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

[Metaphor]

1) she should have prevented that pay gap, or
2) she should rectify it by returning the difference in pay.

She knows it exists. It's public knowledge. But even if she somehow doesn't know, right now, (and she was contacted for comment about it), she still fails at point 1).

 

[ruby sparks]

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...

Personally, I'd rather accept he has a point and move on to discuss White Fragility the idea, about which much could be discussed and perhaps some things even agreed, or at least disagreements traded civilly, but I guess that's unlikely, as ever.

Ditto for the topic of antiracism, of which there are a variety of views and versions, some moderate some not, as there always are for such things, and not just the caricatures that get dolled out.

Someone, perhaps the OP, will say, 'start a new thread, this one is about calling out a hypocrite'. Boring boring boring, after a short while. A complete waste of a good opportunity to have a meaningful discussion imo.

 

[Jarhyn]

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...

Personally, I'd rather accept he has a point and move on to discuss White Fragility the idea, about which much could be discussed and perhaps some things even agreed, or at least disagreements traded civilly, but I guess that's unlikely, as ever.

Ditto for the topic of antiracism, of which there are a variety of views and versions, as there always are, and not just the caricatures that get dolled out.

Someone will say, 'start a new thread, this one is about calling out a hypocrite'. Boring boring boring, after a short while.

Which is my point: calling out a person for a single instance of hypocrisy? Has she had nothing to say or do a out the situation since?

The thread is just so GD boring, obscure woman from fringe feminist blogosphere that nobody has ever heard of before now does something that anyone could have ended up doing, but could be construed as hypocritical.

The fact is, the situation of the OP, if it is hypocrisy, proves her point, and that it takes a lot of work to be "anti-racist" sometimes because the world is full of people who will pay white people more, and it's not always obvious in the moment it is happening!

I agree with discussing the text of her position rather than the behavior of her person. I agree with doing that here because we both know that Metaphor won't participate in a new and separate thread on the merits of a position rather than the mistakes of people who hold said positions.

 

[ruby sparks]

I agree with discussing the text of her position rather than the behavior of her person.

To me, the ideas behind White Fragility are similar to longstanding ideas about 'checking your privileges'. In other words, I like the idea of exploring and analysing my own thoughts and actions about race, because (a) it will benefit me personally (who was it who said that a life unexamined is not worth living; attributed to Socrates I think) and (b) it may benefit those I come into contact with and thus (c) make a tiny difference to the society that I live in.

As to antiracism, that's a step further, but it needn't be a big one. At minimum it could be 'just don't be entirely passive, do something, sometimes at least, even if it's not very much, if a suitable opportunity arises'.

An interesting question is how much, in this arena of racial issues in western societies, and perhaps in particular the USA, an average white person should be (or could be said to be) obliged to do. I don't know the answer, and it will very much depend on the individual and the circumstances (a generally disadvantaged white person may not be obliged to do much if anything for a generally otherwise advantaged black person for instance). It's one thing to inwardly appreciate your own unearned advantages, but another thing to give up something to someone who might have fewer. That's essentially a personal sacrifice. Why should I make it? Charity begins at home, I have to look after myself, etc.

I think a reasonable bar might be to at least try to be self-aware, and also do something if you can, if it does not cost you much (cost in the broad sense and not just money). I might say that anything beyond that is optional but not obligatory.

A few simple examples:

1. Someone at a meeting you are attending, or a social event, comes out with something obviously and clearly racially prejudicial, perhaps even by accident or as attempted humour. There may or may not be a person present with the skin colour being referred to. It doesn't cost much to just chip in with a comment (or even just raised eyebrows). It doesn't have to be an overt calling out or an obvious chiding, just a counterpoint. You realise that everyone is fallible, including you, so you don't necessarily take a convenient position on higher, virtue-signalling moral ground. And for me, it'd have to be clear. I'm not going to start calling out every little possible thing, if I don't know the person or their views, and I also do tend to give some latitude to humour, which for me is valuable, and can be a part of healthy give and take banter, but it depends on several things, including context and perceived intent. It's a fine line though. But sometimes I fear that after the revolution, humour will not be tolerated.

