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

[Metaphor]

So you are admitting you are criticizing her for something she had no knowledge of. What a fine person you are.

No, I am criticising her for her hypocrisy and lack of accountability.

DiAngelo supports Ibram X. Kendi's idea that there's no such thing as "not racist". Either a policy or practice is racist or it is "anti-racist".

DiAngelo believes she benefits from white privilege and knows how white privilege operates. I illustrated two ways DiAngelo - as a professed person who wants to do antiracist work - could have ensured she did not exploit her white privilege. It is evident that DiAngelo did neither of those things nor even thought to do them.

She didn't do any of the things feminists often call on men to do to ensure pay equity.

Citations?

Like the aforementioned panel pledge.

White men should step down from, or not take up, positions of leadership.

Just pay men less.

 

[ZiprHead]

No, I am criticising her for her hypocrisy and lack of accountability.

DiAngelo supports Ibram X. Kendi's idea that there's no such thing as "not racist". Either a policy or practice is racist or it is "anti-racist".

DiAngelo believes she benefits from white privilege and knows how white privilege operates. I illustrated two ways DiAngelo - as a professed person who wants to do antiracist work - could have ensured she did not exploit her white privilege. It is evident that DiAngelo did neither of those things nor even thought to do them.

Citations?

Like the aforementioned panel pledge.

White men should step down from, or not take up, positions of leadership.

Just pay men less.

I removed that request for citation in an edit. I updated it with this:

Do you have a citation of DiAngelo saying this is something that should be done or are you just broad-brushing?

Care to take another shot?

 

[laughing dog]

If the U. of WI paid person X 70% more than person Y for the same job, isn't that discrepancy on the U. of WI? Really, this appears just another example of conservative snowflakes making a mountain out of a molehill.

I don't know, is it?

Obviously yes.

Feminists have instructed men to be accountable--e.g. the 'panel pledge'--aimed at male executives who are asked to speak on panels. Why wasn't DiAngelo accountable for making sure she was not paid more than other keynote speakers?

I had never heard of the panel pledge. When I looked it up, it appears to be a phenenom in Australia and New Zealand. Do you have any evidence that Ms. D'Angelo even knows about the panel pledge?

I think a better question is why would any rational person come up with such a silly equivalency? If it was up to anyone, it was the University of Wisconsin.

 

[Metaphor]

I removed that request for citation in an edit. I updated it with this:

Do you have a citation of DiAngelo saying this is something that should be done or are you just broad-brushing?

Care to take another shot?

Another "shot"? As if I'm firing blindly because you moved the target after I had fired?

I don't have a citation saying that DiAngelo has deliberately told white people to take the specific steps I listed. I am saying that taking either or both of those actions would be more consistent with her stated aims than what she actually did, which was take the highest fee she is capable of commanding and not giving a shit about what other people got.

If DiAngelo follows up by:

* Taking a voluntary paycut and giving the difference to the other keynote speaker in this particular instance
* Pledging to enquire with future organisers of events about the planned 'race gap' in speaker fees and refusing to speak if there is one
* Pledging to disclose her fees to other speakers ahead of time to discover any race gap

Then I will cheerfully withdraw my accusation of hypocrisy.

I mean, I still won't believe a word of the hateful nonsense she espouses, but she wouldn't be doing so hypocritically.

 

[Metaphor]

I had never heard of the panel pledge. When I looked it up, it appears to be a phenenom in Australia and New Zealand. Do you have any evidence that Ms. D'Angelo even knows about the panel pledge?

None whatsoever. I never claimed DiAngelo had taken a panel pledge or knows about it. I responded to ZiprHead's original post, wherein he said 'citations' after I said feminists have asked men to take actions to remedy the gender pay gap. I was using this is an analogy for the racial pay gap, and I provided examples of the gender pay gap actions, and previously had suggested ways that somebody who was serious about the racial pay gap could adapt these along the lines of race instead of gender. ZiprHead realised, presumably, that his 'citations' comment was ambiguous for what he wanted me to answer, which was 'has DiAngelo espoused positions about what white people should do to remedy the race gap in pay that she is now being hypocritical about'.

 

[laughing dog]

I had never heard of the panel pledge. When I looked it up, it appears to be a phenenom in Australia and New Zealand. Do you have any evidence that Ms. D'Angelo even knows about the panel pledge?

None whatsoever.

Then there really was no foundation for your response to me of "Feminists have instructed men to be accountable--e.g. the 'panel pledge'--aimed at male executives who are asked to speak on panels. Why wasn't DiAngelo accountable for making sure she was not paid more than other keynote speakers".

 

[Mumbles]

If the U. of WI paid person X 70% more than person Y for the same job, isn't that discrepancy on the U. of WI? Really, this appears just another example of conservative snowflakes making a mountain out of a molehill.

Not only of making a mountain out of a molehill but also emphasizing that the author was right.

How do you read "white dude gets 70% more pay for doing the same work of pointing out that white people are privileged" and read "he is a hypocrite" rather than "wow, white people really ARE privileged!"

He didn't decide what he was paid. That was other people.

Tim Wise has long since passed the point of stating this outright in many of his lectures, and flatly says that he does it because many of the same people praising his relatively shallow "insight" would reject the same message from a black lecturer, and that his audience should consider that they could easily be that person.

 

[Jarhyn]

If the U. of WI paid person X 70% more than person Y for the same job, isn't that discrepancy on the U. of WI? Really, this appears just another example of conservative snowflakes making a mountain out of a molehill.

Not only of making a mountain out of a molehill but also emphasizing that the author was right.

How do you read "white dude gets 70% more pay for doing the same work of pointing out that white people are privileged" and read "he is a hypocrite" rather than "wow, white people really ARE privileged!"

He didn't decide what he was paid. That was other people.

Tim Wise has long since passed the point of stating this outright in many of his lectures, and flatly says that he does it because many of the same people praising his relatively shallow "insight" would reject the same message from a black lecturer, and that his audience should consider that they could easily be that person.

And that whooshing you hearing is the sound of a point flying over the heads of... Well... You know.

 

[Metaphor]

I had never heard of the panel pledge. When I looked it up, it appears to be a phenenom in Australia and New Zealand. Do you have any evidence that Ms. D'Angelo even knows about the panel pledge?

None whatsoever.

Then there really was no foundation for your response to me of "Feminists have instructed men to be accountable--e.g. the 'panel pledge'--aimed at male executives who are asked to speak on panels. Why wasn't DiAngelo accountable for making sure she was not paid more than other keynote speakers".

I've explained the analogous situation. I won't explain again.

 

[laughing dog]

Then there really was no foundation for your response to me of "Feminists have instructed men to be accountable--e.g. the 'panel pledge'--aimed at male executives who are asked to speak on panels. Why wasn't DiAngelo accountable for making sure she was not paid more than other keynote speakers".

I've explained the analogous situation. I won't explain again.

Your analogy failed miserably, so please don't explain it again.

 

[Metaphor]

Then there really was no foundation for your response to me of "Feminists have instructed men to be accountable--e.g. the 'panel pledge'--aimed at male executives who are asked to speak on panels. Why wasn't DiAngelo accountable for making sure she was not paid more than other keynote speakers".

I've explained the analogous situation. I won't explain again.

Your analogy failed miserably, so please don't explain it again.

You failed to understand it, certainly.

 

[laughing dog]

Your analogy failed miserably, so please don't explain it again.

You failed to understand it, certainly.

The fact that it fails miserably is evidence that I understood it. Duh.

 

[Metaphor]

Your analogy failed miserably, so please don't explain it again.

You failed to understand it, certainly.

The fact that it fails miserably is evidence that I understood it. Duh.

No, laughing dog.

DiAngelo claims to be antiracist. DiAngelo claims that she is the continual recipient of white privilege. DiAngelo would claim that the racial pay gap is evidence of white privilege.

DiAngelo could easily have taken one or both of the two steps that I proposed to be personally accountable for her continual receipt of white privilege. She took neither step. She is a hypocrite (and even if she were not, her ideas are nasty, immoral, and false).

DiAngelo's personal hypocrisy is nothing less than I'd expect from a race grifter. However, if there is enough pushback, she may yet decide her brand would be damaged in future if she made more than other keynote speakers who are not white, so she will probably adjust her behaviour accordingly.

 

[Jarhyn]

Your analogy failed miserably, so please don't explain it again.

You failed to understand it, certainly.

The fact that it fails miserably is evidence that I understood it. Duh.

So, what I want to know is whether Metaphor thinks it's reasonable for someone to know Australian identity politics in particular, and also know what someone else was being paid for a gig, and to explain how this in any way disproves DiAngelo? Rather, it proves his point because guess fucking what? Thats what you call TuQuque.

I do not appreciate you shoving your TuQuoque in my face

 

[Metaphor]

The fact that it fails miserably is evidence that I understood it. Duh.

So, what I want to know is whether Metaphor thinks it's reasonable for someone to know Australian identity politics in particular,

If you want to know something about me, fucking ask me.

But you don't want to know. You want to virtue signal. So instead of asking me, you ask other people what I think.

and also know what someone else was being paid for a gig, and to explain how this in any way disproves DiAngelo? Rather, it proves his point because guess fucking what? Thats what you call TuQuque.

If you read any of my responses, you'd know why DiAngelo's getting paid more is a marker of her personal hypocrisy and lack of accountability.

 

[laughing dog]

If you read any of my responses, you'd know why DiAngelo's getting paid more is a marker of her personal hypocrisy and lack of accountability.

The irony of that virtue signalling crapola! You have not shown her personal hypocrisy because "analogies" require imputations of intent or belief not evidence. Nor have you made a case to whom Ms. DiAngelo is accountable.

 

[ruby sparks]

She is a hypocrite (and even if she were not, her ideas are nasty, immoral, and false).

She may or may not be a hypocrite (in the end nothing surprises me about people in general) and some of the perhaps too radical changes proposed by her and others like her may in some or many cases be a bit ott, but at the same time they are trying to address issues that are increasingly being recognised, even if not by you, as worth addressing. As such, your apparent overreaction ('nasty, immoral and false') yet again seems ironically a bit fragile, imo. What's missing, by and large, in your analyses, is that there are probably in fact issues that are in need of addressing. I don't see anything much wrong with the intent behind the panel pledge, for example, and whether this person in the OP is or isn't a hypocrite about it is in the end a slightly separate issue. I would just doubt that the reason that apparently 85% of speakers at conferences are men (and mostly white, middle-aged men) is because that reflects those men's interests and capabilities. I don't mind being shown to be wrong. I'm happy to agree that I think the gender pay gap is an overstated issue for example and that when all relevant factors are taken into account, the gap is pretty small in many 'western' countries.

So, as often, possible merits for picking up on the specific calling out, but demerits for lacking an overall balanced, reasonable approach. You may now come up to the front of the class and get your next fragility sticker for your collection.

 

[Metaphor]

She may or may not be a hypocrite (in the end nothing surprises me about people in general) and some of the perhaps too radical changes proposed by her and others like her may in some or many cases be a bit ott, but at the same time they are trying to address issues that are increasingly being recognised, even if not by you, as worth addressing. As such, your apparent overreaction ('nasty, immoral and false') yet again seems ironically a bit fragile, imo.

Pushback on nasty, immoral, and false ideas isn't evidence of "fragility", but even if it were, so what? Either the ideas are nasty, immoral, and false or they are not, and my alleged "fragility" has nothing to do with it.

What's missing, by and large, in your analyses, is that there are probably in fact issues that are in need of addressing. I don't see anything much wrong with the intent behind the panel pledge, for example, and whether this person in the OP is or isn't a hypocrite about it is in the end a slightly separate issue.

The panel pledge was an illustration. I made that very clear. Everything DiAngelo espouses indicates she believes she benefits from her white privilege, and yet she did not take the steps that would cause her to give up some of it. She might do so now, if enough people call her out.

So, as often, possible merits for picking up on the specific calling out, but demerits for lacking an overall balanced, reasonable approach. You may now come up to the front of the class and get your next fragility sticker for your collection.

Luv, I would not attend a class where you were the teacher.

 

[ruby sparks]

Pushback on nasty, immoral, and false ideas isn't evidence of "fragility", but even if it were, so what?

Well, if your reaction was partly due to fragility, that would be very relevant to any objective analysis of and response to the issue being reacted to, even your own.

Either the ideas are nasty, immoral, and false or they are not, and my alleged "fragility" has nothing to do with it.

I doubt it is clear cut, even if the ideas are flawed or unbalanced or unreasonable, whether it is fair to characterise them as nasty immoral and false. That, imo, is your personal opinion, and as such, is part of your over-reaction. It has everything to do with such topics because in the end, one unbalanced, unreasonable approach is arguably as bad as its counterpart, and it's why your complaints are self-undermined. How hard is that to get?

It is possible to say something like 'white fragility is a thing, but it has been overstated'. But no, for you it's nasty, immoral and false. Ditto patriarchy. For you, it does not even exist. You just shoot your own points in the foot nearly every time.

 

[Metaphor]

Well, if your reaction was partly due to fragility, that would be very relevant to any objective analysis of and response to the issue being reacted to, even your own.

My 'reaction' is a rejection of DiAngelo's ideas about race. You might be impressed by DiAngelo's Kafkaesque games, but I am not.

I doubt it is clear cut, even if the ideas are flawed or unbalanced or unreasonable, whether it is fair to characterise them as nasty immoral and false. That, imo, is your personal opinion, and as such, is part of your over-reaction..

Yes, I see. Expressing opinions is an over-reaction, unless the opionion is that all white people are racist, only white people are racist, and denying or asking for evidence of either proposition is more evidence that all white people are racist, and on top of it, fragile.

DiAngelo's ideas are nasty, immoral, and false.

It has everything to do with such topics because in the end, one unbalanced, unreasonable approach is arguably as bad as its counterpart, and it's why your complaints are self-undermined. How hard is that to get?

What "unbalanced", "unreasonable" "approaches" have I suggested? Rejecting the original sin theology of critical race theorists is not unreasonable. It's the only reasonable thing to do, in fact.

It is possible to say something like 'white fragility is a thing, but it has been overstated'. But no, for you it's nasty, immoral and false. Ditto patriarchy. For you, it does not even exist. You just shoot your own points in the foot nearly every time.

I'm not just rejecting DiAngelo's theories about white fragility, but nearly every aspect of her ideology. But we're not discussing the reasonableness of her ideology here, but her personal hypocrisy.