The book "White Fragility" was the light version of DiAngelo-theory. Try reading some of her academic papers.
1. If you speak up and state your disagreement with these teachings, it’s proof of your fragility.😁

2. If you say, “Nevermind then. I won’t say anything,” it’s proof of your fragility.😅

3. If you say, “This is crazy, I’m leaving,” it’s proof of your fragility.🤣
This is the scholar’s approach to knowledge.🤡
This full paper can be found here:…

If my summary of some of the core tenets of theory are incorrect or misrepresented, I'd be happy to discuss and answer questions.

(Incidentally, the scholar DiAngelo doesn't discuss or answer questions. 🙂🙃)

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with The Woke Temple

The Woke Temple Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @WokeTemple

Jan 16,
Two years ago I started to “do the work” & read the recommended literature on race & racism: Kendi, DiAngelo, Delgado’s “Critical Race Theory” etc.

What I read was appalling. Unscientific, intolerant, bullying & borderline religious. Ideology, not scholarship.

/1 Image
What I found were “scholars” who didn’t do scholarship. There was no science, data, methodology, hypothesis testing, multivariate analysis or theories backed up by evidence & logical investigation.

The “scholarship” was simply assertions followed by more assertions. The scholar’s opinions – presented as facts.

It was quackery.

Read 9 tweets
Jan 16,
Imagine an entire academic discipline that exempts itself from criticism.

Instead of responding to questions & disagreement, scholars simply dismiss any & all criticism—based on mind-reading the *true intentions* of the critic.

That academic discipline is Critical Race Theory.
Critical Race Theory scholars are very fond of the logical fallacy called “Imputing motives”.

Instead saying:

👩‍🎓 “I stated X. You disagreed with X. Let’s discuss X.”
CRT scholars say:

👩‍🎓 “I stated X. You disagreed with X. You disagree with X because you are ABC. There's no reason to discuss X or your disagreement of X. Conversation over.”

Notice how they never have to discuss X. They discuss YOU.”
Read 6 tweets
Jan 15,
He’s a scholar. He proposes a bold idea, an idea that will “fix the original sin of racism”.

The scholar doesn’t explore or explain his idea, just proposes it.

Let’s explore the scholar’s idea for him. . . .
The first “guiding anti-racist principle” is:

“racial inequity is evidence of racist policy”

The scholar defines INEQUITY as “when two or more racial groups are not standing on approximately equal footing”, & gives an example of white/Black wealth distribution. [HTBAA,p17]

So far so good. In the US, Blacks & Whites are definitely not on equal footing, in many ways. As the scholar points out, Blacks have less wealth than whites.

By definition, that inequity is evidence of racist policy.

Read 21 tweets
Jan 15,
Page 45:

1. Jane was worried about a friend’s safety in a high-crime neighborhood.
2. The scholar immediately assumed the neighborhood was Black.
3. The scholar decided to find out if her assumption was correct.
4. It was.
5. The scholar’s conclusions . . .

6. Jane is a racist.
The DiAngelo Projection Theory* is quite popular. I have never liked it as it required mind-reading. CRT scholars think mind-reading is a valid approach to knowledge. I don't.

But gosh, there sure seems to be something to it.
As in,

👩🏻 I have bad thoughts. That means:

🟩I have bad thoughts.
✅ Everybody else has bad thoughts. They're just as bad as I am. Even worse!

I think Freud said something about this.
Read 4 tweets
Jan 15,
I've been reading it. Here's where I'm at.
And (unlike most CRT "scholars") I'm willing to discuss.
Why do I do these memes?

A few years ago I decided to do the right thing and read the recommended books on racism. I started with White Fragility, then How to be an Antiracist, then Ta-Nehisi Coates, then Dyson, then Delgado’s Critical Race Theory.
Read 7 tweets
Jan 14,
1. Doesn’t debate his ideas in public.
2. Doesn’t answer challenging questions.
3. Declines invitations to sit down & discuss one-on-one as equals with other scholars who might challenge his ideas. . . .
4. Sets up dichotomous with-us/against-us racist/antiracist choices that bully people to agree with his ideas. (Otherwise, they’re racist.)
5. Blocks on social media people who challenge his ideas.
6. Lectures about being an intellectual.
Noam Chomsky said:

"Intellectuals are specialists in defamation, they are basically political commissars, they are the ideological administrators, the most threatened by dissidence."
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!


0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy


3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!