Tuesday, July 30, 2019

White Fragility by Robin DiAngelo

People are talking about Robin DiAngelo’s White Fragility quite a lot. The book was best seller and it is being mentioned all over social media. First published in 2018 the main point of this work is to critique white Americans’ reaction to conversations about race and racism. I found that the ideas presented in this book to be emblematic of critical race theory with a few twists added. I recently posted commentary on Jodi Picoult’s Small Great Things here. Where that book was an exposition of critical race theory in the form of fiction, this work presents the theory in a more traditional, philosophical way. DiAngelo is a diversity teacher and holds a PHD in Multicultural Education. She is a self - proclaimed expert on “whiteness studies.” I disagreed with most of the author’s arguments and also found that many of her contentions to be  made in bad faith. 

DiAngelo believes that American society is based upon and is infused with racism and white supremacy. Furthermore, most interactions between white people and People of Color are based upon power. All whites hold what is commonly called “white privilege”.  Furthermore, all white people are, at least unconsciously, racist and white supremacists because of socialization. She labels this system “whiteness”.

According to DiAngelo, when white people disagree with these arguments, their objections and disagreement are based upon this ingrained racism and the refusal to confront it.  The author labels these objections to her perceived reality as white fragility.

I think that the first thing that one must talk about in relation to this book is a concept called a Kafka trap. The term Kafka trap is a reference Franz Kafka’s novel The Trial in which there is a protagonist whose protestations of innocence in the face of false accusations are taken as proof of his guilt. As has been pointed out by others, the entire premise of white fragility is a Kafka trap. This book is filled with supposed examples of white fragility that are in fact Kafka traps. DiAngelo, as she accounts what she does in her in real life diversity trainings, and in her writings, actually calls people racist. When people object, she labels the objections white fragility. Thus, disagreeing with the author's arguments are proof of the author's arguments. Kafka traps are false and illogical arguments that involve circular reasoning. They are usually accompanied, as they are here,  by ad hominem attacks on people who object to accusations and personal attacks.  Thus, I think that a major basis of this book is based on an invalid concept. 

There is something very serious that this author and other advocates of a set of theories that many are calling postmodernism are doing . Dozens of times in this book DiAngelo makes all - encompassing statements about white people and black people. Just one example, 

white people raised in Western society are conditioned into a white supremacist worldview because it is the bedrock of our society and its institutions .

DiAngelo even contends that there are no exceptions to many of her generalizations. Civil society has struggled long and hard to reach a state where generalizations based on race, ethnicity and religion  are unacceptable in the public discourse.  In reputable articles, opinion pieces, general discourse in both the mainstream media and elsewhere, this kind of generalization has been absolutely unacceptable.  Now, both DiAngelo and other people who fall under the umbrella of postmodernist thinkers are routinely doing this. There are so many problems with this. If it is logical and ethical to generalize about race and ethnicity then it would stand to reason that it is acceptable to generalize negatively about blacks or Asians or Latinos or Jews or any religion or ethnic group. This is in fact what white supremacists do. I must also mention that this kind of generalization has also been creeping into mainstream right wing discourse as of late. Donald Trump has made all sorts of awful statements. In my opinion, the clearest example occurred when he said that Federal Judge Gonzalo Curiel could not fairly judge his case because Curiel is a Mexican American. I bring up Trump's statements to highlight how this vital norm is being eroded from several directions.

I understand that in private life some people generalize about these things all the time. Hopefully that tendency is also on the wane. However, the benefits gained by eliminating this kind if stuff from public conversations is of great value. 

The author justifies all this as follows, 

As a sociologist, I am quite comfortable generalizing; social life is patterned and predictable in measurable ways. But I understand that my generalizations may cause some defensiveness for the white people about whom I am generalizing, given how cherished the ideology of individualism is in our culture.

DiAngelo’s excuse that she is a sociologist and that there are patterns to social life falls flat and is trite. These generalizations are unethical, whether the person making them is a sociologist or a President or member of any other profession. In technical terms the author is engaging in race essentialism, that is, assigning immutable psychological characteristics to people based upon race. Doing so risks tearing down a vital norm that decent and ethical people have fought for. 

As the above quotation also indicates, DiAngelo is critical of what she calls individualism and argues that one’s racial identity trumps any supposed distinctiveness. She argues that socialization, at least in the developed world, is so strong, that it overwhelms any individual stances on these issues. Once again, this flies in the face of the reality of human nature. Throughout history and across every society that has ever existed, individuals have asserted themselves on every issue imaginable and bucked their societies.  Of course, culture matters, but individualism always comes into play. 

At multiple points of the book. The author cites examples of white people contending that they are not racist and attempts to refute their arguments. The problem here is that this is framed with situations where the author has actually labeled people as racist. The author attacks individuals and their arguments because they cannot prove that they are not racist. However, it is impossible to refute such an all-encompassing negative such as an accusation of racism.  It is akin to demanding that someone prove that they never stole anything in their life. It cannot be done. 

Another pillar of reason that DiAngelo goes after is the ability of anyone to be really objective and unbiased. Once again, she argues that socialization on the issue of race makes this impossible. This is a common postmodernist argument, that only certain people, depending upon their race and ethnicity are capable of knowing the truth,

She writes.

I came to see that the way that we [white people] are taught to define racism makes it virtually imposable for a white person to understand it

Bias is always something to look out for. However, to say that the truth is impossible to understand based upon one’s race, is counter to the basic rules of reason. Logic, reason and the ability to move beyond bias is possible. In fact, the ability to move beyond bias is the basis of  science, law and  every  bit of social progress that the world has seen going back centuries. 

Critical race theorists often argue that one cannot be racist towards white people. The reason that is given for this contention is that there is a sociological definition of racism that is not the common definition. The sociological, critical race theory based definition of racism states that racism always involves power and oppression. Furthermore, these theories postulate, white people always have power so one cannot be racist toward whites. Many postmodernists that I have encountered contend that theirs is the only definition. Furthermore, I have interacted  with  several people who argued that not accepting this modified definition of racism is in itself racism.  Surprisingly, DiAngelo is somewhat moderate on this issue and at least recognizes that both definitions might apply depending on one’s perspective. 

In regards to the issue of privilege, DiAngelo goes beyond the typical popular usage of the word  and actually argues that privilege as something that white people actively promote,

Viewing privilege as something that white people are just handed obscures the systematic dimensions of racism that must be actively and passively, consciously and unconsciously, maintained.

I have written before how I do not agree with the way that the modern left often uses the word privilege. I tend to object to the concept of privilege and almost all the ways that it is being used as late. My objections are numerous and somewhat complex and would take an entirely seperate post to explain. Perhaps I will delve into this at another time. 

A concept that flies in the face of both decency and reason been pushed by postmodernist thinkers as of late is the concept of “white women’s’ tears.“ There is an entire chapter of this book dedicated to it. The idea here is that when white women cry, it commonly  promotes racism. The argument is that there has been a terrible history in America of black men being falsely accused of rape and subsequently murdered, often by lynch mobs. Furthermore, the author contends that white women use tears to deflect from situations when they have been justifiably accused of racism. DiAngelo goes further and contends that even when white women express genuine sadness and cry when they are made aware of racism and violence, that it distracts from the actual oppression that black people face. The author writes, 

White women’s tears in cross - racial interactions are problematic for several reasons connected to how they impact others . For example , there is a long historical backdrop of black men being tortured and murdered because of a white woman’s distress , and we white women bring these histories with us . Our tears trigger the terrorism of this history , particularly for African Americans .

And later, 

For people of color , our tears demonstrate our racial insulation and privilege .

Even later, the author is actually critical of black men who attempt to comfort white women who happen to cry,

Yet coming to the rescue of a white woman also drives a wedge between men and women of color .

There was a time in American history where black men were lynched on a regular basis based upon false accusations of sexual assault. This was monstrous. However, tying this to white women crying even when it is in sympathetic response to racism is ludicrous and threatens to make a mockery of the real crimes and real racism.  The contention that when black men show kindness to white women it drives a wedge between black women and black men is illogical and smacks of a terrible and racial  division between human beings. These arguments show a lack of humanity in DiAngelo and others who perpetuate these concepts. I have seen Twitter mobs taunt several women who they targeted with this white women’s tears nonsense. 

DiAngelo also makes other contentions that are based upon critical race theory that I disagree with. She argues for what is referred to as blank slatism, that discrimination is a zero - sum game that involves white people giving up privileges. I wrote about my objections to these arguments in my post on Small Great Things as well as when I wrote about postmodernism and race here.

