up. This is everything he said about the slogan: "3. Silence about racism is violence. But elevate the voices of the oppressed over your own." There is absolutely nothing to suggest that he is forcing a literal meaning of the phrase. Originally you said "I am highly skeptical that a significant number of p…

> There is absolutely nothing to suggest that he is forcing a literal meaning of the phrase. Actually there is: the inclusion of the words "about racism". "Silence is violence" is a catchy slogan. "Silence about racism is violence" is less catchy, so it is not at all implausible that he did not intend it to be read as a slogan, but rather an actual literal assertion.

[deleted]

Re: John McWhorter: The Neoracists

#245

Post by edbob »

lisper wrote: post #243
edbob wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But McWhorter was not talking about the slogan. His wording presents it as a literal truth. You're making that up. This is everything he said about the slogan: "3. Silence about racism is violence. But elevate the voices of the oppressed over your own." There is absolutely nothing to suggest that he is forcing a literal meaning of the phrase. Originally you said "I am highly skeptical that a significant number of p…

> There is absolutely nothing to suggest that he is forcing a literal meaning of the phrase. Actually there is: the inclusion of the words "about racism". "Silence is violence" is a catchy slogan. "Silence about racism is violence" is less catchy, so it is not at all implausible that he did not intend it to be read as a slogan, but rather an actual literal assertion.

I'm at a loss to see how one could rationally arrive at that conclusion. It's self-evident from the article that McWhorter meant the phrase in the same sense as it's commonly understood. Anything else would be pointless, since he's discussing contemporary usage of the phrase.

One should generally try to figure out what the author's intended meaning was, rather than twist the meaning into something that's easy to argue against but the author would never approve of.

Re: John McWhorter: The Neoracists

#246

Post by pcstl »

lisper wrote: post #2

It is important to note that this article was written by a black man, a contributing editor to The Atlantic. John McWhorter is not a MAGA hack. That being said... This article is the very definition of a straw man. Absolutely no one subscribes to the position it critiques. On the other hand, a fair number of people (including myself) subscribe to the position that, although things are not nearly as bad as they have b…

If you want data, you need to specify what standard of evidence would be enough for you to consider that there actually are people who hold this position.

For instance, you won't find anyone simply stating without context to hold these 10 positions. If you're expecting that, you wouldn't find it no matter how many people actually held those opinions.

Another issue is that any data people _actually_ do bring you can dismiss as "non-representative", as you have not set your standards of evidence.

For instance, if you want scholarly research proving X% of Americans think so and so, you won't find any, for a plethora of reasons. That does not mean that X% of Americans don't think so and so.

I do believe your argument is coherent, and that McWhorter might be exaggerating and even strawmanning a bit - but if you want data, you need to specify in advance what's the standard of evidence you'll accept and people can then determine whether that's a reasonable standard.

Re: John McWhorter: The Neoracists

#247

Post by allturtles »

lisper wrote: post #126
omginternets wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I haven't read them, so I will concede that these two books endorse the point of view being described. Better yet, read them! They answer your question. >The existence of two books endorsing a point of view is not evidence that this point of view is mainstream. Since "mainstream" is a judgement call, I don't think anyone can directly demonstrate that to your liking. If you're genuinely curious about this subject, th…

> Better yet, read them! They answer your question. What question is that? I don't see how reading these books could possibly persuade me of anything other than there are two people who espouse some overly extreme ideas with regards to racism. And I will happily concede that without reading them. So I was wrong when I said that "absolutely no one" believes this crap. Two people believe it. Maybe even 100. Maybe even…

Between The World and Me spent over 100 weeks in the NYT bestseller list. Ibram X. Kendi, author of the other book cited, wrote another book, How To Be An Antiracist, which was a bestselling book in the U.S. 2020. Another bestselling book in this vein was White Fragility. Check out the sales figures from May-June here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2020/07/22/sales-o...

Re: John McWhorter: The Neoracists

#248

Post by omginternets »

x86_64Ubuntu wrote: post #189
omginternets wrote: post #88

I wish we could stop flagging posts like this. The discussion is thoughtful, and the topic is interesting.

The post is getting flagged because such posts that touch on racism in the context of US invariably end up being a celebration of anti-black resentment.

No they don’t. The comments here are the perfect counter example.

Re: John McWhorter: The Neoracists

#249

Post by ardy42 »

whythre wrote: post #242
dragonwriter wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll turn it around: please provide some reason to believe that some recent generation of American young men has been more effectively manufactured into an army of racists than has ever occurred at any time or place in the past, excluding other times where the mechanism was the same kind of “treating an entire generation of young men as though they are automatically racist” as has supposedly occurred sometime recentl…

It is difficult to parse what you are saying, your post consists of a single run -on sentence is too long to follow.

>>>>>> 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.

>> I'll turn it around: please provide some reason to believe that some recent generation of American young men has been more effectively manufactured into an army of racists than has ever occurred at any time or place in the past, excluding other times where the mechanism was the same kind of “treating an entire generation of young men as though they are automatically racist” as has supposedly occurred sometime recently in our history.

> It is difficult to parse what you are saying, your post consists of a single run -on sentence is too long to follow.

I think it's pretty clear: the original statement is clearly false, because there are obvious, well-known historical counterexamples to it. It's basically claiming the current American culture creates racist white men more effectively than Nazi Germany or the Jim Crow South, which just ain't so.

Re: John McWhorter: The Neoracists

#250

Post by lisper »

pcstl wrote: post #246
lisper wrote: post #2

It is important to note that this article was written by a black man, a contributing editor to The Atlantic. John McWhorter is not a MAGA hack. That being said... This article is the very definition of a straw man. Absolutely no one subscribes to the position it critiques. On the other hand, a fair number of people (including myself) subscribe to the position that, although things are not nearly as bad as they have b…

If you want data, you need to specify what standard of evidence would be enough for you to consider that there actually are people who hold this position. For instance, you won't find anyone simply stating without context to hold these 10 positions. If you're expecting that, you wouldn't find it no matter how many people actually held those opinions. Another issue is that any data people _actually_ do bring you can d…

> what standard of evidence would be enough for you

Well, I'll give you an example from a different but related issue: the question of whether the Confederate states seceded in order to defend slavery. Some people deny this, claiming that it was more about "states rights" or "heritage" or something like that. So here are some quotes from the Declaration of Causes of the Seceding States [1]:

"The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization."

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."

"She [Texas] was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time."

"...the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations..."

Then in the Bill of Rights of the Confederate Constitution [2] we read:

"4. No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."

So that seems pretty clear to me. When people mean something, they generally say it plainly.

---

[1] https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declarati...

[2] https://usconstitution.net/csa.html

Post reply on HN