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

[Metaphor]

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.

I didn't say or imply it did.

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...

No. If you didn't have me on ignore, perhaps you wouldn't be so confident in your ignorant mouthing off, because you'd see exactly how DiAngelo could have avoided the situation, and it didn't require her to be psychic in any way.

 

[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.

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.

That's your opinion. You appear to be operating on a principal that 'outright denial of something existing is 'unbalanced and bad'. The luminiferous aether doesn't exist either, ruby sparks, and it is not extreme to say so. It's a fact.

 

[Metaphor]

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.

Critical race theory is not insignificant, but even if it were, so what?

Now you may have an idea how many readers feel about your threads.

Really - I have an idea about how it is to be in the vast majority opinion and have people agree lock-step with every OP I start?

I don't know what that's like, ld.

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.

I offered my reasoning in detail. If you disagree with one of my premises, explain to me why. Note that it doesn't matter if the difference was due to DiAngelo's white privilege, but that she must concede so if she is consistent with her own espoused positions. DiAngelo thinks racism takes part in every interaction.

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.

Ah yes, there it is. I'm a "misogynist" now.

 

[Toni]

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 how universities handle this situation: Do they offer a fee to a speaker they'd like? Or do they choose a speaker and pay the fee if it falls within a range that has been deemed appropriate?

I am unfamiliar with either of those speakers in this discussion but if one is a 'bigger name' or more sought after, it would seem likely that that person would command a larger speaking fee. Oprah Winfrey would likely command a lot higher fee for a speaking engagement than, well I would although clearly she does not need the money and I wouldn't mind having a bit more in the bank.

 

[laughing dog]

Critical race theory is not insignificant, but even if it were, so what?

Most people have not heard of the theory, and my guess is that a significant number of its critics don't know the theory. The fact that it bothers you does not make it significant. Significant ideas and actions (specially those by people with great power) will generate more notice and criticisms than insignificant ones. Duh.

Really - I have an idea about how it is to be in the vast majority opinion and have people agree lock-step with every OP I start?

I don't know what that's like, ld.

I assume you are feigning obtuseness, because it was clear I meant most readers find your threads to be "fucking tiresome". If not, intelligent discussion is not possible with you at all

I offered my reasoning in detail.

And your "reasoning" has been examined and flaws have been pointed out.

If you disagree with one of my premises, explain to me why....

Been there and done that. It was fucking tiresome after the first time.

Ah yes, there it is. I'm a "misogynist" now.

First, the appearance of misogyny is not "now". But more importantly, it is truly fucking tiresome how you persistently miss the point. I used to have great respect for your arguments and positions, even when I disagreed with them. Not any more. I see them as pathetic pathetic petty, reactionary ad hom complaints about the women with whom you disagree.

 

[ruby sparks]

You appear to be operating on a principal that 'outright denial of something existing is 'unbalanced and bad'.

Nope, I'm not.

Despite your ridiculous denialism, patriarchy clearly still exists, to varying degrees depending on location. In fact, you yourself even cited it in another recent thread. Lol.

 

[Metaphor]

I assume you are feigning obtuseness, because it was clear I meant most readers find your threads to be "fucking tiresome". If not, intelligent discussion is not possible with you at all

No, I don't know how people can find my threads 'fucking tiresome' in the same way I experience the threads on this board.

I start perhaps one or two threads a week on this board (I'd have to go back and take a census to be sure), on topics that almost no other poster starts threads on. Yet, this is supposed to be 'fucking tiresome' to people? Meanwhile, apparently, nobody finds tiresome the fifth thread of the day opened to discuss some utterance from Trump, which, despite 99% of posters agreeing that whatever it is that Trump said was stupid and hateful, somehow the threads go on and on.

And your "reasoning" has been examined and flaws have been pointed out.

No, they were not flaws. I have explained to you why DiAngelo's knowledge about what other people were paid was irrelevant to my point. You did not and have not acknowledged that.