I believe that the concepts that DiAngelo is pushing have done harm. The obsession with white men has led some on the far left to side against third world human rights supporters because the oppression that they fight is not propagated by white men. There has been a rash of false accusations and mobbing on both college campuses and elsewhere against people falsely accused of racism. My post on Russel Blackford's The Tyranny of Opinion covered several of these mobbing episodes. That post is here.

I have been very negative  about this book. I have always been open to ideas that I disagree with, even when those ideas were off the wall and radical. However, like many other postmodernists, DiAngelo takes her arguments in directions that are extremely dubious. Her generalizations about both white and black people are ethically questionable. Her use and application of term “white women’s tears" is particularly odious and demeaning to both white and black people.  As noted above the work is also filled with Kafka traps, ad hominem attacks and other bad faith tactics. I have previously written about books by Andrea Dworkin, Chandra Mohanty, Ania Loomba and others that presented ideas that I disagreed strongly. However, none of those writers generalized about entire groups or presented such bad faith arguments. The ideas in this book are also not off the wall or obscure. As mentioned above, this book is a best seller and these ideas are very popular in many areas of academia and social media and are being incorporated in various diversity and bias trainings.

Racism and bias are no joke. These are gravely serious issues. Likewise, subtle racism and bias is a subject worth talking about. This book and other postmodernist expressions threaten to diminish the seriousness of these issues and are harmful in other ways. This sort  of approach runs counter to multiple values that have driven positive change.   No human rights campaign in history has ever been based upon this kind of obsession with so called privileged groups or generalizing and stereotyping to the degree that is done here. Nor  were they based upon rhetorical and logical tricks. Instead, successful human rights campaigns have focused upon universal principles  such as logic, empathy,  equality, freedom and tolerance. 

I strongly disagree with  the ideas in this book as well as  in the methods that they are argued. However, there are reasons to read it. Critical race theory has become popular in some important quarters as of late. At least in the short term, this work has become very influential and very popular. Whether one agrees, disagrees or has mixed feelings about with the ideas in this book, I think that it important to understand them.


baili said...

this is mighty post dear Brain

quite mental hard work to come up with such excellent commentary filled with dense ideas and complex approaches

you have done great job here i believe

honestly i don't dig all kind of theories deeper

because in my opinion universal laws are simple and easy to set life on certain track

no matter how experimental we have become and no matter how much mental exercise we do in order to manifest our twisted ides ,nothing can change simple realities of life and they are still there and we have to face them in every day life

i found the book interesting but i can't comment precisely because i don't know the actual condition of society where author lives and gains such approach

being from east i can only say that through books and other sources i know that white people have dominated the world since beginning

they have had power over others and still have ,if we deny it it won't change reality

this power makes them superior

i am not blaming any particular nation here ,but we all know that third world countries are bound to obey rules applied by u.n.o

nations are being treated in manner what they think is profitable

i don't think i need more to say because we are common people here trying to be friend here just like normal human being must do without taking any one's side

personally i believe in humanity and equality
i strongly believe that each nation has diversity of people and we cannot label the whole nation for the actions of few

thank you for wonderful blog and amazing posts!

Felicity Grace Terry said...

Hmm! Interesting arguments from the author. Can't say that I hold with all of them ... or is it just I don't want to hold with them???

Yet another thought provoking post Brian, thank you.

Brian Joseph said...

Thanks Baili - I would say that since around the 1500s Europeans, who were white, dominated much of the world. Racism was a component in this domination. During other times, and even in the period in question, other peoples of all races also dominated weaker peoples and committed oppressions.

I fully agree with your comment on Universal laws. Certain principles drive equality and human well being.

I think that the profit motive is a double edged sword. I think it certainly can cause misery and oppression. But when well regulated, capitalism has been s driver if positive progress.

Brian Joseph said...

Thanks Felicity- It is good to question one’s assumptions, but I would argue that to accept the arguments laid out in this book, one would need to abandon universal principles that are the basis of human progress, ethics and plain old common sense.

Kathy's Corner said...

