sounds like you’re setting up a
to me…
Also, did you read this one @McNulty ?
Yes, and many other pieces of crap from McWhorter like this one.
I do still owe your piece a read. I didn’t forget that.
Yep, McWhorter is solid, just about anything I’ve read from him. His talk with Sam Harris some time back was good too, nice to be of a like mind with people of this caliber in a strange time.
I suspect that deep down, most know that none of this catechism makes any sense. Less obvious is that it was not even composed with logic in mind. The self-contradiction of these tenets is crucial, in revealing that Third Wave Antiracism is not a philosophy but a religion.
1 Like
Indeed, I’ve mentioned both Sam Harris and Jonathan Haidt in recent posts. I’m not familiar enough with McWhorter to have an opinion (looks vaguely familiar but this is probably all I’ve read).
The idea that an academic philosophy has morphed into a religion has been put forward for a while
1 Like
It’s worse than that because as always the goalposts have moved, now the mantra is “silence is violence” which means if you don’t embrace the view being espoused you are seen as the enemy.
Conform or be cast out. If you are one who sees the riots last year as political and not organic, one might be cynical enough to think the violence was aimed at big name retailers, conform and support our message or see your retail shops burn down to the ground and don’t forget a large donation or else.
Listening to the Haight piece.
Full of generalized assumptions about the left. He never articluates what positions the left takes he takes umbrage with. Just assumes the far left is religious, and universities have been taken over by a wave of far left fundamentalists. Argument by repetition.
We can say ‘the left has a religious fanaticism towards race/gender/class issues’ over and over but until there’s a clear distinction made beyond just a general sense of ‘far left ideas’ this is meaningless.
So let me ask you: Which policies are “too far left”, and which are sensible? Since this guy is muddying the waters.
I’ve listened carefully and attentively to that video you linked to. I now ask you to give a careful attentive read to this piece as well, its not perfect but its the closest effective rebuttal and it provides a proper historical context, which Haight/McWorter et all never do. Their understanding of race relations is completely a historical.
Please give this a read, thanks:
I object to the title, which I find to be
Also, I don’t read Salon for the same reasons I don’t read Breitbart
1 Like
Ok we’re done here then. This is not a good faith discussion. You have not even considered the ideas, know nothing of the author. Salon and Breitbart not anywhere near the same. It is clear you are unwilling to consider your own dogma while telling everyone on the “left”–who you leave undefined–that they are dogmatic, but giving no valid reasons why. Even when asked.
I answer in kind my friend
1 Like
I’ve answered every question you’ve asked me, and read every piece of info you asked me to consider in good faith. I request you do the same. Thanks.
Oh, did you read that article from yesterday? This is the first I’m hearing about that…
Which article? All I see is you linked to a video. Perhaps I missed it. There are a lot of posts on Forumosa. Can you re send it?
Keep scrolling up. Also, I asked yesterday if you ate fish. No answer. Geez, if I didn’t know better I’d think
Yes, and I just looked at what he sent me, carefully considered the info in the video, and replied at length in the post just above. Thanks.
Keep scrolling up. It was after I had to quote the piece and then you said you didn’t watch the video that I said OK, as long as I can skip your stuff too. If you can’t keep up, don’t call it bad faith on the part of others. Not nice.
edit: Good examples of peak woke though. Otherwise all this back and forth would be as irrelevant as Canada!
1 Like
If it’s the LA Times piece, I don’t have a subscription so if you can provide a link I can read I’d appreciate it. Thanks!
No, it was this one that you didn’t read, not that one that you didn’t read
Which suggests that when you said you read everything, that was actually total BS, would you not agree?
Neither do I, like many sites they give a couple freebies a month. Good paper, the LA Times; if you ever consider broader reading I recommend it!
1 Like
What are you talking about? I read that and we discussed it at length. I thought I was the senile one here. 
We had a long back and forth about it and discussed the titles of the fake papers at length.
I’ve read this, and also watched the video you linked to.
Nice dig! It’s not as if I’ve never heard of the L.A. Times. I just can’t access this article you sent.
I politely request that you read the piece I sent, as I have considered all the material you sent me in good faith. I’d like to know what you think.
Thanks
In fact we discussed the general topic at length and although I was patient eventually I did say
and then there was
And then you accused me of not engaging with you in good faith. Which is textbook peak woke.