site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6d ago (text post)   1957 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for September 13, 2024

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I find Matt Walsh vapid and not very bright in general but sometimes I have to laugh at his antics. He produced this new mockumentary called "Am I Racist?" and tricked Robin DiAngelo into sitting down for an interview with him (while wearing the flimsiest disguise).

Robin DiAngelo figured it out eventually, weeks later, and offered a statement in defense: https://www.robindiangelo.com/about-that-film/

From her damage control statement above:

Matt asked what I thought about reparations for Black Americans. I said that I agreed with reparations but that it was not my area of expertise. He then pulled up a chair and invited a Black crew-member who went by “Ben” to sit with us, took out his wallet and handed Ben some cash. He said that if I believed in reparations, I should also give Ben cash. While some Black people have asked white people to engage in reparations by giving directly to individuals, reparations are generally understood as a systemic approach to past and current injustice. The way Matt set this up felt intended to put Ben and I on the spot. Because Matt was pushing this on us, I expressed my discomfort and checked in with Ben, to be sure he was okay with receiving cash in this way. Ben reassured me that he was, so I went to my wallet and handed him my cash and the interview ended.

My reaction to this is: what the fuck? Did she really feel pressured into handing a random black person money because they were talking about reparations? LOL

While we're on the topic of mockumentaries, Tyler Cowen mentioned in a recent podcast that Trump has a surprisingly good bullshit detector and that when Ali G tried to punk him, Trump figured out in like one minute that this was a con and bounced. Contrast to Noam Chomsky just going on and on. Ali G punks a lot of people, but not Trump? Completely unexpected!

Robin DiAngelo seems in a class of her own here. Self-punking, perhaps? Talk about being high on your own farts.

Some time ago, I read both Ibram X. Kendi's "How to be an antiracist" and Robin DiAngelo's "White Fragility". While Kendi's book was not exactly high literature, it had a number of interesting aspects (for instance, Kendi came down quite clearly on the side that it is possible to be racist against whites and, indeed, that he himself had committed this sin and needed to repent of it to be a proper antiracist) and seemed at least to be heartfelt in the sense that Kendi really believes what he says. DiAngelo's book, on the other hand, came of as at least 95 % just grift; nothing original in it, a constant undertone of purpose being selling DiAngelo's own antiracism training sessions, in which she of course seems to have succeeded quite well at least quite some time after 2020.

I read them both during the big racial politics dust-up of 2020 and 2021, and my feeling was basically:

White Fragility is pretty much nonsense. There's very little in it that constitutes any form of argument. Most of it is accounts of DiAngelo's training sessions interleved with radical assertions. I have very little to say about it. What's most striking about it to me is how non-constructive it is. It contains zero actual proposals for how to combat racism, or fight for equality, or improve society - there is no praxis or theory of action. There isn't even any discernible interest in those questions. There's a single passage where she describes responding to someone who asked her "what to do about racism and white fragility?", and her answer is to suggest that the problem is that the questioner doesn't already know, and to exhort the questioner to "take the initiative and find out on your own". DiAngelo passes the buck! White Fragility is not a book interested in solutions. It is a book interested in deepening one's sense that there is a problem, but that's all.

How to be an Anti-Racist, on the other hand, is a book with exactly one idea. That idea is roughly: all races are equal, any inequities or differences in outcome between racial groups are therefore the products of racist policies, and as such any inequities or differences in outcome between racial groups must be remediated by anti-racist policies. There's a bit more to this than I would quibble (in particular his definition of race, "a power construct of collected or merged difference that lives socially", is far too broad; by Kendi's definition, genders are races, civic nationalities are races, being a member of a golf club is a race!), but that's the core idea. Different outcomes between racial groups is definitionally racist. Anti-racism is equalising outcomes between racial groups. Then the rest of HtbaAR is extraordinarily padded - a combination of Kendi describing his own (not very interesting) life story, and then Kendi repeating his definition over and over in increasingly tedious ways (biological racism, behavioural racism, colourism, class racism, space racism, gended racism, queer racism, etc.). His definition of racism is "a marriage of racist policies and racist ideas that produces and normalises racial inequities", and then he just replays it over and over.