Hi Brian, I am really enjoying your series on post modernism and critical race theory and I am learning so much from what you write. Right now in the age of Trump we need smarter books than White Fragility. Books that will acknowledge that America continues to have real problems when it comes to race but its also true that tens of millions of white people did not vote for Trump and went to the polls in 2018 to give the Dems back the House. But I can see why in turbulent times books like White Fragility are becoming bestsellers. Right now our country has gone a bit haywire and our democracy is in real danger so White Fragility books are a way to distance yourself from the culture and retreat to a protected corner where all white people are racist and no need therefore to engage with anyone who might think differently from yourself.

mudpuddle said...

very perceptive post! the concept of the scientific method was perhaps the greatest invention ever made... using induction and deduction to derive verifiable conclusions is the only way to really discover how the universe, and phenomena on this planet actually work... prejudicial and uninformed opinions remain what they are regardless of how much arm-waving is deployed to communicate them... it's sad that so many so-called educated personalities are so ignorant of the basic foundations of rational thought... great post, tx....

Brian Joseph said...

Thanks Kathy. We do need some smart and perceptive thinkers to start weighing in on all this. The rise of Trumpism is making it all crazy and the extremes on the right and the left are feeding into each other. It is certainly one of the reasons that this stuff seems to be gaining in popularity. At a time when the authoritarian right is pushing liberal democracy hard, the last thing we need is this illiberalism coming out of the left.

Brian Joseph said...

Thanks Muddpuddle- One characteristic of this form of postmodernism is to disparage the scientific method and rationalism itself. This is one reason that I call it illiberal.

Chris Coleman said...

Thank you for reading that heaping pile of BS so that I don't have to.

I've seen critiques of legitimate scholarly works criticized because the writer wasn't of a certain ethnicity or didn't adhere to Critical Race Theory. I regard this and similar forms of Cultural Marxism (which is actually the antithesis of Marx's ideas) as a form of "Left Fascism."

Here's an idea, for what it's worth: a good way to discern if someone is bigoted or biased is to see if they adhere to the following formula: "All____are___." When one puts all persons of a certain group in the same pot, it almost always is a sign that person is themselves the problem, not the group they're criticizing. Of course, the exception to that is flesh-eating Zombies.

Just because someone is a member of a historically oppressed or ostracized group does not mean that that individual themself can't be bigoted. The truth is that, at one time or another, almost every identity group has been subjected to discrimination, harassment or oppression; some worse than others, true; but bigotry is not the monopoly of any one group.

Moreover, in an era when Americans more than ever need to unite and cooperate with one another to deal with monstrous inequality and a military industrial complex which is out of control, Identity politics--be it of the left, right or other political alignment, is poisonous. Civilizations may take centuries for them to reach their apex; but their descent and destruction can happen with alarming rapidity. I see America at the edge of an abyss that there may be no coming back from and unless the people of the United States come to terms with it very soon, it will be too late.

Brian Joseph said...

Thanks for stopping by Chris. I have never been so negative about a book.

The Marxism thing is interesting. Helen Pluckrose, who is writing a book critical of postmodernism has been tweeting about this. Her observations fit in with my readings. Many of these theories started out as hybrids of postmodernism and Marxism. However, in recent years the Marxism has been completely pushed out.

While I might not use the word Fascism, these ideologies have strong authoritarian tendencies. Indeed, they attack scholarly works, literature and art, as well as everyday opinions based on the ethnicity and sexual preferences of people on a regular basis.

I agree that anyone can be a bigot and be racist. As I mentioned, DiAngelo is surprisingly moderate on that issue.

I am relatively optimistic about our society. I recognize many of the problems that you mention. I also see threats coming from the right and left. What is coming from Trumpism is particularly grave and dangerous. With all that, I think that these problems are but new, and that they are at their lowest ebb in human history. What I call liberal ideas are spreading, and making progress throughout the world.

Now if we could just avoid the flesh eating zombies :)

Laurie @ RelevantObscurity said...

Brian, you did such a good job of distilling this, so thank you. While I believe racism exists in this country and it is a scourge, this kind of post modern mumbo jumbo does not do anything to help it. Being proud of generalizing is a blot on any kind of remedy and would be the first reason I would reject any of her work. And it makes her sound so much like Trump. Her discussion of white women's tears, a concept I am aware of, is frightening. I wonder how she was raised? Because yes, this sounds personal.

Brian Joseph said...

Thanks Laurie. Racism is indeed a scourge. The best solutions are rooted in the concepts of equality, not stereotyping, reason, empathy, etc. Not in postmodernism. The far right and far left do indeed sound like each other. Trump and DiAngelo have things in common. The White Women’s Tears thing is chilling.

Sue Bursztynski said...

Dear me, “When did you stop beating your wife?”, eh? I’ve never heard of this author or her books, but on a Google I see she was here in Melbourne last December, speaking st the Wheeler Centre, which does panels about literature. I also see this book is on Goodreads, with a 4.5 rating. I must read a few of those reviews later, just to see what people loved so much!

Brian Joseph said...

Hi Sue - DiAngelo does a lot of speaking engagements.

This book is very popular with people who read it. I think DiAngelo is preaching to the choir. If you search her name on Twitter, the people who read the book tend to be already friendly to postmodern ideas.

James said...

Thanks for an interesting review. I agree with you and would argue the the so-called "Kafka trap" is a variant on the idea of the stolen concept; eg. if you claim that there is no such thing as truth, your claim cannot logically be true. I am at a loss of how to discuss issues like this if one side does not recognize the other's honest beliefs.

Brian Joseph said...

Hi James - Indeed it seems a variation on the stolen concept. You hit the problem with postmodernist thought right own the head. Arguments and truth are not evaluated. Only the identity of the person making the argument is.

Judy Krueger said...

OK good. I don't need to read this except for, as you say, to get a sense of this example of critical race theory (did I say that correctly?) Generalizations based on faulty scholarship or just plain lazy thinking or ignorance are the bane of mankind's efforts to understand ourselves. I wonder why this book is so popular. I would suppose people are looking for answers and at least are thinking about the problem (to be generous) or just want someone else to give them answers. You did a good job of explication here. Maybe you should be a professor!

Brian Joseph said...

Thanks Judy. Though not too popular with the general public, critical race theory and other postmodern theories are extremely popular in some quarters of academia and social media. Its adherents are really pushing this book. If you search Robin DiAngelo’s name or the term White Fragility on Twitter, you will find that the book is being recommended very frequently.

CyberKitten said...

An excellent review - as I've come to expect from you! As you probably know I have very little time for Identity Politics and what definitely sounds like Virtue Signaling. I'm impressed that you made it all the way through the book knowing you disagreed with some much of it. You're definitely a better man, made of sterner stuff, than I am! This wasn't exactly on my radar (although it does pop up on my "Amazon recommends" from time to time) and I'll definitely keep avoiding it!

Brian Joseph said...

Hi CyberKitten - I tend to get into some lot of conversations on social media about social issues. A particular group is recommending this book left and right. At least I can say that I read it. The experience has turned me further away from this philosophy.

I am OK with a moderate form of identity politics, as long as it does not turn towards white nationalism or postmodernism.

HKatz said...

Did you read The Coddling of the American Mind? The authors talk about two kinds of identity politics. In one, you may be fighting for the rights of a particular group, but you're taking a "common humanity" approach and pointing out how your group shares common human traits, dignity, etc. with others. The other kind of identity politics pit groups against each other.

I've seen some of the ideas from White Fragility appear in articles, blog posts, and social media... I just don't see how this way of thinking improves anything. I mean, you can easily dismiss any disagreement as racism (or maybe internalized racism if it's coming from someone who isn't white - which is another issue I've seen. People will say, "Listen to Group X" when what they really mean is "Listen to the people in Group X who agree with me"). I have no clue how any of this helps people who are struggling with homelessness, huge medical bills, job loss, poor physical and mental health, injustice from the court system, whether they're black, white, Hispanic, etc. It seems to just give some people an easy way to pat themselves on the back for supposedly being aware of their racism and learning the related lingo.

As for "white women's tears," I've seen this used in ugly ways against people. Like a pass for sexism and misogyny, provided you pick the "right language."

Brian Joseph said...

Hi Hila - I have not read The Coddling of The American Mind. I should. On the other hand I think that things are moving so fast regarding these debates that there is some tendency for these books to get outdated.

There differentiation that you describe has intensified. Right now I would describe a great debate going on between what I will call the postmodern left and the humanist left. With that, as I have written before, I do not think that the humanist left is that far from moderate conservatives, moderate religious folks, classical liberals, etc.

I agree that this stuff is not doing anymore any good. It is not addressing the real serious problems that you mention.

I also agree that White Women’s Tears is often a concept to spew misogyny and abuse.

Rachel said...

Thanks for the fantastic review of the book. I've been thinking of reading this, and I still might even though I totally see (and agree with your points). I, too, have problems with the way the word "privilege" is used these days.

Good to see you around!

Susan Kane said...

