White Fragility author Robin DiAngelo was paid 70 percent more than a black woman for the same job

[J842P]

I get that. But you have to look at what the pay scale is and what it's based on before you can say whether DiAngelo received more than she should have or if Brown received less than she should have.

No, you don't. All you have to look at is that DiAngelo is white, and Brown is not. That is the only relevant detail.

Well, I suppose if you're an extremely shallow thinker you can think that. Or an extremely racist one.

Because this story is about two authors represented by the same agency (which of course is highly motivated to get the best deal for both of them) and the difference in fees can be explained by factors other than race. You'd have to be willing to actually think about the situation and maybe do a little research before jumping to conclusions about where and how much race influenced the outcome. For example, you'd have to consider whether DiAngelo being white is a factor in her books' popularity, or whether Brown's memoir being highly personal affected it's appeal to readers, or whether the Harry Walker Agency is showing favoritism toward the author most likely to bring the Agency the greater amount of money so she won't take her business elsewhere. That's not going to be easy.

Again, I am merely describing to you the anti-racist position espoused by DiAngelo herself and other popular anti-racist authors (the other current popular one is Ibram X. Kendi).

What you are doing right now is exactly what DiAngelo is talking about in White Fragility.

I've made my position clear that this is shallow and uncritical thinking, and indeed being a minority, I find this shit utterly insulting and distasteful. And yes, I would call it racist. The entire ideology is based around the idea that the USA, of all places, is so racist and racism is so overbearing that any "person of color" is so traumatized that it is literally violence to disagree with antiracism like you are doing right now. But I am not the one defending DiAngelo or her ideology in this thread.

I think people may be confused. "Antiracism" is a specific ideology. It doesn't mean literally "to be against racism". It's a specific set of ideas. It's like Democrat and Republican. Although those words mean something alone, they mean something specific when talking about the political parties they refer to. Or, another example, antifa. People stupidly try to make silly claims, like posting an image of D-Day and saying something ironic like "Look at all these antifa". The problem is that while the word means literally "against fascism", not just anyone who claims they are "against fascists" or anyone who literally fought facists is "antifa". That is *specifically* referring to an alliance between communists and anarchists against fascists. Communists and anarchists traditionally do not get along, often even violently opposing each other. Even today, they constantly argue. But they decided to band together against fascism. But the point is, the word "antifa" entails various things above and beyond "being against fascism".

Similarly, I am against racism. I abhor racism, but that doesn't make me an "anti-racist" because I don't ascribe to the ideology espoused by people like DiAngelo and Kendi. Apparently, neither do you.

 

[Metaphor]

So you're saying there can't be any other issue that influences what people are paid???

I hope you don't mind me speaking for you, but I'm certain J842P doesn't think that 'other issues' can't influence what people are paid.

Even critical race theorists don't think that 'other issues' can't influence pay. The other issues are simply irrelevant. Any difference, no matter how it has arisen, is the result of racism. The examination of causes does not need to be undertaken. Kendi has said explicitly any policy that results in inequitable outcomes is a racist policy.

That is funny. To say there's a non-racial discrimination reason DiAngleo got paid more invalidates Critical Race Theory. So which is it?

Critical race theorists would not say it invalidates critical race theory. They would say "DiAngelo (and in a general sense, white people) came to be worth more in the speaker market because of racism and white privilege".

 

[ruby sparks]

No, they are not that obviously different.

Yes, they are. Patriarchy not existing, and patriarchy existing but not for reasons claimed are obviously two different claims. Sometimes you just talk complete bollocks, and your analogies are awful. It's borderline intellectual dishonesty.

 

[ruby sparks]

No, you don't. All you have to look at is that DiAngelo is white, and Brown is not. That is the only relevant detail.

Well, I suppose if you're an extremely shallow thinker you can think that. Or an extremely racist one.

J842P is playing devil's advocate on behalf of views he does not himself hold.

Whoops, sorry, I missed that he clarified.

And I believe his characterisation of the sort of anti-racism DiAngelo supports is fairly accurate in general terms. And it's why DiAngelo can reasonably be said to have been at least a little hoist by her own petard.

Whether it's fair to denounce her as a total hypocrite I don't know. I doubt it. Everyone if fallible, and the charge of hypocrisy is a tad over-egged and opportunist. And I certainly think White Fragility is a thing.

 

[ruby sparks]

because this story is about two authors represented by the same agency (which of course is highly motivated to get the best deal for both of them) and the difference in fees can be explained by factors other than race. You'd have to be willing to actually think about the situation and maybe do a little research before jumping to conclusions about where and how much race influenced the outcome. For example, you'd have to consider whether DiAngelo being white is a factor in her books' popularity, or whether Brown's memoir being highly personal affected it's appeal to readers, or whether the Harry Walker Agency is showing favoritism toward the author most likely to bring the Agency the greater amount of money so she won't take her business elsewhere. That's not going to be easy.