(I don't think his definition is circular, for what it's worth. The above definitions of 'race' and 'racist' make that clear. A 'race' is "a power construct of collected or merged difference that lives socially", a 'racist policy' is "any measure that produces or sustains inequity between racial groups", and a 'racist idea' is "any idea that suggests one racial group is inferior or superior to another in any way". 'Racism' is adequately defined in these terms. The problematic definition is that of 'race' itself, which as noted I think is way too broad. In practice Kendi states that there are six races in the US - Latinx, Asian, African/Black, European/White, Indigenous, and Middle Eastern - and never considers that his definition might apply to more than these groups, or that you could slice the pie in many other ways.)

The frustrating thing about HtbaAR for me was the way that this idea is only ever asserted, never really discussed or argued for. Kendi never, for instance, says, "Some people might be doubtful of this definition, but here's why I think this definition best captures what we mean by racism and is the best basis for further work to produce justice in society." There are any number of obvious questions we might ask about his definition (have overachieving groups done some kind of injustice? if so, how? if racist policies are those that increase inequities between groups and anti-racist policies decrease inequities, doesn't that mean that it might often be impossible to judge whether a policy is racist or anti-racist before implementing it? if intent is irrelevant, does it mean that a benevolently-intended policy might be racist, and a malevolently-intended policy might be anti-racist?), but he never attempts to answer any such question, even the most obvious.

Ultimately I think my take is that DiAngelo is an opportunistic grifter, and Kendi is a well-meaning but unfortunately not very clever academic. If I were a professor and Kendi were one of my undergraduates, I'd commend his passion but tell him he has a lot more work to do to precisify his thinking.

My reaction to this is: what the fuck? Did she really feel pressured into handing a random black person money because they were talking about reparations? LOL

It seems highly relevent that she was paid $15,000 for this interview. I too would likely pay a few hundred bucks to stay in the good graces of such generous benefactors.

$15,000 for a couple of hours of answering questions on camera is crazy. Is this amount normal for academics?

diAngelo's speaking fees are famously high even by the standards of academics working in this milieu. She was paid the same amount for speaking at a library in Tulsa, refused a $10k speaking fee and makes $700k a year from speaking fees alone. Nice work if you can get it.

Yeah it's not out of line with what famous academics charge to speak for an hour.

For the very top household names it probably is (biblical scholar Bart Ehrman charges about this much for an appearance), Walsh and Co picked a number that was too good to pass up, but not so outrageous as to arouse suspicion.

I can't get over the scene in his mockumentary where the folks at some kind of woke circle realize who he is and kick him out because they "fear for their physical safety."

I find myself wondering: do they really believe this? Do they literally think Matt Walsh is going to rise from his folding chair and physically assault them? I have to think they know they are full of shit and this is just rhetoric to justify kicking someone out whose real crime is being an ass. I do not like Walsh or his tactics, he's a troll, but ffs just say "You're an asshole and we don't feel like being mocked on camera, so gtfo," don't make up some bullshit about fearing for your physical safety.

Do they literally think Matt Walsh is going to rise from his folding chair and physically assault them?

They're not afraid of Matt; they're afraid of his fans, many of whom have no qualms with disrupting their lives with online and offline antics.

That's... okay, I can actually buy that. Having Matt Walsh make fun of you in his movie probably does set you up for harassment by his troll legion.

I am not sure how many of them were actually making that calculation, and how many were just reacting emotionally to a bad man who isn't on their side suddenly appearing in their midst.

If a leftist troll got unmasked at a church or a MAGA event or something, do you think people would be frightened and saying they feel threatened?

I think there may well be a thought process along the lines of "This person is known to unapologetically violate some societal taboos of the highest order. How do I know he won't violate the taboo against suddenly punching his interlocutor in the face? You claim there is a big difference and he for sure won't violate that one, but is it my duty to understand the details of the principles of people with insane evil morality?". There is such a thing as being afraid of something you can't predict - imagine being trapped with a bear (and the claim that this bear is strictly vegetarian at this time of the year) or a member of one of those uncontacted tribes that sometimes shoot outsiders on sight (but sometimes are happy to trade in shells and trinkets).

There is such a thing as being afraid of something you can't predict - imagine being trapped with a bear or a member of one of those uncontacted tribes that sometimes shoot outsiders on sight

Why should I imagine them, and not a member of the society I live in, but one that has a very different worldview? Do you think I have no taboos? The one against surrogacy alone is on the same level as these people have against "racism". It's the fact that you this is considered an apt analogy, while arguing in their defense that gives a massive WTF quality.

I don't mean to argue that the attitude I impute to those people is healthy for themselves or society at large - just that it does not have to be dishonest, nor even made from stuff that is unusual for humans. The less colourful example of a similar sentiment from your ingroup is plain xenophobia (in the traditional, literal sense), like how a British gentleman in the 1850s may have felt queasy about living in a street full of Orientals. This is not to defend being so estranged from internal political opposition that it becomes an unfathomable other to you, but that jug of milk has already been spilt.

What's so surprising about them using words of power to summon The Manager? It's how they solve every interpersonal conflict and take over neutral institutions. It would be an enormous surprise if they didn't reflexively use the same universally successful tactic here.

What's even the point of asking this question? If you're in 1930s Russia, is there any benefit in asking "wow, do you really believe this railyard manager was part of the vast fascist-capitalist-trotskyist conspiracy to wreck the glorious five year plan?"
Just by asking the question you're buying into their frame and positioning the argument right where they want it: fighting over how racist you are for daring to question the lived experiences of trans black womxn.

A 2014 tumblrinaction post doesn't help anything, or it would have stopped this a decade ago. It's been 84 10 years, it's time to let the haughty fake surprise posts go, before you end up saying "these kids are in for a shock when they meet the real world"

Yes, I do think it's useful to question whether people really believe what they are saying.

Your post is very random and appears kneejerk and written without much reflection or content beyond seething at your enemy tribe.

Just by asking the question you're buying into their frame and positioning the argument right where they want it: fighting over how racist you are for daring to question the lived experiences of trans black womxn.

This makes no sense and looks like outrage generated by ChatGPT.

I believe the progressive people in question were doing the same thing.

In other words, they lied and used the privilege of being taken seriously to cover it up.

And to make my point more plainly: yes, I know why they do it. At the same time, maybe I am just too literalist, but I am genuinely curious who is a true believer. Some people did believe in the Red Scare, and heretics, and witches. So when I see a woke person saying, very earnestly, "You are making me feel physically unsafe," I get that it's a tactic, and she probably does "feel" unsafe, but at the same time I don't buy into the whole NPC/zombie meme, so I want to know (and would ask if I were there): "No, seriously, can you explain? Do you think he's literally going to pull a knife on you?"

(It's a good thing I am not a public figure who can be cancelled.)

I suspect that at least some of them are so heavily immersed in the "words are violence" memeplex that they literally no longer see the distinction between someone politely but firmly disagreeing with them, someone teasing them in a good-natured fashion, someone making fun of them in a mean-spirited way (without laying a hand on them) and someone physically assaulting them.

Or they're so fully immersed in safetyism that they're unable to express any objection to a particular person's presence in a particular space without couching it in the language of safety and harm reduction.

The steelman is that stochastic terrorism something something -- you only need one or two complete nutjobs in an audience of (supposedly) three million followers and however many indirect listeners to go on a bizarre stalking incident or drive through someone's front door (or just send a lot of junk e-mails or phone calls, which they counts as physical safety). That's still not a very strong steelman, given how rare it is, but they do act like they believe it.

That said, having seen similar stuff in other environments, I'd expect that the average person is either in the 'it's what I use to win in other contexts' or 'but the politics he advocates would hurt me' or even 'his political aisle used violence somewhere so he must be ejected'.

I find myself wondering: do they really believe this? Do they literally think Matt Walsh is going to rise from his folding chair and physically assault them? I have to think they know they are full of shit and this is just rhetoric to justify kicking someone out whose real crime is being an ass.

I would wager that they do genuinely believe that Walsh presents a danger to them in the moment that can be lessened by him being kicked out. However, that's about the extent of their thinking; there's no actual consideration for logic or physics or logistics of the situation. Rather, the logic is that someone presenting danger is a good reason to kick them out, and therefore if you want to kick someone out, claiming that they're dangerous is a good tactic. But if you claim that someone is a danger despite not believing that they're a danger, then that makes you a liar, which is bad, and you aren't bad. So you come to genuinely believing that this person presents a danger to you.

Do they literally think Matt Walsh is going to rise from his folding chair and physically assault them?

Only as much as it takes for the men they hope will come protect them to take their claims of unsafety seriously. They won’t defend themselves even if he was a threat- that’s beneath them; the most they will do is point their phone cameras (guns by proxy).

Trump figured out in like one minute that this was a con and bounced

Such a gentleman, I recognise that "just politely smile and nod" thing from whenever a crazy homeless person tries to engage me in conversation on public transport.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats