Thread by @biblioracle

Concerned at how the Times allows a strawman argument to be so central to this piece. No one who has read anything about redlining would define Redlining 101 as McWhorter does here. This is pure apologetics. nytimes.com/2021/09/28/opi…

In the very same piece he zeroes in on the fact, that while many whites lived redlined neighborhoods, virtually every Black citizen did, and for Black residents, unlike the white ones, there was no escape.

The man's own evidence cuts against the thesis he puts forward! How is this allowed to get past an editor? He invents a standard that allows him to dismiss the role of systemic racism in the disparate treatment of Black and white Americans. (As is his pattern and purpose.)

Just a few months ago, @hmcghee published The Sum of Us, a book which shows how systemic racism also often hurts white people and that there is a "solidarity dividend" to be gained from recognizing this, but also, the driving force is systemic racism.

Those poor white people that McWhorter argues are evidence against systemic racism are, in reality, evidence for the profound harms of systemic racism, how purposefully excluding Black citizens will also blow back on some white ones.

I mean, seriously, if a first-year student submitted this in my class, I would require them to grapple with this gaping hole in their argument so they could strengthen their claims for an interested audience. Why is this not the standard at the freaking New York Times?

Arrrgggghhhhhh!

I cannot emphasize enough that my ire is not because I disagree with McWhorter. It's because the freaking internal logic and evidence of the piece does not hold up to basic scrutiny. I'm offended by shit arguments by people who know better that treat the audience like idiots.