White? Why not pay more?

[Albrenia]

Still profitable though. Particularly when you can make extra money as well as selling a story.

One would hope that the guy's got enough integrity to give the extra money earned to a local charity, though. I've no idea if they did or not though.

I have no idea how it is in the US but wouldn't that guy just be propagating his own problem? Charities are disproportionately white.

I guess if he wanted to help only black people he could look for a charity specialising in their neighbourhoods or something.

[Liriena]

Not really, though. I don't use white fragility as a concept to handwave away, say, Mugabe's Zimbabwe, or that one dickhead who argued white people were somehow "biologically inferior".

No one's saying that your Hilter, but that doesn't mean what your saying isn't at least mildly racist.

Being white myself, and living in a society where the concept of "white fragility" as expressed in American and British academia probably wouldn't apply... I'm not so sure of that. I can see why it'd feel like it. As it was originally developed, the concept strayed a bit too far into "all X are Y" territory in explaining how white people experience race. Could have used at least some nuance, a good serving of caveats and maybe a bit of hard or hard-ish data. Ultimately, however, I'd argue that whether it's racist or not would firstly depend on whether the concept justifies itself on the idea that the attitudes or behaviors it describes are inherent, natural and universal to its subject (are white people supposed to be helplessly, biologically predisposed to "fragility" on matters of race?).

[Liriena]

Not really, though. I don't use white fragility as a concept to handwave away, say, Mugabe's Zimbabwe, or that one dickhead who argued white people were somehow "biologically inferior".

You've used it here on this topic.

There's times it's reasonable mechanically, this isn't one of them.
When there is an outright refusal to engage with a concept of racism against others by whites, rather than complaining about the racist manner it's brought up.

But then the reaction of feminism to the mens rights movement would be "Female fragility." on a ridiculous scale. Notably, we don't feel the need to use that term, because it would be condescending, dismissive, etc. It's far better to point out what's actually going on there.

I do get your point. As I said, I can understand why the concept would be seen as inflammatory.

[Bombadil]

I have no idea how it is in the US but wouldn't that guy just be propagating his own problem? Charities are disproportionately white.

I guess if he wanted to help only black people he could look for a charity specialising in their neighbourhoods or something.

I dug in a little more.. he's actually not just some random shack owner in New Orleans. He's been somewhat a rising star doing pop-up dinners across America themed around discussing race issues and raising awareness. I think he gives a lot to this issue and it's not just a quick profit-making scheme. Here's an article on him in Vogue from 2 years ago and his site is linked in the article.

[Reblibre]

No one's saying that your Hilter, but that doesn't mean what your saying isn't at least mildly racist.

Being white myself, and living in a society where the concept of "white fragility" as expressed in American and British academia probably wouldn't apply... I'm not so sure of that. I can see why it'd feel like it. As it was originally developed, the concept strayed a bit too far into "all X are Y" territory in explaining how white people experience race. Could have used at least some nuance, a good serving of caveats and maybe a bit of hard or hard-ish data. Ultimately, however, I'd argue that whether it's racist or not would firstly depend on whether the concept justifies itself on the idea that the attitudes or behaviors it describes are inherent, natural and universal to its subject (are white people supposed to be helplessly, biologically predisposed to "fragility" on matters of race?).

Ok, so when I made up the term 'Black Criminal Mindedness' to explain how African Americans view the law. it WAS perfectly acceptable by you. Sure it sounds a little all X=Y but so does 'White Fragility' as you said. I could use a little more nuance, given a bit of a warning and brought up the statistics and 'hard-ish' data but niether did you. And it is only racist if I specifically say that all blacks are predisposed to being criminals.

I think you need to brush up on the real definition of racism: Prejudice, Discrimination or antagonism against someone of a particular race on the belief that one or more races are superior or inferior.

Saying that whites are predisposed to be over-sensitive about racial issues is prejudice because you are making a judgement about someone before you've met them based on thier race. And the fact that your also white just makes it even stupider.

[Liriena]

I think you need to brush up on the real definition of racism: Prejudice, Discrimination or antagonism against someone of a particular race on the belief that one or more races are superior or inferior.

A bit of a self-own to use that definition when talking about the concept of "white fragility", no? It doesn't relate at all to said concept, as far as I can tell.

Saying that whites are predisposed to be over-sensitive about racial issues is prejudice because you are making a judgement about someone before you've met them based on thier race. And the fact that your also white just makes it even stupider.

And now you're just making stuff up. I never claimed "all whites are predisposed to be over-sensitive about racial issues" nor do I assume every white person I talk to experiences "white fragility" simply for being white.

[Liriena]

Ok, so when I made up the term 'Black Criminal Mindedness' to explain how African Americans view the law. it WAS perfectly acceptable by you. Sure it sounds a little all X=Y but so does 'White Fragility' as you said. I could use a little more nuance, given a bit of a warning and brought up the statistics and 'hard-ish' data but niether did you. And it is only racist if I specifically say that all blacks are predisposed to being criminals.

I didn't really address this paragraph because it's not an argument.

[Reblibre]

I think you need to brush up on the real definition of racism: Prejudice, Discrimination or antagonism against someone of a particular race on the belief that one or more races are superior or inferior.

A bit of a self-own to use that definition when talking about the concept of "white fragility", no? It doesn't relate at all to said concept, as far as I can tell.

Saying that whites are predisposed to be over-sensitive about racial issues is prejudice because you are making a judgement about someone before you've met them based on thier race. And the fact that your also white just makes it even stupider.

And now you're just making stuff up. I never claimed "all whites are predisposed to be over-sensitive about racial issues" nor do I assume every white person I talk to experiences "white fragility" simply for being white.

Then please, explain what you mean when you say 'white fragility'?

[Reblibre]

Ok, so when I made up the term 'Black Criminal Mindedness' to explain how African Americans view the law. it WAS perfectly acceptable by you. Sure it sounds a little all X=Y but so does 'White Fragility' as you said. I could use a little more nuance, given a bit of a warning and brought up the statistics and 'hard-ish' data but niether did you. And it is only racist if I specifically say that all blacks are predisposed to being criminals.

I didn't really address this paragraph because it's not an argument.

Yes it is, it is showing that your reasoning on why 'white fragility' isn't racist doesn't work because I could create a statement like 'Black Criminality' (that's catchier than criminal mindedness), while working around the same guidelines you set out for 'white fragility'.

[Bombadil]

Amazing how fragile people are over the term 'white fragility'

[Reblibre]

Amazing how fragile people are over the term 'white fragility'

Would it be okay to say 'black criminality' then?

[Liriena]

A bit of a self-own to use that definition when talking about the concept of "white fragility", no? It doesn't relate at all to said concept, as far as I can tell.


And now you're just making stuff up. I never claimed "all whites are predisposed to be over-sensitive about racial issues" nor do I assume every white person I talk to experiences "white fragility" simply for being white.

Then please, explain what you mean when you say 'white fragility'?

In short, and off the top of my head, I use it as a short-hand for a repeated pattern of attitude behavior I've seen in some white people (though I wouldn't say it's exclusive to white people) when faced with discussions about race, particularly when talking about more subtle, less visibly extreme forms of racism. Said attitude and behavior being one of individualization, personal defensiveness and attempts to shut down the conversation entirely with empty universalist platitudes when faced with concepts like racial disparities in income, unconscious biases, the role of racism in the historical and contemporary prosperity in Western societies, contemporary racial biases in law enforcement, academia or the culture industry...

[Ostroeuropa]

Amazing how fragile people are over the term 'white fragility'

White people have feelings and they can be hurt, this is amazing to some people.

[Wallenburg]

Whatever.

Amazing how fragile people are over the term 'white fragility'

White people have feelings and they can be hurt, this is amazing to some people.

Do white people need a safe space from the restaurants asking if they want to pay more money?

[Liriena]

I didn't really address this paragraph because it's not an argument.

Yes it is, it is showing that your reasoning on why 'white fragility' isn't racist doesn't work because I could create a statement like 'Black Criminality' (that's catchier than criminal mindedness), while working around the same guidelines you set out for 'white fragility'.

That's a fundamentally emotional "argument", though, not one built on fact. An emotionally charged reversion is not proof of the legitimacy or illegitimacy of a concept.

[Bombadil]

Amazing how fragile people are over the term 'white fragility'

Would it be okay to say 'black criminality' then?

A little different from saying some people get a little defensive when asked to think about racial disparities.

[Liriena]

Amazing how fragile people are over the term 'white fragility'

White people have feelings and they can be hurt, this is amazing to some people.

Well, no, not amazing, but I am somewhat baffled at times by this laser-guided high sensitivity for what, to me at least, is at worst annoying wording for an otherwise harmless concept.

I mean, my feelings are more often hurt by malice and apathy than they are by someone giving a term with our "name" on it to the fact that many of us have learned to react to the uncomfortable topic of race in unhelpful ways.

[Ostroeuropa]

White people have feelings and they can be hurt, this is amazing to some people.

Well, no, not amazing, but I am somewhat baffled at times by this laser-guided high sensitivity for what, to me at least, is at worst annoying wording for an otherwise harmless concept.

I mean, my feelings are more often hurt by malice and apathy than they are by someone giving a term with our "name" on it to the fact that many of us have learned to react to the uncomfortable topic of race in unhelpful ways.

Apathy toward white issues pervades the progressive movement and is part of the reason there's so much defensiveness. Malice from them is palpable at times, and this likewise informs it.

+

Universalism should not have been rejected from progressivism.
It should have informed it. Instead of getting hostile with whites who reacted that way, a means to address their concerns should have been sought that would have included them and males at the table with their own organizations. Because this was not done, we're seeing escalating tensions and the rise of the far-right.

[Liriena]

White people have feelings and they can be hurt, this is amazing to some people.

Well, no, not amazing, but I am somewhat baffled at times by this laser-guided high sensitivity for what, to me at least, is at worst annoying wording for an otherwise harmless concept.

I mean, my feelings are more often hurt by malice and apathy than they are by someone giving a term with our "name" on it to the fact that many of us have learned to react to the uncomfortable topic of race in unhelpful ways.

If anything, I find the often suspiciously timely screaming of "why can't I have cis straight/white/male pride parades/history months!" a lot more offensive because it feels like I'm being used as a crutch by insecure douchebags' desperate need to steal the spotlight from the people they've been crappy towards.

[Computer Lab]

Would it be okay to say 'black criminality' then?

A little different from saying some people get a little defensive when asked to think about racial disparities.

I think it suffers from the same issue with phrasing that white fragility has.
It does refer to racial disparities that people get defensive about, it just has a more visceral emotional side to it. That does make it a bad parallel for 'white fragility', but to say no parallel exists is a stretch.

I feel like the concept of 'white fragility' could be properly conveyed by defensiveness towards what are perceived as attacks against a part of one's identity.

I will say that academia does a good job of coining terms that don't really go over that well with anyone outside of academia. Such is the hazard of doing such focused research without much outside interaction.

[Ostroeuropa]

Well, no, not amazing, but I am somewhat baffled at times by this laser-guided high sensitivity for what, to me at least, is at worst annoying wording for an otherwise harmless concept.

I mean, my feelings are more often hurt by malice and apathy than they are by someone giving a term with our "name" on it to the fact that many of us have learned to react to the uncomfortable topic of race in unhelpful ways.

If anything, I find the often suspiciously timely screaming of "why can't I have cis straight/white/male pride parades/history months!" a lot more offensive because it feels like I'm being used as a crutch by insecure douchebags' desperate need to steal the spotlight from the people they've been crappy towards.

Universalist principles presenting themselves should not offend you, unless you dislike the idea of equal treatment of people.

Sexual pride parades should be inclusive of gays, straights, etc, as an affirmation of sexual liberalization and identity and such.
I think the concept of black history month is dumb, and reliant on not doing things more like crash course world history.
Male pride marches would be fine.

[Reblibre]

Then please, explain what you mean when you say 'white fragility'?

In short, and off the top of my head, I use it as a short-hand for a repeated pattern of attitude behavior I've seen in some white people (though I wouldn't say it's exclusive to white people) when faced with discussions about race, particularly when talking about more subtle, less visibly extreme forms of racism. Said attitude and behavior being one of individualization, personal defensiveness and attempts to shut down the conversation entirely with empty universalist platitudes when faced with concepts like racial disparities in income, unconscious biases, the role of racism in the historical and contemporary prosperity in Western societies, contemporary racial biases in law enforcement, academia or the culture industry...

'Universalist platitudes' is a phrase you use when defining something off the top of your head?

Ok, so what your saying is that 'white fragility' is when white people don't like being confronted about subtle or unobvious examples of racial inequalities?

[Liriena]

Universalism should not have been rejected from progressivism.
It should have informed it. Instead of getting hostile with whites who reacted that way, a means to address their concerns should have been sought that would have included them and males at the table with their own organizations. Because this was not done, we're seeing escalating tensions and the rise of the far-right.

I think giving up universalism in the short term was necessary and continues to be necessary for the time being. It gets us nowhere in practical terms beyond helping justify a crappy status quo. Universalism should be an aspiration built on hard work that acknowledges specificities and the need for different approaches for different problems with different histories, not just a veil to hide every disparity under the rug because talking about disparities is divisive.

I'd feel the same way if it came to issues faced by men and white people, btw.

[Computer Lab]

Well, no, not amazing, but I am somewhat baffled at times by this laser-guided high sensitivity for what, to me at least, is at worst annoying wording for an otherwise harmless concept.

I mean, my feelings are more often hurt by malice and apathy than they are by someone giving a term with our "name" on it to the fact that many of us have learned to react to the uncomfortable topic of race in unhelpful ways.

If anything, I find the often suspiciously timely screaming of "why can't I have cis straight/white/male pride parades/history months!" a lot more offensive because it feels like I'm being used as a crutch by insecure douchebags' desperate need to steal the spotlight from the people they've been crappy towards.

As someone who is on different sides of that equation for different parts of that statement, I don't see any real issue with anyone having parades if anyone can. A cis/het/white/male parade/history month is unlikely to get much support from the general populace, but anyone should feel free to try and set one up.

[Ostroeuropa]

Universalism should not have been rejected from progressivism.
It should have informed it. Instead of getting hostile with whites who reacted that way, a means to address their concerns should have been sought that would have included them and males at the table with their own organizations. Because this was not done, we're seeing escalating tensions and the rise of the far-right.

I think giving up universalism in the short term was necessary and continues to be necessary for the time being. It gets us nowhere in practical terms beyond helping justify a crappy status quo. Universalism should be an aspiration built on hard work that acknowledges specificities and the need for different approaches for different problems with different histories, not just a veil to hide every disparity under the rug because talking about disparities is divisive.

I'd feel the same way if it came to issues faced by men and white people, btw.

That's my point. Universalist principles would have seen white and male groups included. They weren't. They're actively suppressed, and you've literally only just got through saying you find the idea of some of those principles arising offensive.

Instead universalism was rejected for progressivism, ultimately with anti-white, anti-male effects.