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

[laughing dog]

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

No, laughing dog.

As usual, you are wrong.

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.

You don’t know that.. Nor do you know if she knew about the pay gap. Nor do you know that she did nothing after the learning about it.

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).

You don’t know any if that.

DiAngelo's personal hypocrisy is nothing less than I'd expect from a race grifter.

Fragile white snowflake alert

 

[Jokodo]

Metaphor, translated into English:

"Some people I dislike say X. Therefore, people I dislike are being hypocrites if they disagree with X, or act in a way that is inconsistent with X.
Also, some people I dislike say Y. Therefore, people I dislike are being hypocrites if they disagree with Y, or act in a way that is inconsistent with Y.
Also, X and Y, the way I understand them (though of course I never bothered to ask) are incompatible.
Therefore, everyone I dislike is either a hypocrite (because they agree with X/Y but don't act on it) or illogical (because they simultaneously agree with X and Y), and most likely both."

How far off am I?

 

[Metaphor]

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.

You don’t know that.. Nor do you know if she knew about the pay gap. Nor do you know that she did nothing after the learning about it.

I do know she claims to be doing antiracist work. I do know she claims to be the continual recipient of white privilege. I do know that DiAngelo would endorse the racial pay gap as evidence of racism and white privilege.

I did not claim DiAngelo knew about the pay gap in keynote speaker fees. In fact, I quite specifically suggested she didn't know and didn't give a shit about finding out. I made it quite clear that it is not enough for her not to have known. Being ignorant of her privilege is not enough to escape responsibility for it. I suggested two things she could have done to be personally responsible for giving up her white privilege.

I do know she did not respond to request for comment to the outlet that asked for a response to the story.

If she remedies her white privilege speaker fee pay gap, I will also update this thread to acknowledge it.

Fragile white snowflake alert

DiAngelo isn't fragile.

 

[Metaphor]

Metaphor, translated into English:

"Some people I dislike say X. Therefore, people I dislike are being hypocrites if they disagree with X, or act in a way that is inconsistent with X.
Also, some people I dislike say Y. Therefore, people I dislike are being hypocrites if they disagree with Y, or act in a way that is inconsistent with Y.
Also, X and Y, the way I understand them (though of course I never bothered to ask) are incompatible.
Therefore, everyone I dislike is either a hypocrite (because they agree with X/Y but don't act on it) or illogical (because they simultaneously agree with X and Y), and most likely both."

How far off am I?

My post was already in English, luv.

Also, your syllogism is invalid. But let's go through it line by line.

"Some people I dislike say X. Therefore, people I dislike are being hypocrites if they disagree with X, or act in a way that is inconsistent with X.

The quoted text is, of course, a true statement. It's also true if you leave out the words 'I dislike'.

Also, some people I dislike say Y. Therefore, people I dislike are being hypocrites if they disagree with Y, or act in a way that is inconsistent with Y.

True.

Also, X and Y, the way I understand them (though of course I never bothered to ask) are incompatible.

Let's see if I can understand where you think the problem with my reasoning is.

Robin DiAngelo preaches antiracism and the necessity of dismantling white privilege (a)
Robin DiAngelo is white (b)
According to DiAngelo, anybody who is white is the recipient of white privilege, whether they want it or not and whether they are aware of it or not (c)
The pay gap between DiAngelo's keynote fee and the woman of colour's keynote fee arose in part or in whole from DiAngelo's white privilege (d)
White people need to enact the labour of dismantling white privilege, which includes proactive and reactive labours (e)
A proactive labour consistent with dismantling white privilege would have been for DiAngelo to refuse to appear at the event if there was a pay gap by race between paid speakers (f)
Another proactive labour would have been for DiAngelo to reveal her salary to the other keynote speaker to ascertain equity before agreeing to the event (g)
A reactive labour would have been for DiAngelo to acknowledge the pay gap after she found out and remedy it with a fee difference transfer from her to the other keynote speaker (h)
A reactive labour would have been for DiAngelo to pledge to command fees no higher than speakers of colour at the same events (i)
There is no evidence that DiAngelo did any of (f)-(i) or anything commensurate (j)
DiAngelo is therefore a hypocrite (k)

Please let me know if there are premises you disagree with, or hidden assumptions in the premises as written which you disagree with.

Therefore, everyone I dislike is either a hypocrite (because they agree with X/Y but don't act on it) or illogical (because they simultaneously agree with X and Y), and most likely both."

"Everyone I dislike" does not follow from 'some people I dislike'". Your syllogism is invalid.

 

[laughing dog]

. I do know that DiAngelo would endorse the racial pay gap as evidence of racism and white privilege.

No, you believe that to be true. Your belief does nit make it true.

, I quite specifically suggested she didn't know and didn't give a shit about finding out

Yes,your suggestion is long on bias and short on factual badis.

I made it quite clear that it is not enough for her not to have known.

Your beluef it is not dnough does not make it so.

DiAngelo isn't fragile.

Never said she was.

 

[ruby sparks]

Yes, I see. Expressing opinions is an over-reaction, unless the opinion 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.

No, I don't think you do see my point. My point is that one sort of unbalanced opinion is as bad as another. So again, for a related example, saying that patriarchy is everywhere is as bad as saying it doesn't exist. And saying that critical race theory is wholly false is as bad as saying it is wholly true.

Rejecting the original sin theology of critical race theorists is not unreasonable. It's the only reasonable thing to do, in fact.

No it isn't. It's an over-reaction that hints at a possible knee-jerk fragility. Despite their shortcomings, things like critical race theory have merits, and address stuff that you seem to deny even exists in the first place. So the reasonable approach is to accept part of it but not all of it.

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.

And what point would you hope to make if she is in fact a hypocrite to the extent that you claim? That she is a hypocrite in that way, presumably. So you started a thread to identify a hypocrite. I don't get the point, other than that you'd have scored a point against someone who you already dislike because of their ideology, but you're saying the ideology itself is not relevant to the discussion.

So as I more or less said, come up to the front and get a medium-sized calling out sticker, but not much else.

 

[Metaphor]

No, I don't think you do see. One sort of unbalanced opinion is as bad as another.

And I don't value your opinion about 'balanced opinions'.

No it isn't. It's an over-reaction that hints at fragility. Despite their shortcomings, things like critical race theory have merits, and address stuff that you seem to deny even exists in the first place. So the reasonable approach is to accept part of it but not all of it.

I accept things based on evidence.

The second part makes no sense given that the first part says the opposite.

No. Perhaps I will make it a little easier for you.

Male Christian preacher: it is morally wrong for two men to have sex with each other.
Male Christian preacher has sex with another man.
Male Christian preacher is a hypocrite.

He is a hypocrite whether or not I accept that it is morally wrong for two men to have sex with each other.

Just like DiAngelo is a hypocrite whether or not I agree with her theories.

 

[ruby sparks]

And I don't value your opinion about 'balanced opinions'.

Nonetheless, your views in general are clearly skewed by any reasonable definition.

The relevant point is that it devalues your arguments, for the reasons given.

 

[ruby sparks]

No. Perhaps I will make it a little easier for you.

Male Christian preacher: it is morally wrong for two men to have sex with each other.
Male Christian preacher has sex with another man.
Male Christian preacher is a hypocrite.

He is a hypocrite whether or not I accept that it is morally wrong for two men to have sex with each other.

Just like DiAngelo is a hypocrite whether or not I agree with her theories.

And what point would you hope to make if she is in fact a hypocrite to the extent that you claim? That she is a hypocrite in that way, presumably. So you started a thread to identify a hypocrite. I don't get the point, other than that you'd have scored a point against someone who you already dislike because of their ideology, but you're saying (somewhat unconvincingly) that the ideology itself is not relevant to the discussion.

So as I said, come up to the front and get a small calling-out sticker, but not much else.

I accept things based on evidence.

Hm. Not convinced. If you want to claim to be rational about this, I think you'd need to demonstrate a bit more rational balance.

 

[Metaphor]

And what point would you hope to make if she is in fact a hypocrite to the extent that you claim? That she is a hypocrite in that way, presumably. So you started a thread to identify a hypocrite. I don't get the point,

And I don't "get" the point of the endless plethoras of Trump-bashing threads, often four or five on the same topic, all responses in absolute lock-step with each other, and yet I'm not sure you feel the need to insert yourself into Trump-bashing threads to ask the Trump-bashers "what's the point?"

It is fucking tiresome for people to come into my threads to say 'I don't care about your opinions, your concerns are stupid', and leave.

But, if you feel pride in adding your voice to the multivoice yet monotonic hostility most of my threads get, congratulations.

 

[Jarhyn]

No. Perhaps I will make it a little easier for you.

Male Christian preacher: it is morally wrong for two men to have sex with each other.
Male Christian preacher has sex with another man.
Male Christian preacher is a hypocrite.

He is a hypocrite whether or not I accept that it is morally wrong for two men to have sex with each other.

Just like DiAngelo is a hypocrite whether or not I agree with her theories.

And what point would you hope to make if she is in fact a hypocrite to the extent that you claim? That she is a hypocrite in that way, presumably. So you started a thread to identify a hypocrite. I don't get the point, other than that you'd have scored a point against someone who you already dislike because of their ideology, but you're saying (somewhat unconvincingly) that the ideology itself is not relevant to the discussion.

So as I said, come up to the front and get a small calling-out sticker, but not much else.

I accept things based on evidence.

Hm. Not convinced. If you want to claim to be rational about this, I think you'd need to demonstrate a bit more rational balance.

And the thing that cracks me up? Hypocrisy doesn't invalidate her point, especially insofar as her point is that she has privileges due to race.

It's a Tu Quoque fallacy to throw out the truth of her message just because she isn't following it. Of course, Metaphor believes that everyone ought to be psychic! Psychic with regards to knowing what is in other people's paychecks, psychic with regards to what is hidden in other people's pants...

Metaphor, I'm a wizard, and even I know that being psychic like that is a fantasy!

 

[ruby sparks]

And what point would you hope to make if she is in fact a hypocrite to the extent that you claim? That she is a hypocrite in that way, presumably. So you started a thread to identify a hypocrite. I don't get the point,

And I don't "get" the point of the endless plethoras of Trump-bashing threads, often four or five on the same topic, all responses in absolute lock-step with each other, and yet I'm not sure you feel the need to insert yourself into Trump-bashing threads to ask the Trump-bashers "what's the point?"

It is fucking tiresome for people to come into my threads to say 'I don't care about your opinions, your concerns are stupid', and leave.

But, if you feel pride in adding your voice to the multivoice yet monotonic hostility most of my threads get, congratulations.

I'm only commenting on how your own arguments are often undermined by the imbalance inherent in them. If you want to come here and call others out for the shortcomings in their positions, you should expect to get called out in return for the shortcomings in yours. And yes, a lack of reasonable balance is a shortcoming.

To repeat, saying that patriarchy, for example, is everywhere is as bad as saying it doesn't exist. And saying that critical race theory is wholly false is as bad as saying it is wholly true.

 

[Jarhyn]

And what point would you hope to make if she is in fact a hypocrite to the extent that you claim? That she is a hypocrite in that way, presumably. So you started a thread to identify a hypocrite. I don't get the point,

And I don't "get" the point of the endless plethoras of Trump-bashing threads, often four or five on the same topic, all responses in absolute lock-step with each other, and yet I'm not sure you feel the need to insert yourself into Trump-bashing threads to ask the Trump-bashers "what's the point?"

It is fucking tiresome for people to come into my threads to say 'I don't care about your opinions, your concerns are stupid', and leave.

But, if you feel pride in adding your voice to the multivoice yet monotonic hostility most of my threads get, congratulations.

I'm only commenting on how your own arguments are undermined by the imbalance involved in them. If you want to come here and call others out, you should expect to get called out in return.

God damn I HOPE it is tiresome. Metaphor, I don't care about your opinions, your concerns as expressed are stupid and hyperbolic, and always framed with an intent to broad brush the crazy of a few onto the sanity of the many.

The reason you get this monotonic response so frequently is that your vacuous one-sided criticisms of fringe crazies is clockwork predictable, and this is the emergent, correct response to such BULLSHIT.

Now, where was I... Oh yeah... Metaphor, your opinions are vacuous and your concerns are stupid... Now put away your Tu Quoque

 

[laughing dog]

And I don't "get" the point of the endless plethoras of Trump-bashing threads, often four or five on the same topic, all responses in absolute lock-step with each other, and yet I'm not sure you feel the need to insert yourself into Trump-bashing threads to ask the Trump-bashers "what's the point?"

Mr Trump is the leader of one of the mist powerful nations in the world - what he does may affect millions or billions of lives. Your targets of ire ate insignificant on scope and importance in comparison.

It is fucking tiresome for people to come into my threads to say 'I don't care about your opinions, your concerns are stupid', and leave.

Now you may have an idea how many readers feel about your threads. You take a report (frequently from less than reliable sources of a particular slant) from an alleged stupid statement or action (usually a woman), inject assumptions as fact to produce a catty attack on your target. If anyone points out the inevitable flaws or mistakes in your position, they are handwaved away.

In this thread, you assume that the reported difference in stipends for the apparent equal work is due to Ms DiAngelo’s white privilege or that Ms DiAngelo must think so. You have not offered one jot of independent evidence to support that claim. This may come as a shock to you, but it is possible you are mistaken.

ruby spark’s points are well-meaning and, if adopted, would improve the content snd tenor of your OPs which, in turn, should the ensuing discussion less fucking tiresome for all. with the added benefit of appearing to come from an honest desire to learn snd improve the world instead of the dyspeptic burps of a cranky conservative misogynist.

 

[Jarhyn]

And I don't "get" the point of the endless plethoras of Trump-bashing threads, often four or five on the same topic, all responses in absolute lock-step with each other, and yet I'm not sure you feel the need to insert yourself into Trump-bashing threads to ask the Trump-bashers "what's the point?"

Mr Trump is the leader of one of the mist powerful nations in the world - what he does may affect millions or billions of lives. Your targets of ire ate insignificant on scope and importance in comparison.

It is fucking tiresome for people to come into my threads to say 'I don't care about your opinions, your concerns are stupid', and leave.

Now you may have an idea how many readers feel about your threads. You take a report (frequently from less than reliable sources of a particular slant) from an alleged stupid statement or action (usually a woman), inject assumptions as fact to produce a catty attack on your target. If anyone points out the inevitable flaws or mistakes in your position, they are handwaved away.

In this thread, you assume that the reported difference in stipends for the apparent equal work is due to Ms DiAngelo’s white privilege or that Ms DiAngelo must think so. You have not offered one jot of independent evidence to support that claim. This may come as a shock to you, but it is possible you are mistaken.

ruby spark’s points are well-meaning and, if adopted, would improve the content snd tenor of your OPs which, in turn, should the ensuing discussion less fucking tiresome for all. with the added benefit of appearing to come from an honest desire to learn snd improve the world instead of the dyspeptic burps of a cranky conservative misogynist.

Like, I don't get how hard it is to take the step from "'Woke' are crazy, re: crazy 'Woke'" to "Hey 'Woke' folks, be careful not to be crazy re: crazy 'Woke'"

 

[Trausti]

The total was $20,000 between the two of them. In state tuition is roughly $10,000 per year. So 2 instate students could have had a free ride instead of the campus providing an opportunity for the campus community to hear potentially provocative speech.
Your commitment to the free market of ideas is duly noted.

Jebus. Sorry about your student loans, but we needed to pay this person bank to give a speech on something that can be seen on a youtube video.

Using your "reasoning", almost every subject and discipline that is taught at a University is available on the internet or a library. it is almost as if you have no clue what education entails and what broadening one's mind and exposure to different ideas actually means.

Uh, was she teaching a class? Do professors there make the same pay? And “broadening one’s mind”? Really? We all know there’s a monoculture on college campuses. If the college also paid speakers with an opposing view, maybe you’d have a point. But we all know that’s nor going to happen.

 

[laughing dog]

Using your "reasoning", almost every subject and discipline that is taught at a University is available on the internet or a library. it is almost as if you have no clue what education entails and what broadening one's mind and exposure to different ideas actually means.

Uh, was she teaching a class?

Totally irrelevant to the concept of exposure to different ideas and broadening the mind.

Do professors there make the same pay?

Totally irrelevant to the concept of exposure to different ideas snd broadening of the mind.

And “broadening one’s mind”? Really? We all know there’s a monoculture on college campuses.

Neither we nor you know anything of the kind - your belief that it is true does not make it so.

If the college also paid speakers with an opposing view, maybe you’d have a point. But we all know that’s nor going to happen.

No, we don’t know that. You conflate your uninformed beliefs with facts.

 

[Trausti]

Totally irrelevant to the concept of exposure to different ideas and broadening the mind.

Do professors there make the same pay?

Totally irrelevant to the concept of exposure to different ideas snd broadening of the mind.

And “broadening one’s mind”? Really? We all know there’s a monoculture on college campuses.

Neither we nor you know anything of the kind - your belief that it is true does not make it so.

If the college also paid speakers with an opposing view, maybe you’d have a point. But we all know that’s nor going to happen.

No, we don’t know that. You conflate your uninformed beliefs with facts.

I get it LD. You’re an adherent to the new religion. But it’s wrong that young people should have the yoke of student loans to pay for it.

 

[Trausti]

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.

Kinda like the millionaire televangelist who says he has to have the private jet to spread the good news. Grift is grift.

 

[laughing dog]

Totally irrelevant to the concept of exposure to different ideas and broadening the mind.
Totally irrelevant to the concept of exposure to different ideas snd broadening of the mind.
Neither we nor you know anything of the kind - your belief that it is true does not make it so.

If the college also paid speakers with an opposing view, maybe you’d have a point. But we all know that’s nor going to happen.

No, we don’t know that. You conflate your uninformed beliefs with facts.

I get it LD. You’re an adherent to the new religion.

If by "new religion" you mean rational fact-based thinking, then yes. I guess that makes you an adherent of some old religion.

But it’s wrong that young people should have the yoke of student loans to pay for it.

You have presented no evidence that revenue from tuition paid for this or that these funds were available for scholarships.

Really, your posts reveal an incredible lack of knowledge about universities and of higher education.