The criticism is not that any individual was racist, it's that someone wasn't proactively antiracist, that they talk the talk but don't walk the walk.

You seem to be doing your level best to make a case for, 'nothing whatsoever here to see, folks, move along' but it's not entirely working for me. As for your points about money and agents, since when did we only look at the leaves on the trees and not the wood? When we sympathise with the person being criticised?

 

[Metaphor]

No, they are not that obviously different.

Yes, they are. Patriarchy not existing, and patriarchy existing but not for reasons claimed are obviously two different claims. Sometimes you just talk complete bollocks, and your analogies are awful. It's borderline intellectual dishonesty.

Breathtaking that you would call me 'borderline' intellectually dishonest after you snipped my explanation and reacted as if I'd never explained my reasoning.

 

[laughing dog]

I don't know whether Ms. DiAngelo is a hypocrite on this matter and neither do you because your argument is based on unsubstantiated premises.

I laid out my premises in detail and lettered them. If you disagree with some of the premises, feel free to tell me which ones.

Been there and done it at least twice.

 

[Metaphor]

I don't know whether Ms. DiAngelo is a hypocrite on this matter and neither do you because your argument is based on unsubstantiated premises.

I laid out my premises in detail and lettered them. If you disagree with some of the premises, feel free to tell me which ones.

Been there and done it at least twice.

You haven't done it once.

 

[laughing dog]

Been there and done it at least twice.

You haven't done it once.

Your persistence ignorance of facts is fucking tiresome. I have pointed out numerous times that your belief that something is true (in this case, Ms. Diangelo's pay gap is due to racism or that she views it that way) does not make it true. I realize that is questioning one of your fundamental religious beliefs, but the fact is it has been pointed out numerous times. Whether you agree with my observation is valid is not relevant to the fact it has been pointed out numerous times.

 

[Metaphor]

Been there and done it at least twice.

You haven't done it once.

Your persistence ignorance of facts is fucking tiresome. I have pointed out numerous times that your belief that something is true (in this case, Ms. Diangelo's pay gap is due to racism or that she views it that way) does not make it true. I realize that is questioning one of your fundamental religious beliefs, but the fact is it has been pointed out numerous times. Whether you agree with my observation is valid is not relevant to the fact it has been pointed out numerous times.

What's amazing is how you could so obtusely miss, after I'd pointed out numerous times that

i) The truth of the matter (about the pay gap actually being due to racism or white privilege) is completely irrelevant, just as the truth of the matter (about whether two men having sex with each other is morally wrong) would be completely irrelevant as in the preacher example.
ii) DiAngelo's internal thoughts are completely irrelevant - the views she espouses are that she benefits continuously from white privilege, and that white people must continually and proactively dismantle this privilege.

 

[laughing dog]

Your persistence ignorance of facts is fucking tiresome. I have pointed out numerous times that your belief that something is true (in this case, Ms. Diangelo's pay gap is due to racism or that she views it that way) does not make it true. I realize that is questioning one of your fundamental religious beliefs, but the fact is it has been pointed out numerous times. Whether you agree with my observation is valid is not relevant to the fact it has been pointed out numerous times.

What's amazing is how you could so obtusely miss,

Which words did not understand in bold-face above? Because anyone with basic reading comprehension that actually read it (an assumption of fact that is unsubstantiated in your case) would know that your response is irrelevant

[
after I'd pointed out numerous times that

i) The truth of the matter (about the pay gap actually being due to racism or white privilege) is completely irrelevant, just as the truth of the matter (about whether two men having sex with each other is morally wrong) would be completely irrelevant as in the preacher example.
ii) DiAngelo's internal thoughts are completely irrelevant - the views she espouses are that she benefits continuously from white privilege, and that white people must continually and proactively dismantle this privilege.

You keep repeating your assumptions as if that makes them valid - it is fucking tiresome. Your assumptions of fact are not true because you believe to be true. You have not shown that 1) Ms. DiAngelo was aware of the pay gap, and 2) that she has to believe that the alleged pay gap is due to white privilege. If she does not believe that, then clearly living with that result does not violate her teachings. So, until you can show that your assumptions of fact are true, your argument is not tethered to reality.

 

[Trausti]

Which words did not understand in bold-face above? Because anyone with basic reading comprehension that actually read it (an assumption of fact that is unsubstantiated in your case) would know that your response is irrelevant

[
after I'd pointed out numerous times that

i) The truth of the matter (about the pay gap actually being due to racism or white privilege) is completely irrelevant, just as the truth of the matter (about whether two men having sex with each other is morally wrong) would be completely irrelevant as in the preacher example.
ii) DiAngelo's internal thoughts are completely irrelevant - the views she espouses are that she benefits continuously from white privilege, and that white people must continually and proactively dismantle this privilege.

