6 ms·

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

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 either surprisingly naive, or a calculated rhetorical device. https://mobile.twitter.com/DrIbram/status/1355587080580161536 https://mobile.twitter.com/DrIbram/status/135558708058016153...

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
thisiscorrect 6y ago
Why is it naive or calculating to look for coherence in a world-view?
- olivierlacan 6y ago
  Because a worldview isn't necessarily composed of all of possible opinions on one broad side of an argument. Do you subscribe to the least and most extreme spectrum of your particular philosophy or political affiliation? Do you think every conversation about progressing towards the mean should systematically be bogged down by the minimum and maximum? No matter how much they deviate from the standard?
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Why is it naive or calculating to look for coherence in a world-view? It's naive or calculating to take carefully selected elements from the disparate positions of different people in a diverse group as a “world-view”, much less to demand that that faked-up strawman of worldview be held to a standard of internal consistency.
  - tanseydavid 6y ago
    The inconsistent positions enumerated in the McWhorter piece should not be taken as disparate positions of different people. To claim that it is seems to amount to arguing in bad faith.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > The inconsistent positions enumerated in the McWhorter piece should not be taken as disparate positions of different people. In the case where both views presented exist at all, I see no evidence (and McWhorter certainly presents none) that, outside of two where there is no internal conflict in the first place, they exist in any significnace other than as as disparate positions of different people. Given that, why would I take them as anything else?
anm89 6y ago
When many of those myriad opinions are attacks on others but simultaneously attack people on opposite sides of an argument in a way to make you damned if you do, damned if you don't (exactly the way he points out in many cases in the article) then don't be surprised when people point out the bullshit of it being inconsistent.
AnimalMuppet 6y ago
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. Forget whether it's coherent or not; forget whether within the spread of their opinions there is a credible intellectual position or not. Collectively, they have created a game at which I can only lose. So to them I say: Forget that. I'm not going to play your game. In terms of the actual effect on society (and people in society), the contradictions matter. To steal a phrase from a former co-worker, dealing with the "Elect" as a group is like dealing with a psychotic. (Note well the "as a group". I am not saying that the members of the group are psychotics. I'm saying that the group as a whole interacts something like a psychotic.)
- pseudalopex 6y ago
  The point is there is no such group actually.
  - Dracophoenix 6y ago
    "There is no such thing as a society" - Thatcher

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

thisiscorrect 6y ago

Why is it naive or calculating to look for coherence in a world-view?

olivierlacan 6y ago
Because a worldview isn't necessarily composed of all of possible opinions on one broad side of an argument. Do you subscribe to the least and most extreme spectrum of your particular philosophy or political affiliation? Do you think every conversation about progressing towards the mean should systematically be bogged down by the minimum and maximum? No matter how much they deviate from the standard?
dragonwriter 6y ago
> Why is it naive or calculating to look for coherence in a world-view? It's naive or calculating to take carefully selected elements from the disparate positions of different people in a diverse group as a “world-view”, much less to demand that that faked-up strawman of worldview be held to a standard of internal consistency.
- tanseydavid 6y ago
  The inconsistent positions enumerated in the McWhorter piece should not be taken as disparate positions of different people. To claim that it is seems to amount to arguing in bad faith.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > The inconsistent positions enumerated in the McWhorter piece should not be taken as disparate positions of different people. In the case where both views presented exist at all, I see no evidence (and McWhorter certainly presents none) that, outside of two where there is no internal conflict in the first place, they exist in any significnace other than as as disparate positions of different people. Given that, why would I take them as anything else?

anm89 6y ago

When many of those myriad opinions are attacks on others but simultaneously attack people on opposite sides of an argument in a way to make you damned if you do, damned if you don't (exactly the way he points out in many cases in the article) then don't be surprised when people point out the bullshit of it being inconsistent.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago

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. Forget whether it's coherent or not; forget whether within the spread of their opinions there is a credible intellectual position or not. Collectively, they have created a game at which I can only lose. So to them I say: Forget that. I'm not going to play your game. In terms of the actual effect on society (and people in society), the contradictions matter. To steal a phrase from a former co-worker, dealing with the "Elect" as a group is like dealing with a psychotic. (Note well the "as a group". I am not saying that the members of the group are psychotics. I'm saying that the group as a whole interacts something like a psychotic.)

pseudalopex 6y ago
The point is there is no such group actually.
- Dracophoenix 6y ago
  "There is no such thing as a society" - Thatcher