2. Sometimes, you don't even have to explicitly articulate that you're doing it. For example, on a (pre-Covid) night out on the town, you go up to the bar and you try to get the attention of the (white) barman, because it's a really busy, crowded night at the bar. But you notice there's a black man who was already standing there for a while (and you are now beside him) and he's doing the same thing, but it seems to you the barman is not noticing him. Worse, he obviously does notice him because he makes brief eye contact with him frequently. After a while, it seems to you the barman is plainly and pointedly ignoring him in favour of other, white customers, even though there's nothing obviously awry about the black man (he doesn't seem too drunk already or anything). Eventually, the barman comes to you and asks you what your order is, and doesn't ask the guy standing right beside you, even though he's been there for longer. Of course, it may not be that the barman is being racist at all (that's the problem with covert or micro aggressions and the like, you can't be sure, and there could be other reasons the barman is not serving the guy) but there's just a feeling in your gut that he might be, even accidentally. So all you do, just in case, is say to the barman, indicating with your hand, 'actually I think this other guy was here before me'. Of course, one could say that you should do that anyway in that situation, no matter who is beside you, so perhaps that's not the best possible example.

3. Alternatively, it could just take the form of silently choosing, all other things being equal, to not buy something from someone or somewhere that you know to be a bit racially iffy, and to go elsewhere, if you can.

So, even if you think I've set a low bar there (which you easily may) I hope I've endorsed the ideas in question in a way that few could find objectionable. Which was my specific point in writing this long post.

 

[Metaphor]

The thread is just so GD boring, obscure woman from fringe feminist blogosphere that nobody has ever heard of before now does something that anyone could have ended up doing, but could be construed as hypocritical.

I love Jarhyn's misogyny here: DiAngelo, who has been on the bestseller list for years, is an 'obscure woman' from a 'fringe feminist blogosphere' that 'nobody has ever heard of before'. He didn't even look up who she was.

 

[fromderinside]

Comparatively she is an obscure woman from, has to be a fringe feminist, what other kind is there? As for not knowing I put that comment right up there with not knowing the guy who shepherded the demise of Eastern Airlines who was an moon landing astronaut.

 

[Metaphor]

Comparatively she is an obscure woman from, has to be a fringe feminist, what other kind is there? As for not knowing I put that comment right up there with not knowing the guy who shepherded the demise of Eastern Airlines who was an moon landing astronaut.

Jarhyn didn't have to know. He didn't even look her up, despite commenting multiple times in the thread.

I'm certain DiAngelo would call herself a feminist but she is not known for feminist writing, and her feminist thoughts (if any) are not the subject of the thread.

 

[laughing dog]

The thread is just so GD boring, obscure woman from fringe feminist blogosphere that nobody has ever heard of before now does something that anyone could have ended up doing, but could be construed as hypocritical.

I love Jarhyn's misogyny here: DiAngelo, who has been on the bestseller list for years, is an 'obscure woman' from a 'fringe feminist blogosphere' that 'nobody has ever heard of before'. He didn't even look up who she was.

That one destroyed my super duper irony meter.given your documented penchant for hyperbole and persistent attacks on women who say things you don't like.

She knows it exists. It's public knowledge. But even if she somehow doesn't know, right now, (and she was contacted for comment about it), she still fails at point 1).

So what if she failed to prevent the gap? No one is perfect. It could be a lapse of judgment for all you know. It need not be a sign of hypocrisy.

 

[Jarhyn]

That one destroyed my super duper irony meter.given your documented penchant for hyperbole and persistent attacks on women who say things you don't like.

She knows it exists. It's public knowledge. But even if she somehow doesn't know, right now, (and she was contacted for comment about it), she still fails at point 1).

So what if she failed to prevent the gap? No one is perfect. It could be a lapse of judgment for all you know. It need not be a sign of hypocrisy.

And there he is swinging Tu Quoque around again. He's so proud of his Tu Quoque, no matter how shriveled and insufficient it is.

The fact is, most feminists haven't even heard of her. Now, regardless of how well she is known, metaphor still has no explanation of what happened AFTER she heard about the discrepancy. Metaphor, do you have any example, evidence, statement, etc. That describes in any way her actions relating to this once she found out (assuming she found out at all; I could well imagine she has lots ng had strategies in place to filter away whatever hate faucet the likes of Metaphor have probably opened up on her for holding her principles at all let alone failing once at upholding them!)

 

[Metaphor]

That one destroyed my super duper irony meter.given your documented penchant for hyperbole and persistent attacks on women who say things you don't like.

And yet every single word was true.

So what if she failed to prevent the gap? No one is perfect. It could be a lapse of judgment for all you know. It need not be a sign of hypocrisy.