First, the appearance of misogyny is not "now". But more importantly, it is truly fucking tiresome how you persistently miss the point. I used to have great respect for your arguments and positions, even when I disagreed with them. Not any more. I see them as pathetic pathetic petty, reactionary ad hom complaints about the women with whom you disagree.

Misogyny "appears" everywhere to people who expect for it to appear everywhere.

It beggars belief that you are complaining that I am making an ad hominem complaint against Robin DiAngelo, as if ad hominem complaints grind your gears, when this entire board is an ad hominem complaint against Trump.

Of course my OP was an ad hom complaint against DiAngelo. That was the point of the OP. DiAngelo did something hypocritical.

But instead of somebody, somewhere, having the cojones to admit the hypocrisy for what it was, there is nothing but resistance to even the slightest implication that anybody other than Trump or a Republican could do something wrong.

 

[Metaphor]

You appear to be operating on a principal that 'outright denial of something existing is 'unbalanced and bad'.

Nope, I'm not.

Despite your ridiculous denialism, patriarchy clearly still exists, to varying degrees depending on location. In fact, you yourself even cited it in another recent thread. Lol.

You'll have to point out where I 'cited' it, because here you imply I cited it as if I believed it exists in the way feminists claim, which I feel I almost certainly did not do. Perhaps you mistook a citation that was dripping with sarcasm as unironic endorsement. I've noticed some people on this board appear to miss what the dullest boy in my year 8 English class would recognise was sarcasm.

 

[ruby sparks]

You'll have to point out where I 'cited' it, because here you imply I cited it as if I believed it exists in the way feminists claim, which I feel I almost certainly did not do.

Nice try, but no one suggested that you accepted it existed 'in the way feminists claim'.

You said that current Finnish Family Law contains conservative, traditionalist policies that are essentially patriarchal.

Of course, that was a different thread, where it suited you to complain about patriarchy.

It seems a bit odd, complaining about something that doesn't exist.

 

[laughing dog]

No, I don't know how people can find my threads 'fucking tiresome' in the same way I experience the threads on this board.

Since you are not special, your lack of empathy is duly noted.

I start perhaps one or two threads a week on this board (I'd have to go back and take a census to be sure), on topics that almost no other poster starts threads on.

Which are predictable crankly ad hom complaints about something some woman said.

Yet, this is supposed to be 'fucking tiresome' to people? Meanwhile, apparently, nobody finds tiresome the fifth thread of the day opened to discuss some utterance from Trump, which, despite 99% of posters agreeing that whatever it is that Trump said was stupid and hateful, somehow the threads go on and on.

Your hyperbolic rhetoric makes your claims appear delusional.

No, they were not flaws. I have explained to you why DiAngelo's knowledge about what other people were paid was irrelevant to my point. You did not and have not acknowledged that.

Yes, they are flawed.

Misogyny "appears" everywhere to people who expect for it to appear everywhere.

It also appears when it actually occurs. Duh.

It beggars belief that you are complaining that I am making an ad hominem complaint against Robin DiAngelo, as if ad hominem complaints grind your gears, when this entire board is an ad hominem complaint against Trump.

Your hyperbolic rhetoric makes your claims appear delusional. This entire board is not an ad hominem complaint against Trump. There are plenty of threads that have nothing to do with Trump.

My point was is that your OPs are basically hyperbolic ad hom complaints against some woman with whom you disagree.

Of course my OP was an ad hom complaint against DiAngelo.

Thank you for admitting the obvious - I realize it was difficult for you.

That was the point of the OP. DiAngelo did something hypocritical.

No, the point of the OP is that DiAngelo did something you believe is hypocritical. Again, your belief does not make something true.

But instead of somebody, somewhere, having the cojones to admit the hypocrisy for what it was, there is nothing but resistance to even the slightest implication that anybody other than Trump or a Republican could do something wrong.

whataboutisms" are not arguments but immature whines. Your "whataboutisms" are fucking tiresome squared.