AS I read this, I found myself saying: What? Seriously?

Divisive indeed. Insulting as well.

Brian Joseph said...

Glad to see you active on the book blogosphere Rachel. As I mentioned, I think that there are good reasons to read this. It is actually a good primer on where critical race theory is these days.

Brian Joseph said...

Hi Susan- It is amazing how divisive and insulting to humanity in general these increasingly influential ideology has become.

Sharon Wilfong said...

Wow, Brian. This is a brilliant review. I would rather call it a commentary. This post would fit well in the Wall Street Journal.

People like DeAngelo are interesting because it seems they believe they can determine their own reality without supporting it with provable facts. She ignores most of the world where supremism and oppression reigns without any white people in the population. I'm thinking of India with its caste system and the "Dalits" or untouchables. The child sex trade in Thailand and other Asian countries, and not to mention several African countries where people identify tribally and the tribe in power shows no mercy to the other tribes, even though they belong to the same country.

Then the persecution happening in middle eastern countries based on which religion or sect is in power...It disturbs me that people, like DeAngelo, want to ignore the actual problems in this country and create false problems and falsely accuse people of creating these problems.

I guess it's easier to decry imaginary evil than tackle the real problems that exist. Maybe because it involves personal responsibility, rather than blaming others. They refuse to see that acknowledging autonomy over one's own life is empowering.

Anyway, I deeply appreciate your editorial. Sorry if I'm being "gushing", but I really like your post.

Brian Joseph said...

Thanks so much Sharon. As you point out, oppression, bias, discrimination, etc. is something we see in almost every corner of the Earth. It is not exclusive to white people. Individual agency is also an issue here. If all white people are racist and cannot help it, why bother to try not being racist?

Imaginary evil is also a great term. There are indeed real problems that this stuff is distracting from.

Have a great week!

Whispering Gums said...

Wow, Brian, what an in-depth post. You are clearly becoming well-read on the topic.

I hate generalisations. I know that like most people I do it myself at times, it is something I dislike intensely. It is SO patently obvious whenever you generalise about people that there are exceptions and not only that but that there is a spectrum, so it's not even most think this and a few exceptions think that, but that every person (every individual!) has his/her own shade of grey. Generalisations can be useful in certain circumstances - they are used all the time to make policy. Smoking is bad for you, is an example, and so it is banned, even though we know many smokers do not die of smoking related deaths. (To give an obvious example.) Of course many white people are privileged, but many many aren't, and some of those who are are privileged in some ways and not in others, and many who are privileged are highly empathetic and do not behave racistly.

Racism as you and some of your commenters say is a significant issue, but to use a current cliche, it needs far more nuance than this theory seems to have. In fact, in a way, it sounds anti-postmodern in its tenacity to inflexible, rule-based thinking. (But my understanding of postmodernism is limited I know.

Brian Joseph said...

Hi WG - I agree with you about generalizations. These philosophies have turned generalizations are based on generalizations. If folks looked at privilege as a complex attribute without all the baggage and silliness as you describe it I probably would not object to this concept so much. But it is almost never looked at with so much complexity these days.

Based on my limited understanding of the history, what is being called postmodernism today, has some major differences from how the philosophy was originally formulated. Within the last month there was actually a debate on Twitter between groups of philosophers and social commutators as to what to call this intellectual trend. Some liked the term postmodernism some did not. I will be getting around to reading the original thinkers and I will have more to say about this.

The Bookworm said...

Hi Brian, amazing and thought provoking commentary as usual. I think if I read this one it would just annoy me. I had never heard about "white women’s tears".

Brian Joseph said...

Thanks Naida. A lot of these concepts are new to people. But they are popular in certain quarters especially academia and social media.

Paula Vince said...

I really like your description of the Kafka Trap here, which I've seen in play but never heard it described as such. It makes perfect sense, and explains something very problematic. I think I would have not liked the book that much, for similar reasons to those you've mentioned.

Brian Joseph said...

Hi Paula - It is amazing that academics are using such bad faith arguments as Kafka Traps.

thecuecard said...

This one sounds like a very strong cup of coffee and not one I'd agree with either. I hadn't heard of it and it seems like reading it would really rile a person up. I dont know why people's arguments go to such an extent. to be provocative and crazy ...

Brian Joseph said...

Hi Susan - The arguments are provocative and extreme. With that they are very popular in some quarters.