No, you had the right instinct. Nothing is a sign of hypocrisy. DiAngelo had actually been blackmailed, probably by QAnon or the alt-white or somebody, to not respond.

 

[Metaphor]

And there he is swinging Tu Quoque around again. He's so proud of his Tu Quoque, no matter how shriveled and insufficient it is.

For the readers keeping up at home, I haven't made any tu quoque arguments in this thread. Not a single one.

The fact is, most feminists haven't even heard of her.

Honey, you could make a new Mariana Trench with how deep you've dug yourself. It might be time to put the shovel down, hun.

For the readers keeping up at home, I haven't identified DiAngelo as a feminist. It was not in the thread title, the OP, nor anywhere else, until fromderinside called her one.

Now, regardless of how well she is known, metaphor still has no explanation of what happened AFTER she heard about the discrepancy. Metaphor, do you have any example, evidence, statement, etc. That describes in any way her actions relating to this once she found out (assuming she found out at all; I could well imagine she has lots had strategies in place to filter away whatever hate faucet the likes of Metaphor have probably opened up on her for holding her principles at all let alone failing once at upholding them!)

I've already explained more than once that she was contacted for comment about the very story, multiple times, and did not respond.

 

[laughing dog]

That one destroyed my super duper irony meter.given your documented penchant for hyperbole and persistent attacks on women who say things you don't like.

And yet every single word was true.

So what if she failed to prevent the gap? No one is perfect. It could be a lapse of judgment for all you know. It need not be a sign of hypocrisy.

No, you had the right instinct. Nothing is a sign of hypocrisy.

Clearly you did not understand what anyone who can read and "logic" would see that "It need not be a sign of hypocrisy" that it means it is possible that it is hypocrisy or that it is not hypocrisy. Of course, you can choose to conclude it is a sign of hypocrisy, but it means you it is not good evidence that the conclusion it is hypocrisy is a valid one.

DiAngelo had actually been blackmailed, probably by QAnon or the alt-white or somebody, to not respond.

Please explain what this babble is supposed to mean or address?

 

[Metaphor]

Clearly you did not understand what anyone who can read and "logic" would see that "It need not be a sign of hypocrisy" that it means it is possible that it is hypocrisy or that it is not hypocrisy. Of course, you can choose to conclude it is a sign of hypocrisy, but it means you it is not good evidence that the conclusion it is hypocrisy is a valid one.

I've already explained how it might not be hypocrisy. Perhaps DiAngelo sought assurance and got it that the organisers were paying keynote speakers equally. Perhaps DiAngelo quietly rectified the situation after finding out (though it would be better, presumably, if she had made that public, better for herself and the message she is promoting).

You can invent a universe of reasons it might not be hypocrisy. But we've got no reason to believe we live in that universe.

 

[laughing dog]

Clearly you did not understand what anyone who can read and "logic" would see that "It need not be a sign of hypocrisy" that it means it is possible that it is hypocrisy or that it is not hypocrisy. Of course, you can choose to conclude it is a sign of hypocrisy, but it means you it is not good evidence that the conclusion it is hypocrisy is a valid one.

I've already explained how it might not be hypocrisy. Perhaps DiAngelo sought assurance and got it that the organisers were paying keynote speakers equally. Perhaps DiAngelo quietly rectified the situation after finding out (though it would be better, presumably, if she had made that public, better for herself and the message she is promoting).

Gotcha - your previous response of "Nothing is hypocrisy" was hypocritical.

You can invent a universe of reasons it might not be hypocrisy. But we've got no reason to believe we live in that universe.

Spoken like a true faith-driven ideologue who relies on belief in the unseen to justify their religion. And, of course, since you have admitted your beliefs are irrational since you cannot control them. You devised reasons based on your visceral hatred for Ms. DiAngelo's theories for it to be hypocrisy without any relevant factual knowledge of Ms. DiAngelo's information. You deny any reasonable deviation for your faith-driven conclusion. While you may choose to live in such an ignorant and nasty universe, I do not.

Despite all your rationalizations, evasions, assertions of faith and pedantry, you have not made a convincing case to a disinterested observer.

 

[Emily Lake]

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

That's... well, pretty much exactly what she writes in her (idiotic and insulting) book... and pretty much exactly what she gets paid to lecture people about.

 

[Emily Lake]

No, I am not an expert on Ms. DiAnglo's views. Frankly, I don't have time for minor views and theories.

So... I understand the compulsion to oppose anything Met writes... but in this case I'm going to respectfully suggest that you take a wee bit of time and familiarize yourself with DiAngelo's views. She's currently making absolute shitloads of money giving workshops to employees at various companies, essentially telling them that all white people are inherently (and irrevocably) racist, and that if they don't admit that they are racist, that's just proof that they are in denial about their racism and are too fragile to face up to the truth of their racism.

We have a lot of racial bias and systemic discrimination to deal with as a country... but this woman is frankly offensive. Her views are pretty abhorrent.

The fact that she made a lot more than the black speaker... and that she refuses to comment on or make restitution after having been made aware of that discrepancy... pretty much makes her a rife hypocrite. By her own ideology - the one she's charging people tons of cash to lecture on, mind you - she needs to be shamed and held accountable for her racism and her benefit gleaned from privilege.

Seriously, I'm all for fixing our broken racial relationships, and there's a whole lot that needs to be done. But LD, DiAngelo is NOT a person to take up arms white knighting.

 

[Emily Lake]

Here's an interesting review of the book, as well as DiAngelo's entire premise, written by a black man.

The Dehumanizing Condescension of White Fragility
The popular book aims to combat racism but talks down to Black people.

White Fragility is, in the end, a book about how to make certain educated white readers feel better about themselves. DiAngelo’s outlook rests upon a depiction of Black people as endlessly delicate poster children within this self-gratifying fantasy about how white America needs to think—or, better, stop thinking. Her answer to white fragility, in other words, entails an elaborate and pitilessly dehumanizing condescension toward Black people. The sad truth is that anyone falling under the sway of this blinkered, self-satisfied, punitive stunt of a primer has been taught, by a well-intentioned but tragically misguided pastor, how to be racist in a whole new way.

 

[Metaphor]

Gotcha - your previous response of "Nothing is hypocrisy" was hypocritical.

No hun. My previous response was sarcastic.

Spoken like a true faith-driven ideologue who relies on belief in the unseen to justify their religion. And, of course, since you have admitted your beliefs are irrational since you cannot control them.

That isn't what irrational means, nor do I conflate not choosing my beliefs with being unable to "control" them, which is a term usually applied to emotions.

You devised reasons based on your visceral hatred for Ms. DiAngelo's theories for it to be hypocrisy without any relevant factual knowledge of Ms. DiAngelo's information. You deny any reasonable deviation for your faith-driven conclusion. While you may choose to live in such an ignorant and nasty universe, I do not.

Despite all your rationalizations, evasions, assertions of faith and pedantry, you have not made a convincing case to a disinterested observer.

Alright luv.

 

[laughing dog]

No hun. My previous response was sarcastic. stupid.

FIFY

That isn't what irrational means, nor do I conflate not choosing my beliefs with being unable to "control" them, which is a term usually applied to emotions.

You wrote what you wrote. You did claim people could not will or choose their beliefs - which makes those beliefs irrational.

You devised reasons based on your visceral hatred for Ms. DiAngelo's theories for it to be hypocrisy without any relevant factual knowledge of Ms. DiAngelo's information. You deny any reasonable deviation for your faith-driven conclusion. While you may choose to live in such an ignorant and nasty universe, I do not.

Despite all your rationalizations, evasions, assertions of faith and pedantry, you have not made a convincing case to a disinterested observer.

Alright luv.

Finally, an honest response.

 

[Metaphor]

FIFY

I am sorry that you have particular deficits processing language, and are unable to understand that words can sometimes be uttered that are counterfactual but are not lies nor hypocritical.

For example, when I wrote the words, 'nothing is hypocrisy', the literal words were not a reflection of my beliefs. I know you never make counterfactual statements so it might be hard for you to understand.

You wrote what you wrote. You did claim people could not will or choose their beliefs - which makes those beliefs irrational.

It doesn't make them anything of the kind. Believing things that you have a good reason to believe is enough to make a belief rational.

I do not believe in libertarian free will and that includes the freedom to choose beliefs. I'm sorry if you cling to your fantasy of freedom or you think it's necessary to make a person 'rational'.

Finally, an honest response.

Luv, the response was honest, certainly. It was an honest expression of how not alright your response was, and how responding to your continual desperate attempts to explain away DiAngelo's obvious hypocrisy and your nasty attacks on me is just not worth the mental energy.