> How does he know that the scale of the problem is what he thinks it is and not what “woke” people think it is?
Broadly speaking, there is no limit to racism that has ever been proposed by the far left.
A meaningless retort. One could say, “Broadly speaking, there is no limit to the racism that has ever been proposed by the far left.” It’s a sentence devoid of meaning. And obviously there is a limit. There is only finitely many people and we all live a finite amount of time and as such there can only be finitely many transgressions.
This is not mere pedantry on my part. I point out that you engage in precisely the behavior that Graham attacks when using such melodramatic hyperbole. Prigishness.
That backlash is partly performative and partly justified.
Partly justified? What a dumb statement. Read about what women went through in the mines in Minnesota when the first sexual harrassment case was won.
I’m not the one who quantified things. Graham did. I take it then you agree with me that Graham’s statement was written without merit or justification.
EDIT: Graham wrote, “Not a problem on the scale that the woke believe it to be, but a genuine one.”
He stated a limit on the level of racism. He gave a bound on it. He said it is less that what woke people think it is. CrissCross is being deliberately obtuse. This edit is for people who come across this thread. My comment pointed out that Graham didn’t justify this belief. I don’t know the level of racism and I’m not arrogant enough to try.
> I’m not the one who quantified things. Graham did
He quite literally didn’t. There are almost no numbers in the entire essay. The argument you object to is qualitative.
> take it then you agree with me that Graham’s statement was written without merit or justification
No. The exact limit is both irrelevant and not definable. Your comment demanded a “scale to the problem.”
EDIT: > EDIT: Graham wrote, “Not a problem on the scale that the woke believe it to be, but a genuine one.”
He stated a limit on the level of racism. He gave a bound on it. He said it is less that what woke people think it is
One, still not quantitative. Two, nobody is debating whether there is a limit. (I said “there is no limit to racism that has ever been proposed by the far left,” and you said “obviously there is a limit.” These statements can coëxist.)
The question is whether Americans’ subjective sense of our own racism is accurate. And I’m saying that someone who claims there is more racism than the average person thinks and then fails to define it (the burden being on them, after all, for rejecting the status quo), that said person is probably overestimating it. Not necessarily. And there are plenty of activists and academics who are quite precise about defining and measuring racism. But those folks aren’t usually the ones running around online calling others racist.
A meaningless retort. One could say, “Broadly speaking, there is no limit to the racism that has ever been proposed by the far left.” It’s a sentence devoid of meaning. And obviously there is a limit. There is only finitely many people and we all live a finite amount of time and as such there can only be finitely many transgressions.
This is not mere pedantry on my part. I point out that you engage in precisely the behavior that Graham attacks when using such melodramatic hyperbole. Prigishness.
That backlash is partly performative and partly justified.
Partly justified? What a dumb statement. Read about what women went through in the mines in Minnesota when the first sexual harrassment case was won.