You keep repeating your assumptions as if that makes them valid - it is fucking tiresome. Your assumptions of fact are not true because you believe to be true. You have not shown that 1) Ms. DiAngelo was aware of the pay gap, and 2) that she has to believe that the alleged pay gap is due to white privilege. If she does not believe that, then clearly living with that result does not violate her teachings. So, until you can show that your assumptions of fact are true, your argument is not tethered to reality.

Isn’t the point that for the “anti-racist” religion any disparity must be due to systemic oppression and White Privilege, regardless of objective reality? And that DiAngelo is not following her own catechism?

 

[Metaphor]

You have not shown that 1) Ms. DiAngelo was aware of the pay gap,

I haven't shown that because I never assumed that and it is completely irrelevant to her hypocrisy.

and 2) that she has to believe that the alleged pay gap is due to white privilege.

I haven't shown that because I never assumed that and it is completely irrelevant to her hypocrisy.

 

[laughing dog]

You have not shown that 1) Ms. DiAngelo was aware of the pay gap,

I haven't shown that because I never assumed that and it is completely irrelevant to her hypocrisy.

That is a faith-based response that is illogical and wrong. It is not possible to correct something one is unaware of.

I haven't shown that because I never assumed that and it is completely irrelevant to her hypocrisy.

Another illogical and wrong faith based claim. Clearly if she does not think that the pay gap is due to white privilege, there would be no need to either prevent such a gap or correct it.

Your illogical responses are very fucking tiresome.

 

[Jarhyn]

Which words did not understand in bold-face above? Because anyone with basic reading comprehension that actually read it (an assumption of fact that is unsubstantiated in your case) would know that your response is irrelevant

[
after I'd pointed out numerous times that

i) The truth of the matter (about the pay gap actually being due to racism or white privilege) is completely irrelevant, just as the truth of the matter (about whether two men having sex with each other is morally wrong) would be completely irrelevant as in the preacher example.
ii) DiAngelo's internal thoughts are completely irrelevant - the views she espouses are that she benefits continuously from white privilege, and that white people must continually and proactively dismantle this privilege.

You keep repeating your assumptions as if that makes them valid - it is fucking tiresome. Your assumptions of fact are not true because you believe to be true. You have not shown that 1) Ms. DiAngelo was aware of the pay gap, and 2) that she has to believe that the alleged pay gap is due to white privilege. If she does not believe that, then clearly living with that result does not violate her teachings. So, until you can show that your assumptions of fact are true, your argument is not tethered to reality.

And still, Metaphor fails to demonstrate how, EVEN IF she was hypocritical, that she is wrong about the message.

If Donald Trump said tomorrow "eat healthy, don't tell lies!" The fact that he does neither of those things does not make it bad advice or an unwise message. The progenitor of a message does not in fact impact the validity of it!

It is truly a moot point! In fact, I would bet that she has had countless speaking engagements. All it takes is one such situation where good faith is expected (of her agency no less), where this faith is violated and suddenly people crawl out of the woodwork to attack her as a "hypocrite!"

Case study does not establish trends! Now Metaphor maybe put away Tu Quoque? It really is quite pathetic and grotesque to be busting out such an embarrassment as that...

 

[Metaphor]

That is a faith-based response that is illogical and wrong. It is not possible to correct something one is unaware of.

There's nothing "illogical" about it (do you know what logic is?)

It is irrelevant that DiAngelo did not know that there was a pay gap, because 'not knowing' is not a defense in the theory she espouses.

Another illogical and wrong faith based claim. Clearly if she does not think that the pay gap is due to white privilege, there would be no need to either prevent such a gap or correct it.

It doesn't matter what she thinks about this particular incident, 'rationalisation' of your privilege is not a defense in the theory she espouses. She has said openly that every interaction is racist and subject to white privilege.

Are you unable to logic properly, laughing dog?

Your illogical responses are very fucking tiresome.

It is evident you do not know what Robin DiAngelo espouses, or you do know and you are being deliberately obtuse.

 

[Metaphor]

And still, Metaphor fails to demonstrate how, EVEN IF she was hypocritical, that she is wrong about the message.

Perhaps Jarhyn can inform the rest of us why the fuck I need to link the putative truth of DiAngelo's theories with her hypocrisy? Evidently people do not appear to understand what she is espousing. If they did, they'd understand that she has acted hypocritically. I haven't said her theory was wrong because she's a hypocrite (though she might have acted hypocritically because her theory is wrong).

If Donald Trump said tomorrow "eat healthy, don't tell lies!" The fact that he does neither of those things does not make it bad advice or an unwise message. The progenitor of a message does not in fact impact the validity of it!

It is truly a moot point! In fact, I would bet that she has had countless speaking engagements. All it takes is one such situation where good faith is expected (of her agency no less), where this faith is violated and suddenly people crawl out of the woodwork to attack her as a "hypocrite!"

Case study does not establish trends! Now Metaphor maybe put away The Quoque? It really is quite pathetic and grotesque to be busting out such an embarrassment as that...

What is grotesque is that nowhere have I said DiAngelo's hypocrisy means her theory is wrong. You'd know that if you hadn't built a safespace for yourself with anyone who might dissent from you being on 'ignore'.

 

[laughing dog]

It is irrelevant that DiAngelo did not know that there was a pay gap, because 'not knowing' is not a defense in the theory she espouses.

It certainly is not irrelevant to the issue of her correcting the gap (something you claim she should have done). One cannot correct a problem if one does not know it exists. Is that basic logic or simply common sense?

It doesn't matter what she thinks about this particular incident, 'rationalisation' of your privilege is not a defense in the theory she espouses. She has said openly that every interaction is racist and subject to white privilege.

Given your long posting history of misrepresentation of the ideas of others, I do not believe your claim.

[/B]Are you unable to logic properly, laughing dog?

Anyone familiar with the English language knows logic is not a verb, Metaphor.

You are entitled to your reactionary faith-based beliefs. But no one is required to take your anger-driven faith-based views as valid. And when your responses are filled with blatant false claims, that makes them even harder to take seriously.

It is evident you do not know what Robin DiAngelo espouses, or you do know and you are being deliberately obtuse.

No, I am not an expert on Ms. DiAnglo's views. Frankly, I don't have time for minor views and theories. I do not subscribe much to what i know, but her views do not cause such a deep well of anger/hatred as they do in you. And I seriously doubt your expertise on Ms. DiAngelo's views.

But, I don't have to know much about her views to understand the use of evidence-based reason as well as the application of logic. Nor do I have to anything about her views to detect faith-based beliefs or "truthiness" in posts. Now, I will retire because your posts are just too fucking tiresome.

 

[Metaphor]

It certainly is not irrelevant to the issue of her correcting the gap (something you claim she should have done). One cannot correct a problem if one does not know it exists. Is that basic logic or simply common sense?

It is completely irrelevant and I don't know how many times I have to explain it. DiAngelo's ignorance came about by her lack of actively dismantling white privilege. (Should I put hand clap emojis between each word?)

It would be even worse if she had known about the discrepancy, but she is culpable for her lack of action in discovering the discrepancy. Ignorance of your white privilege is not an excuse for it. "I didn't make the decision to pay people differently, someone else did" is not an excuse for it. DiAngelo, according to her own ideology, benefitted from her white privilege in this interaction (because there is literally no escape, except being proactively 'antiracist', from white people benefitting).

Given your long posting history of misrepresentation of the ideas of others, I do not believe your claim.

I produced receipts from her own website.

Anyone familiar with the English language knows logic is not a verb, Metaphor.

And you're the kind of primary school English teacher who mindlessly tells students it's improper to begin sentences with 'and'.

But, I don't have to know much about her views to understand the use of evidence-based reason as well as the application of logic. Nor do I have to anything about her views to detect faith-based beliefs or "truthiness" in posts. Now, I will retire because your posts are just too fucking tiresome.

You've certainly failed at any attempts at logic here. You are unable to get past bleating the refrain 'DiAngelo didn't know she was being paid more', which, as I've explained a half a dozen times, does not allow her to escape culpability according to her own theories.

 

[laughing dog]

It is completely irrelevant and I don't know how many times I have to explain it. DiAngelo's ignorance came about by her lack of actively dismantling white privilege. (Should I put hand clap emojis between each word?) ....

Your explanation is not convincing. Please explain which of those 5 words you clearly do not understand.

I produced receipts from her own website.

Your long history of taking quotes out of context or engaging in pedantic "analysis" makes that unconvincing.

And you're the kind of primary school English teacher who mindlessly tells students it's improper to begin sentences with 'and'.

And that is the illogical kind of response I'd expect from someone who thinks "logic" is a verb.

But, I don't have to know much about her views to understand the use of evidence-based reason as well as the application of logic. Nor do I have to anything about her views to detect faith-based beliefs or "truthiness" in posts. Now, I will retire because your posts are just too fucking tiresome.

You've certainly failed at any attempts at logic here.

Sure, Jan - whatever makes you feel better.

You are unable to get past bleating the refrain 'DiAngelo didn't know she was being paid more', which, as I've explained a half a dozen times, does not allow her to escape culpability according to her own theories.

You said
1) she should have prevented that pay gap, or
2) she should rectify it by returning the difference in pay. It is not possible to rectify a problem if you do not know it exits. Your denial of that reality indicates how far your antipathy towards Ms. DiAngelo and her theories blinds your reason.

It is pretty ironic that an OP that tries to point out the emperor has no clothes is penned by a small-minded naked ideologue.