• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

White Fragility

TruthJonsen said:
This book is just one aspect of the current postmodern assault on modernity and liberalism. Liberals are used to fighting the right in matters of sexism and race. Now the attack comes from the extreme left. Some liberal academics are brave enough to fight this lunacy. They include: Bret Weinstein of the Evergreen State College situation and the staff at the New Discourses site. Below are some of the New Discourses articles on this book:

5 Reasons the Book “White Fragility” is Shallow and Destructive
https://newdiscourses.com/2020/06/5-reasons-book-white-fragility-shallow-destructive/

The Intellectual Fraud of Robin DiAngelo’s “White Fragility”
https://newdiscourses.com/2020/06/intellectual-fraud-robin-diangelos-white-fragility/

The Flaws in White Fragility Theory: A Primer
https://newdiscourses.com/2020/06/flaws-white-fragility-theory-primer/

The Problem with White Fragility
https://newdiscourses.com/2020/06/problem-white-fragility/

A Template for Resisting White Fragility in the Workplace
https://newdiscourses.com/2020/06/template-resisting-white-fragility-workplace/
Click to expand...

Thanks for the resources. I got the book today, but I can't read it without shouting at the walls. Maybe I'll just file White Fragility in my kook folder and be done with it.
 
johnny karate said:
Oh wait, I think I get how this works now...

Obviously, the book was meant as a joke to troll conservatives, and they totally fell for it.
Click to expand...

To be honest, one of the reasons I actually bothered to read it was because I saw Taibbi's comment about the Jackie Robinson passage and found it hard to believe he wasn't pulling my leg.
 
Last edited:
In addition to the links posted above, which are written in a more accessible way, one can also find more detailed criticisms of DiAngelo's work, for example The Epistemological Problem of White Fragility Theory by Jonathan Church. The article raises, among others, these points, which are then argued in detail:
DiAngelo’s thesis confuses objectivity with neutrality; dismissing objectivity as an ideological obstacle to knowledge (“there is no objective, neutral reality”); relies on anecdotal observations; suffers from a complete absence of rigorous hypothesis testing and quantitative measurement; and blithely ignores the principle of falsifiability, which distinguishes science from pseudoscience.
Click to expand...
After examining the text of the book for myself, I have to say that Church's objections do seem valid. From the perspective of a skeptic, these are very serious problems, and if not addressed, I would have to conclude that the concept of "white fragility", as presented in the book, fails to be more than pseudoscientific.
 
Isn't white fragility just a derogatory term to refer to a white dude who objects to being racially insulted? Kind of like saying "oh poor black me" to a black dude who points out racism? Or snowflake or any other term of ridicule? Never heard it used seriously before
 
BobTheCoward said:
I have no claim of having a position on that. I'm asking about your claim. If you argue it is or isn't reasonable, I would like to read why.
Click to expand...

That's because you're playing it safe and refusing to "think outside the box" on this. White woman crying is a problem, let's work around this. We've seen from the handy info graphic linked in post #37 that "don't show emotion" is a symptom of whiteness so if someone presenting as female should start to feel an overwhelming urge to burst into tears over the death of some rando then she might.

Announce to the room that she's of mixed race even though she has white passing privilege then, if she turns on the waterworks, it's not racist.

Announce to the room that she's on the gender spectrum and it's her the male component of her psyche that's doing the sobbing. If anyone objects, call them a transphobe and cry harder.

Announce to the room that you're a Muslim, a non practicing one who's strayed from the faith because of white people and their biases. If anyone objects, call them an Islamophobe.

Problem solved. :thumbsup:

The best way to defend against woke, is with a good woke offense. :)
 
Brainster said:
Has anybody else encountered this "impressively crazy" book, which is currently at or near the top of the Amazon and NY Times Bestseller lists?

Robin DiAngelo is a (white) diversity consultant, and she writes about the problems she encounters with other white people in her training sessions:



These are all expressions of white fragility which must be overcome according to DiAngelo. Others have noted that DiAngelo has created a logical trap for readers and seminar participants; if they disagree with her they are demonstrating their fragility and perpetuating racism.

Her version of the story of Jackie Robinson is rather eye-opening to say the least:



Is there any baseball fan who doesn't know that Jackie Robinson was the first black man whites allowed to play in the majors? Who doesn't know that players like Cool Papa Bell and Satchel Paige and Josh Gibson had MLB-ready skills decades before Robinson? It's a completely bizarre reimagining of the story which calls into question her grasp of the subject matter.

DiAngelo, while assuring us that she doesn't think any of the white people she mentions in her anecdotes are racist in what she considers the old-fashioned definition (people who are mean to persons of other races), certainly has a low opinion of them:



Seriously? Anybody who believes that racism ended in 1865 may not be a racist, but they are certainly a moron. Actually I'll take that back; they would have to be a racist to believe it because nobody could really be that stupid.

