Ta-Nehisi Coates Rules, The Thread

discussing a little bit in one of the 20 threads currently being updated about residual 2016 bullshit

yes this article was mainly about the 2016 primary and the future direction of the democratic party, so that makes sense

they didn't even bother to link it in the other one. great article in any case.

TNC is an increasingly beautiful stylist whose central idea here strikes me as pretty obvious, not sure who really seeks to refute it

some issues raised with one part of his argument (for the record this particular LDR is not white)

The new Ta-Nehisi Coates piece is beautiful, but deeply limited analysis that only comforts the already comfortable.https://t.co/1ESvHGSokn

— Lana Del Raytheon (@LanaDelRaytheon) September 7, 2017

there's an extended monologue from Suzan Lori Parks' 'Father Comes Home From the Wars' where a white confederate colonel talks about how he thanks every day he was born white and how even though he may lose everything and be dirt poor a king will still meet with him because he's white. That paragraph in the T-NC piece about 'if a black man can be president then any white man can be president' really reminds me of that only... not satirical? I know SLP meant that monologue sincerely but it's presented as comedy before it grows grimmer and grimmer. T-NC version is just bleak as f.

I didn't get the impression that Coates was aiming to comfort anyone.

Don't know that pointing out all the ways Trump and Obama are indistinguishable really advances or addresses any of the ideas Coates is bringing.

xp

he's specifically taking issue with the notion of Trump undoing O's "legacy", I don't think it's an unfair or irrelevant criticism to point out the common ground

I've read the "comforts the already comfortable" a few places already. He's not a polemicist!

I don't really like that characterization either tbh

it strikes me as pretty ridiculous to dismiss TNC for not doing enough to "challenge" his audience and then falling back on the argument that trump is rly no different than obama because obama didn't just throw all the bankers in prison, a ridiculous stance but one that's certainly calculated to please an audience made up of left-wing doofs on twitter who can't handle any argument more nuanced than "they're all the same, those bums"

I apologize to straight people for not explaining to them what they should do. I'm not comparing TNC to Baldwin -- he's not at Baldwin's level of erudition or despair -- but Baldwin offered even less than TNC.

I think Coates is right that Trump's presidency is symbolically about undoing Obama's presidency. I think that's what it was about for many of his voters and maybe even for Trump himself, regardless of policy overlap.

Coates is a powerful writer and since, deep down, I probably care more about writing than politics this goes a long way with me. I think his descriptions of the dismal psychology of white supremacy are dead on for a certain kind of person, who clings to whiteness as a desperate way to hold onto some kind of status. I also appreciated how he pointed out that "white working class" voters weren't more into Trump than other demographics of whites, that pinning all the blame on them is a way for the white professional class to distance themselves from Trump while continuing to demonize the working class. Two birds, one stone.

I guess my only issue with this piece is that I don't understand what kind of politics could begin to address any of this. I know this isn't the question he is dealing with here. But it comes up when he criticizes Bernie Sanders for trying to reach out to the "white working class" by identifying himself as such, or when he tries to take apart the argument that part of Trump's appeal comes from "anti-elitism" and that Dems could reach more rural, white voters via economic populism. I feel like the Democrats NEED to do this to regain power from Republicans, especially at the state level. And I don't think it necessitates, for a single moment, backing down on issues like criminal justice reform. Just because the majority of white voters respond to dogwhistle politics, is that the only kind of politics they would respond to? And if it is, what does that mean for the future?

The Republicans are a threat to ALL Americans. If they had it their way, we wouldn't have schools, environmental protections, health care subsidies, anything. If white voters are voting this way JUST because it flatters their sense of relative entitlement, if white supremacy is the main thing they hold dear, if there is NOTHING democrats could do to peel them away from the nihilistic death cult of the GOP, then where does that leave us?

That tweet-thread is kinda bullshit. Just for an example, it says: 'What part of Obama's legacy was negated when Trump continued the already record high level of deportations under our one President of Color?' This is pretty stupid this week, when Trump is annulling DACA.

Time and time again Trump is attacking specific Obama polices, often for seemingly no other reason than that Obama did it, and that thread just says 'yeah, but the intercept said that Obama was shit as well!!!'

I guess my only issue with this piece is that I don't understand what kind of politics could begin to address any of this. I know this isn't the question he is dealing with here. But it comes up when he criticizes Bernie Sanders for trying to reach out to the "white working class" by identifying himself as such, or when he tries to take apart the argument that part of Trump's appeal comes from "anti-elitism" and that Dems could reach more rural, white voters via economic populism. I feel like the Democrats NEED to do this to regain power from Republicans, especially at the state level. And I don't think it necessitates, for a single moment, backing down on issues like criminal justice reform. Just because the majority of white voters respond to dogwhistle politics, is that the only kind of politics they would respond to? And if it is, what does that mean for the future?

The Republicans are a threat to ALL Americans. If they had it their way, we wouldn't have schools, environmental protections, health care subsidies, anything. If white voters are voting this way JUST because it flatters their sense of relative entitlement, if white supremacy is the main thing they hold dear, if there is NOTHING democrats could do to peel them away from the nihilistic death cult of the GOP, then where does that leave us?

I...don't think he's advocating nihilism. Like any good writer or professor, he's explaining the motivations and implications of the things we do, not to mention the unintended consequences. This is not hard.

Like, if he's pissing you white libs off, he's done his job.

mad white lib right here

woo!

get a room

TNC bodied Kristof in this piece, if had any shame, he wouldnt show up for work tomorrow and eat apple jacks and watch judge mathis all day

that tweet thread sucks, and of course it ends w marxist twitter linking to that awful RL stephens piece again

At the same time, Trump's bloody heirloom of whiteness does not explain why he improved with voters of color compared to Romney. pic.twitter.com/iR35cVaE4M

— Lana Del Raytheon (@LanaDelRaytheon) September 7, 2017

what's the contradiction here? the point is that stirring up white resentment wins the right elections. Of course POC can harbor antiblack racism; even black people can. Stirring up white resentment and gaining a slight increase in votes from POC are not remotely contradictory concepts

"How could they have lost ground with POC compared to two elections with the first POC candidate/President." Gee, golly.

I can't see many replies to that, hopefully someone points out that Hillary's reduced numbers maintained Obama's gains with Latinx and Asian-American voters and presumably reverted to non-Obama numbers for African-American voters in elections not on that chart.

If you're going to rely on stats like that, they're pretty simple - white evangelicals voted for Trump at record numbers and they made up an enormous percentage of the electorate.

'dogwhistle' is a dogwhistle

The demographic inevitability argument pre-election was grounded in the belief that the GOP had maxed out its white base (specifically white males) - they're not growing as a percentage of the population and you can't win 100% of a group - only oops, they managed to top themselves one more time.

Whatever good points LDR may have about Obama's real-world legacy in that thread, it's mostly revealing that Twitter is the worst possible way to respond to a writer of TNC's caliber.

Well one of the many points of that thread is good or brilliant writing isn't going to save the day. Treeship points to a lack of what do you do with any of this, and that points to a weakness.

It was a pretty good response, highlighting both positives and negatives. Obama was the first black President, and you can't forget the President bit.

isnt part of the point of coates' piece 'what do you do with any of this'

Only in the sense that recognising the scale of the problem as the first, humble step. That's valuable however he isn't coming up with any solutions nor do I expect him to.

Brilliant writing isn't going to save the day but 140 characters and a jpg is just going to look needlessly hostile and nit-picky (or prone to reverse nit-pick).

It's a thread arguing thoroughly with the content of the piece. Rather that it appear hostile than merely a bow to writing of calibre.

It is in no sense arguing thoroughly with the content - the very first instance of the 'raceless antiracism' that Coates talks about is from Obama! They seem fixated on him as a vital evil actor, when his actual position in the piece is almost entirely symbolic - the above being one of the few exceptions.

(I am crediting Lana Del Raytheon as being genuine with the they/them in their twitter bio, when tbh the odds are high that they're just being an asshole)

One of the first big pieces by Coates was called 'The Case for Reparations'. He has definitely offered a solution, and he's been consistent about the importance of that solution.

thread was worth a read, even if i didn't agree with some of it. hate how threads appear in ilx embeds btw, no way to know that it's a thread

twitter threads

The link posted on here was from half-way through the twitter thread.

It's going through several parts of the piece and quoting them and offering a counter. Plenty of reasons are offered for this fixation on poor Obama.

I'm not sure what you'd prefer, Nhex? A Twitter thread isn't anything but someone replying to their own tweets, afaik.

One of the first big pieces by Coates was called 'The Case for Reparations'. He has definitely offered a solution, and he's been consistent about the importance of that solution.

― Frederik B, Friday, September 8, 2017 5:02 AM (five hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Yeah to be clear I'm speaking more to the notion of racism being something we make "progress" on, which coates largely rejects and has led to ppl accusing him of "pessimism." Which is what I assumed the post above me was talking about when xyzzz said the thing about brilliant writing not saving the day

The wider pt is lana del raytheon is not remotely in Coates league not just in terms of writing style but awareness of the conversations happening around this subject

Who is "lana del raytheon" and why is anyone taking a person who has chosen that name seriously?

LDR pointing out the hypocrisy of Obama v. Trump points is fine leftist Twitter and all, but, come on, we all know that "deporting a bunch of people and bailing out Wall Street vampires and murdering people via drone" is not going to be Obama's "legacy" in our lifetime even if it's all technically true

Also, this fascination with Obama's "legacy" is fucking stupid as shit since nothing means anything anymore when George W Bush is goofing around with Ellen and Jimmy Kimmel, get the fuck out of here with "legacy"

Obama's legacy is getting burnished on a daily basis by Trump, just by comparison.

There's a short piece on Talking Points Memo pointing out that Coates' selection of targets (George Packer, Nick Kristof, Mark Lilla) basically reveals him as existing entirely in that New Yorker/New York Times media-elite universe himself - he totally ignores much sharper discussions going on in the larger world.

What struck me though is the three voices Coates chose as the focus of his critique: Nick Kristof, George Packer and Mark Lilla. Lilla strikes me as somewhat set apart, a voice not so much of critical analysis or any sort of reportage but a sort of opportunistic and ahistorical preening rapped up in a fancy package. Kristof and Packer are wildly more interesting and thoughtful. But each is part of a highly elite and even literary kind of public dialog. We might call it David Brooksism, even if Brooks’ politics are a bit different.

Each are parts of an extremely rarefied elite culture who make a fetish of those they see as outside that culture and manage to create a caricature of the one they present themselves as a part of. It’s a funny thing to present oneself as the critic of elite cosmopolitan culture when one is so totally part of it. But this posture is a big part of the beautiful writing set, a view in which the main dynamic of American political life is the cultural condescension of the ‘elites’ which in some sense includes the entirety of the culture of the blue states against people in ‘fly over country.’ This has always struck me as a particularly shallow and shabby view of American culture and public life, a pose as much as it is an analysis. There is certainly plenty of cultural condescension from liberals in the big coastal cities toward rural conservatives in the midwest. But you have to be wildly out of touch not to see the the antipathy and condescension is mutual. Just flip on Fox News to see stereotypical Democrats and coastal ‘elites’ lampooned as lazy, deviant, precious, or generally offensive and worthless.

In any case, Coates’ piece is a great essay that brings together a wealth of data and characteristically penetrating analysis. I recommend it highly. But I could not read it without thinking there are a lot of voices – hardly little heard or without megaphones – he’s simply not hearing.

What "sharper discussions"? Fox News? That's the only example Marshall gives of a missing perspective.

Also, Marshall seems to think it is taken as universal truth that Trump won due to white backlash when it isn't, not even among people on the left. He goes on to admit this later in the response when he's complaining about a high-profile writer using the examples of other high-profile writers of the position he is arguing against. It seems odd, particularly for criticism of an excerpt from a book, which is not going to cite Twitter.

Also, I genuinely don't know this: who is the audience for TPM?

pr0n enthusiasts

(I am crediting Lana Del Raytheon as being genuine with the they/them in their twitter bio, when tbh the odds are high that they're just being an asshole)

― Andrew Farrell, Friday, September 8, 2017 5:51 AM (nine hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

what does this mean

This means Andrew suspects that Lana Del Raytheon is mocking the concept of preferred pronouns.

"maybe they're being honest, but probably they're just being an asshole" is an interesting line of attack for when there's no evidence to back it up