 

[Metaphor]

You said that current Finnish Family Law contains conservative, traditionalist policies that are essentially patriarchal.

I would not have said that. I would have said conservative and traditionalist, but I would not have agreed they were 'the patriarchy'.

Many of the structures that feminists claim exist do exist, but not for the reasons they claim.

Of course, that was a different thread, where it suited you to complain about patriarchy.

It seems a bit odd, complaining about something that doesn't exist.

Traditional conservatism exists, and it is gynocentric.

 

[Metaphor]

Your hyperbolic rhetoric makes your claims appear delusional. This entire board is not an ad hominem complaint against Trump. There are plenty of threads that have nothing to do with Trump.

My goodness you are selective in your outrage at the use of hyperbole.

whataboutisms" are not arguments but immature whines. Your "whataboutisms" are fucking tiresome squared.

It isn't a whataboutism. It's a complaint that there is massive resistance to even the slightest suggestion that somebody other than Trump or a Republican had a failure of some kind.

 

[laughing dog]

Your hyperbolic rhetoric makes your claims appear delusional. This entire board is not an ad hominem complaint against Trump. There are plenty of threads that have nothing to do with Trump.

My goodness you are selective in your outrage at the use of hyperbole.

Your projection is a pathetic attempt at deflection is duly noted. Even in the Politics forum, the proportion of anti-Trump threads is way less than 90% . And not every anti-Trump thread or post is an ad hom.

It isn't a whataboutism. It's a complaint that there is massive resistance to even the slightest suggestion that somebody other than Trump or a Republican had a failure of some kind.

Ignoring the fact your claim is horseshit, it is irrelevant to the discussion. Possible explanations for its introduction include“whataboutism” or utter stupidity. Of course, there are probably more imaginative ones.

 

[Metaphor]

Your projection is a pathetic attempt at deflection is duly noted. Even in the Politics forum, the proportion of anti-Trump threads is way less than 90% . And not every anti-Trump thread or post us an ad hom.

Every single Trump thread contains name-calling, ad hominems, and general negative character comments about Trump and anyone who voted for him.

Every. Single. One. It is so common (calling him 'Cheato', etc) that you might not even notice any more, but it's there and it's relentless.

Ignoring the fact your claim is horseshit, it is irrelevant to the discussion. The only rationals for its introduction is either “whataboutism” or utter stupidity.

I introduced Trump threads to explain to you that no, other people do not know the 'fucking tiresome' time I've had, because the situations are simply not equivalent. By sheer number, "anti-Woke" OPs and threads are outnumbered by anti-Trump ones at least 10 to 1.

And DiAngelo's hypocrisy, meanwhile, is quietly forgotten.

 

[Arctish]

You have not provided evidence of hypocrisy. You have merely asserted that DiAngelo being paid more than a black woman was hypocrisy on her part, and dismissed all other possible explanations such as her not knowing what other people are paid, and not being in a position to dictate the terms of everyone else's contracts.

 

[Metaphor]

You have not provided evidence of hypocrisy. You have merely asserted that DiAngelo being paid more than a black woman was hypocrisy on her part, and dismissed all other possible explanations such as her not knowing what other people are paid, and not being in a position to dictate the terms of everyone else's contracts.

You haven't read a word of what I've said. I've already explained that she probably did not know, but that not knowing is not sufficient to excuse her, and I've also explained how her knowing now, but still not doing anything about it, is hypocritical.

I've also explained that she is in a position to withdraw unless she got assurance that keynote speakers of colour were paid at least as much as white keynote speakers, assurance which she did not seek.

 

[Arctish]

You have not provided evidence of hypocrisy. You have merely asserted that DiAngelo being paid more than a black woman was hypocrisy on her part, and dismissed all other possible explanations such as her not knowing what other people are paid, and not being in a position to dictate the terms of everyone else's contracts.

You haven't read a word of what I've said. I've already explained that she probably did not know, but that not knowing is not sufficient to excuse her, and I've also explained how her knowing now, but still not doing anything about it, is hypocritical.

I've also explained that she is in a position to withdraw unless she got assurance that keynote speakers of colour were paid at least as much as white keynote speakers, assurance which she did not seek.

I read every word you wrote in this thread. You admit you don't know the details but apparently don't see how that renders your accusation baseless. You don't even know what those speaking fees were based on, or who negotiated them. If her agent negotiated a bigger speaking fee because she sold more books than the other author, how is it hypocrisy for her to accept the offer?

 

[ruby sparks]

You said that current Finnish Family Law contains conservative, traditionalist policies that are essentially patriarchal.

I would not have said that. I would have said conservative and traditionalist, but I would not have agreed they were 'the patriarchy'.

Not only did I not say you cited patriarchy 'as feminists conceive of it', but I did not say 'the patriarchy', only patriarchy.

Many of the structures that feminists claim exist do exist, but not for the reasons they claim.

So......does that include patriarchy, or not? Because 'not existing' and 'existing, but not for claimed reasons' are obviously two different things.

I don't recall you adding these qualifiers before. Perhaps, in the past, you meant 'the patriarchy does not exist as conceived of by feminists or for the reasons they claim'.

If so, that's good to know, and in many ways I might largely agree with you (albeit without perhaps being as irked about it as you).

But does that not open the way to saying something like, 'patriarchy was, and still is to some degree depending on location, a social phenomenon/structure and an issue, but Feminism, by and large, and especially in modern, western contexts, overstates and oversimplifies it to the point that it skews the matter'?

In other words, can you concede to Feminism that they are addressing a real thing, but just doing it ...'badly'?

I think a lot of people could agree with that. Others (including many feminists perhaps) might disagree. And a heated debate might follow. But I think it'd at least be a debate between two valid points of view.



As for DiAngelo specifically, I tend to agree with you. This does not, on the face of it, seem impressive. I'd say she currently has potential egg on her face. How much it might bother her, I don't know. Little reputational potholes like this can be gotten out of. And she has already done very well financially from her book, so that money is in the bank.

I would just add one thing. If (if) the difference in speaking fees here is normal, ie reflects a not unusual difference between two keynote speakers when one is simply more famous (and as often therefore more expensive) than the other, then it may not have anything to do with race at all.

ETA: Ok I was not familiar, but have just checked. Apparently Austin Channing Brown is also a bestselling author.

 

[TomC]

I would just add one thing. If (if) the difference in speaking fees here is normal, ie reflects a not unusual difference between two keynote speakers when one is simply more famous (and as often therefore more expensive) than the other, then it may not have anything to do with race at all.

Exactly.

Would Michelle Obama do this gig for $12K?

I doubt it.

Nothing about racism, she's just got more star power.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

Your projection is a pathetic attempt at deflection is duly noted. Even in the Politics forum, the proportion of anti-Trump threads is way less than 90% . And not every anti-Trump thread or post us an ad hom.

Every single Trump thread contains name-calling, ad hominems, and general negative character comments about Trump and anyone who voted for him.

Every. Single. One. It is so common (calling him 'Cheato', etc) that you might not even notice any more, but it's there and it's relentless.

LOL - a "whataboutism" that does not deal with the actual content of your previous false claims and injects insubstantiated claims.

I introduced Trump threads to explain to you that no, other people do not know the 'fucking tiresome' time I've had, because the situations are simply not equivalent. By sheer number, "anti-Woke" OPs and threads are outnumbered by anti-Trump ones at least 10 to 1.

Ah, the "utter stupidity" option it is. This started with my observation "Now you know how your readers feel" - and you are trying to turn it around onto you. That is fucking pathetic and tiresome.

And DiAngelo's hypocrisy, meanwhile, is quietly forgotten.

Again y your belief something is true does not make it true. A number of posters agree that you have not made your case. Which, at the least, suggests you need to make a more convincing argument.