This definitely raised an eyebrow:


(Italics in original)

I think what DiAngelo means is that white progressives are the biggest pains in the ass in her training seminars.

The book is starting to get some needed attention. John McWhorter, writing in the Atlantic:



Matt Taibbi:
Click to expand...
I have just started reading this book but I haven't gotten too far into it yet. She seems to be making an argument similar to that of many progressive liberals--all non-Whites but especially blacks can't achieve anything unless White people let them and show them how. Ironically she casts aspersion on the fact that White people don't have any racial identity because they don't need to think about race. I'm curious to learn what she thinks White people need to do about this.
 
Thermal said:
Isn't white fragility just a derogatory term to refer to a white dude who objects to being racially insulted? Kind of like saying "oh poor black me" to a black dude who points out racism? Or snowflake or any other term of ridicule? Never heard it used seriously before
Click to expand...

I don't understand why you interpret as being insulted. I'm not offended by sociological observations.
 
There's actually a good bit criticism for the book and its approach to anti-racism from progressives. There's plenty of criticism from liberal-left circles that her approach and writing is bizarre, dogmatic, needlessly combative, and often incoherent. I've never read the book and don't intend to, but I've seen the solutions offered as more performative rather than substantial.


It's a dog's breakfast of PMC-lib virtue signaling. Catchy buzzwords and empty platitudes that allow white libs to emote about racism while doing nothing to address root issues. Catnip for the white people who think activism is renouncing their white privilege at some public event and posting a black square to social media or some other tedious nonsense.

It's become quite the niche industry. The HR department approach to solving racism. Another tedious seminar that employees, at penalty of losing their job, either zone out during or get told they're wrong for challenging a strange dogma offered by some hack guest speaker.

Indeed, the major shortcoming of White Fragility is that it offers almost nothing in the way of concrete political action. Though solving societywide inequality isn’t the goal of her book, DiAngelo notes—and, of course, it would be unrealistic to expect her to single-handedly accomplish such a thing—even her practical suggestions for what white people might do to combat racism amount to little more than personal introspection and self-improvement.
Click to expand...

https://newrepublic.com/article/156032/diversity-training-isnt-enough-pamela-newkirk-robin-diangelo-books-reviews

Of course, it's hard to discuss such things in good faith before a bunch of reactionary right wingers come in to assert that racism doesn't exist, or if it does, it's not that bad and nothing can or should be done.
 
Last edited:
I've been looking, but I cannot find a White Fragility app.

I think she is missing out here. It would be the perfect thing for a liberal white person to have on their smartphone for daily white fragility reminders.
 
angrysoba said:
I've been looking, but I cannot find a White Fragility app.

I think she is missing out here. It would be the perfect thing for a liberal white person to have on their smartphone for daily white fragility reminders.
Click to expand...

I think she's already at capacity doing HR speaking jobs. Maybe some up-and-coming grifter can wedge in here.
 
This sounds like a load of crap however sadly HR departments are often proponents of out and out woo that people are reluctant to challenge. I've lost count of the times I've had to kibosh "training " or "awareness" courses because it was complete garbage using some key currently fashionable buzz words.

This sounds like one of them.
 
TruthJonsen said:
This book is just one aspect of the current postmodern assault on modernity and liberalism. Liberals are used to fighting the right in matters of sexism and race. Now the attack comes from the extreme left. Some liberal academics are brave enough to fight this lunacy. They include: Bret Weinstein of the Evergreen State College situation and the staff at the New Discourses site. Below are some of the New Discourses articles on this book:

5 Reasons the Book “White Fragility” is Shallow and Destructive
https://newdiscourses.com/2020/06/5-reasons-book-white-fragility-shallow-destructive/

The Intellectual Fraud of Robin DiAngelo’s “White Fragility”
https://newdiscourses.com/2020/06/intellectual-fraud-robin-diangelos-white-fragility/

The Flaws in White Fragility Theory: A Primer
https://newdiscourses.com/2020/06/flaws-white-fragility-theory-primer/

The Problem with White Fragility
https://newdiscourses.com/2020/06/problem-white-fragility/

A Template for Resisting White Fragility in the Workplace
https://newdiscourses.com/2020/06/template-resisting-white-fragility-workplace/
Click to expand...

There are plenty of discussion and criticism of the book in legitimate media sources. AFAICT "newdiscourses" is a right wing site of no particular account or credibility that seems more interested in triggering right wing voters than providing legitimate discussion. Eg on his twitter feed of the author of a number of these articles seems to be a Trump supporter who is greatly amused by words like "pandumbic".
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
I searched within the text for both the terms "objective" and "linear" and couldn't find either. Could you identify the passage you're quoting from here?
Click to expand...

It was in an graphic that they have since taken down:

Since yesterday, certain content in the “Talking About Race” portal has been the subject of questions that we have taken seriously. We have listened to public sentiment and have removed a chart that does not contribute to the productive discussion we had intended.
Click to expand...

You can still see it here. It's pretty wacky.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom