4 ms·

Not only that, but the author has displayed a poverty of knowledge on the topic they're writing about, in particular the theory which drives the movements the a

Not only that, but the author has displayed a poverty of knowledge on the topic they're writing about, in particular the theory which drives the movements the author is arguing against. For instance, >Contrast this approach with that of people lionized today who worked within a racism none could disagree was more implacably overt and hostile than today. This is exactly the issue being raised by the people the author decries. The fact that these issues have become less overt and hostile is part of the problem - we compare current racisms to the more "overt" ones and therefore conclude they have disappeared rather than change form, just as Zizek notes the new forms of dominance in the workplace are no longer to command you to work, but for your boss to befriend you such that you feel bad for not working. I think the superego is at work in racism and in the workplace. >fostering social justice requires fashioning oneself as vulnerable, injured, and/or broken by things Does this apply to the large body of academics in the social and philosophical sciences who have usually maintained a large degree of professionalism, or is the author only criticising young people who are, like any other generation, interested in drawing attention to themselves, in addition to whatever legitimate grievances they might have? >She believed that the speech rights blacks had fought for so hard must be extended to people she found noxious, including on issues as personal to her as race. This is one example where the author cites a black person to maintain the notion that if a civil rights leader has done something correctly, then it must have been right. Could it not, on the contrary, be argued that modern times have called for a change in tactics and a renewed set of problems, even if the author had previously suggested that they are less overt, could it not also be that they are different in kind not merely degree? Is the author aware of the work of Herbert Marcuse in his criticism of J.S. Mill's idea of speech and tolerance, or indeed the left criticism of human rights? I'd actually suppose that if the people he decries are putting forward strong anti-racist arguments then he should also be willing to consider the critique of ideology which drives them. He is thus either not willing to look deeply into what he criticises (i.e he will focus on the appearance of "woke" college students rather than the essence of why they do what they do psyhcoanalytically or philosophically) or he is unable to look that deep for one reason or another.

zozbot123 8y ago
> The fact that these issues have become less overt and hostile is part of the problem - we compare current racisms to the more "overt" ones and therefore conclude they have disappeared rather than change form The author does not deny that this is a challenge for 3rd-wave anti-racists - indeed, this is a major point of the article itself. However, it seems unhelpful to call it a "problem", with no further qualification, as if the 1st and 2nd "wave" were not contending with far worse problems on the racism front. To think otherwise begs the question of why anyone should even bother to address racism at all, when racism itself can never disappear but merely "change form" into something else, ready for the (n+1)-th wave to address in turn.
zepto 8y ago
The author isn’t doing any of the things you’re claiming. He agrees that racism has changed form and supports the goals of 3rd wave anti-racists, and understands why they do what they do. He just argues that the tactics they use are self-defeating.
- claudiawerner 8y ago
  Except he is doing what I'm claiming; but claiming that racism manifests itself differently (which, if it is his only position, I agree with him) isn't only what he's doing, he's also implying that the racism of today is less pernicious, and leaving no scope for it to be equally as pernicious. If racism has changed form, shouldn't the responses to it also change form? The author also brings up racist viewpoints as merely "challenging the orthodoxy of race". The issue here is very simple; the author sees the tactics as self defeating because he doesn't agree with them, or because they don't want to accomplish his own aims - because they challenge the liberal orthodoxy, which he defends by mentioning several policies. To him, only policies can be challenged, and anything other than a policy doesn't count for institutional racism at all. The only exceptions he's willing to make are when racism is so bad that liberal approaches don't work so well - in Dr. King's instance. But I would contend that racism (and indeed sexism and classism) manifests itself in a much more overt and discreet way, but this only makes them categorically worse, just as the workplace example I used. I'm not entirely convinced he does understand what they want to do, having opted to go for a standard "they just want to control what we think" line rather than addressing their issues with the process as it actually stands. It's a bizarre article which hasn't looked into the history of the movement as it exists, and what its strengths and shortcomings are.

zozbot123 8y ago

> The fact that these issues have become less overt and hostile is part of the problem - we compare current racisms to the more "overt" ones and therefore conclude they have disappeared rather than change form The author does not deny that this is a challenge for 3rd-wave anti-racists - indeed, this is a major point of the article itself. However, it seems unhelpful to call it a "problem", with no further qualification, as if the 1st and 2nd "wave" were not contending with far worse problems on the racism front. To think otherwise begs the question of why anyone should even bother to address racism at all, when racism itself can never disappear but merely "change form" into something else, ready for the (n+1)-th wave to address in turn.

zepto 8y ago

The author isn’t doing any of the things you’re claiming. He agrees that racism has changed form and supports the goals of 3rd wave anti-racists, and understands why they do what they do. He just argues that the tactics they use are self-defeating.

claudiawerner 8y ago
Except he is doing what I'm claiming; but claiming that racism manifests itself differently (which, if it is his only position, I agree with him) isn't only what he's doing, he's also implying that the racism of today is less pernicious, and leaving no scope for it to be equally as pernicious. If racism has changed form, shouldn't the responses to it also change form? The author also brings up racist viewpoints as merely "challenging the orthodoxy of race". The issue here is very simple; the author sees the tactics as self defeating because he doesn't agree with them, or because they don't want to accomplish his own aims - because they challenge the liberal orthodoxy, which he defends by mentioning several policies. To him, only policies can be challenged, and anything other than a policy doesn't count for institutional racism at all. The only exceptions he's willing to make are when racism is so bad that liberal approaches don't work so well - in Dr. King's instance. But I would contend that racism (and indeed sexism and classism) manifests itself in a much more overt and discreet way, but this only makes them categorically worse, just as the workplace example I used. I'm not entirely convinced he does understand what they want to do, having opted to go for a standard "they just want to control what we think" line rather than addressing their issues with the process as it actually stands. It's a bizarre article which hasn't looked into the history of the movement as it exists, and what its strengths and shortcomings are.