Ta-Nehisi Coates Rules, The Thread

for a minor example, check out this thread.

was this an intentional self-own of yourself 7 days ago?

I love both TNC and CTH, but the part where R.L. Stephens talk about how "black bodies" has become a pseudo-intellectual buzzword was OTM

― Whiney G. Weingarten, Wednesday, September 13, 2017 11:38 AM (one week ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

http://i.imgur.com/zOi9gJH.jpg

"Excuse me, but 'black bodies'? Isn't this just a buzzword that dumb white people use to sound woke?"

― Whiney G. Weingarten, Wednesday, September 20, 2017 10:51 AM (seven hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Those posts make the same point, just the latter is intended as a zing on Fredrick B

It's almost as if people are referencing the same book? Next up, have you noticed how people keep saying 'single payer', what's that all about?

(I'm not entirely sure we have the same interpretation of that character from the Simpsons, though)

xp but... nevermind

'body' or 'bodies' is used 10 times in the first 5 pages of Between the World and Me.

Yes, what could possibly be the difference between TNC saying it and Fredrick B saying it

Ilx's response to fred is derision while its response to Coates is more

Ta-nehisi Coates: *breathes blackly*
white liberal public intellectual: "here is my rebuttal to Coates' eloquent yet misguided breathing"

— 🏅Yung Aegon🇳🇬 (@israelizreal) September 20, 2017

Everyone on ilx criticizes everything. That's what this website is for. It was created by and for critics.

Criticism is engagement and the opposite of dismissal.

You yourself are a professional critic.

In this case I think Fred made some good points, using poorly chosen words, about how Coates's writing tries to describe how lived experience -- the experience of racism and betrayal -- makes it hard to trust any kind of political metanarrative, especially hopeful ones. And maybe the breathless analysis of Trump's voters is rooted in a kind of hope Coates doesn't buy into because it implicitly suggests that there is a way to change these reactionary white voters and history doesn't bear that out. I think that's a powerful argument, if bleak. I don't think anyone was even really dismissing this, the crux of Coates's piece, they were grappling with it. It was a provocative article and it provoked people.

If you aren't black, best you can do is take his word on black experience. Even those South Park fucks figured that one out. Aren't you all smarter than those South Park guys?

Say you're a white nerd from the upper middle class, how would you expect, say, a braindead working class sentient garbage pile to understand you? There's a puzzler for you.

omg Block Poster so good

The truth hurts, baby

I love it, I always wanted to be one of those THE_TRUTH poster dudes

we need to lower the FP threshold on the count of less people posting to ilx so we can ban tweedledee & tweedledum more often

All you'll have left are a bunch of creepy sociopaths, then

Oh yeah, I was specifically calling out flopson here on that one

Just realised there's no flag post on flagging ironically

Join us flopson join us

It's absolutely fascinating the ways Treeship still doesn't get it, but I guess it would be a waste of time to explain it again.

The crux of the argument is that black lives are worth too much to wager on hope in white progress. In all honesty, the bleakness of that is inversely proportionate to the value you ascribe black lives. So it really doesn't have to be bleak at all.

i think you should probably accept that not everyone is going to see eye to eye on every issue

That is of course true, and where both Baldwin and Coates ends up.

Shorter Coates: not everyone sees eye to eye.

...so don't waste your time on convincing white people.

Which I guess since I'm a Danish writer, meaning basically all my readership is white, is a fairly bleak conclusion for me :(

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/07/17/article-0-1FB9A59400000578-548_634x501.jpg

LOL, Fred you're ok, but I think you are exhausting everyone over minor differences of opinion. By this point we all understand your point of view, and many of us agree with you, but the conversation has stretched well beyond the point of usefulness.

I think this discussion is at an impasse.

― El Tomboto, Sunday, September 17, 2017 11:50 AM (four days ago)

don't waste your time on convincing white people.

This was Malcolm X's basic argument, too.

As I understand it, this position is not the same as giving up on all white people. Those whites who are able and willing to understand will do so and it's fine if they try to persuade other white people. But trying to win over whites isn't an especially productive use of the political or economic energies of American blacks, compared to, say, organizing.

I kind of lost the thread of this argument a while ago but the only thing I really want to say is that I think electoral politics and eradicating white supremacy are very different things and shouldn't be confused. As such, there's a huge difference between what it would have taken to convince some trump supporters not to vote for him -- a fairly small number in a few key states really - vs what it takes to fight white supremacy. And I just hope people don't give up on the former because the latter is so hard, because there's still a lot of good you can do just by making sure Trumps aren't in office and better people are in office, even if that doesn't actually dislodge racist attitudes from people's hearts. I just think they're two different fights, both important but with not necessarily a lot of overlap, and what I find frustrating is the attitude I see a lot that we should just give up on this big subgroup of often former democratic voters out of generalized moral spite. I don't think anyone should do what Lilla suggests and deemphasize "identity politics" or whatever, but I also think it's possible to bring some of those voters in with an economic message that, as it just so happens, could also help turn out more people of color to vote. Like, we already know that there were two-time Obama voters who voted for Trump. That doesn't make those people *not racist*, it just makes them votes that the Democratic party could again win.

don't waste your time on convincing white people.

This was Malcolm X's basic argument, too.

As I understand it, this position is not the same as giving up on all white people. Those whites who are able and willing to understand will do so and it's fine if they try to persuade other white people. But trying to win over whites isn't an especially productive use of the political or economic energies of American blacks, compared to, say, organizing.

― A is for (Aimless), 22. september 2017 05:19 (nine hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

It's probably has a lot to do with me being white, but for me some of the most wrenching parts of The Fire Next Time is when Baldwin wrestles with this. That he doesn't want to hate white people, don't want anyone to hate white people, want to get rid of segregation, but for example when he goes to visit Elijah Muhammad realizes he basically can't find any evidence against anything they say.

Wait you're not even black danish

It's probably has a lot to do with me being white, but

New board description

Wait you're not even black danish

― passé aggresif (darraghmac), Friday, September 22, 2017 6:45 AM (twelve hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

lmao

I kind of lost the thread of this argument a while ago but the only thing I really want to say is that I think electoral politics and eradicating white supremacy are very different things and shouldn't be confused. As such, there's a huge difference between what it would have taken to convince some trump supporters not to vote for him -- a fairly small number in a few key states really - vs what it takes to fight white supremacy. And I just hope people don't give up on the former because the latter is so hard, because there's still a lot of good you can do just by making sure Trumps aren't in office and better people are in office, even if that doesn't actually dislodge racist attitudes from people's hearts. I just think they're two different fights, both important but with not necessarily a lot of overlap, and what I find frustrating is the attitude I see a lot that we should just give up on this big subgroup of often former democratic voters out of generalized moral spite. I don't think anyone should do what Lilla suggests and deemphasize "identity politics" or whatever, but I also think it's possible to bring some of those voters in with an economic message that, as it just so happens, could also help turn out more people of color to vote. Like, we already know that there were two-time Obama voters who voted for Trump. That doesn't make those people *not racist*, it just makes them votes that the Democratic party could again win.

― the last famous person you were surprised to discover was actually (man alive), Thursday, September 21, 2017 10:47 PM (two days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Zzz

too cool to win, too woke for votes

Too dumb to argue with

You'd think that it was the left who was stoking people's racial resentments in this football bullshit the way you talk. Or that the responsible thing to do would be to find some middle ground not to alienate ppl, to compromise and say "well we should respect the flag..." sure sometimes people are trying to be cool (?!?!?!) by being against racism but most of the time I'm going to go ahead and say it's the only moral choice available so you're not a complete shithead but focus on "electoral politics" and act like trump isn't just playing people like you.

As such, there's a huge difference between what it would have taken to convince some trump supporters not to vote for him -- a fairly small number in a few key states really - vs what it takes to fight white supremacy.

These aren't different fights, they're all interrelated and overlapping, especially when the candidate you're righting against is making *explicit racist appeals.*

I'm really glad my old thread has become an asshole test that everyone failed

Some recent posters have rather excelled tbh

come on. he's making an insanely shallow argument.

And your deep response was "zzz" iirc

exhibit a: why ilx can’t have nice things

And your deep response was "zzz" iirc

― El Tomboto, Sunday, September 24, 2017 1:54 PM (two hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

because of how absurd even taking it seriously would be, although i gave in a few hours later

god damn look at all the 'BOTH sides are wrong' grown ups in the room