[zozbot234]

"White fragility" is a kafkatrap: you can't object to "white fragility" as a concept without that being taken as a demonstration of "white fragility". There are sensible reasons to object to the "notion of (such) a concept merely existing" if you care about the standards of intellectual argument - as most people familiar with SSC would.

[bsanr2]

My point was not necessarily that white fragility exists, but that the mere suggestion of it existing provokes hostility. Thanks for proving said point.

[throwaway894345]

The parent is clearly not being "hostile". At least I don't know of any definition of the word that includes calmly pointing out bad faith argumentation.

[bsanr2]

It is possible - in text, probable - to present a hostile front in a civil manner. What is objectionable about hostility is the bald-faced rejection of a premise. To accuse someone of not "caring about the standards of intellectual argument" based on the utterance of a single phrase is hostile.

This is not a matter of reasoned skepticism, it's knee-jerk ego defense; the above poster recognizes white fragility as a probable truth that traps him in a state of cognitive dissonance, and it makes him so uncomfortable that he has no choice but to respond. However, the response that truly rejects my initial premise would have been no response at all; the fact that he responded lends credence to that premise because its core holding was that it would elicit a response.

[zozbot234]

> ... the fact that he responded lends credence to that premise because its core holding was that it would elicit a response.

My point is precisely that "the fact that X responds, i.e. objects to premise Y lends credence to that premise because its core holding was that it would elicit a response" is a pointless and, indeed, content-less rhetorical trick, not an intellectually honest argument; moreover, that there are good reasons to be aware of this trick being played on you. You can call that "reasoned skepticism" or "knee-jerk ego defense", but that's not so important; indeed, I am quite willing to admit my "hostility" and "bald-faced rejection" of any such pointless tricks, no matter what their surrounding context might be.

[bsanr2]

It's indeed a rhetorical trick (many of the most illuminating arguments lead you unknowingly to their point), but it's not pointless. One key aspect of white fragility is that it engenders an overwhelming compulsion to counter any attack on white identity or to insert oneself into discussions where their presence is detrimental to the discourse or even their own argument.

Illustrating the idea that you can't help yourselves is meaningful.

[salawat]

>It's indeed a rhetorical trick (many of the most illuminating arguments lead you unknowingly to their point), but it's not pointless. One key aspect of white fragility is that it engenders an overwhelming compulsion to counter any attack on white identity or to insert oneself into discussions where their presence is detrimental to the discourse or even their own argument.

What you describe is less any case of "white fragility", and more a degree of irritation at misapplication or dishonest application of rhetorical technique.

Anyone who has had any exposure to classical rhetoric sees the structure of what you're trying to do, and is trying to inform you that you are undermining your own credibility by doing what you are doing.

>It's indeed a rhetorical trick (many of the most illuminating arguments lead you unknowingly to their point)

No, most good good faith rhetoric doesn't "unknowingly lead you to their point". It invites you to think. To ponder and consider. What you, and other adherents of white fragility are doing is not that. You're taking any counter rhetorical engagement as an a priori proof of your conclusion, which is an example of circular reasoning.

It's like saying a parent or guardian is demonstrating parental/guardian fragility because even though a child or ward makes a mistake they can't help themselves but to attempt to correct them. No. It isn't a failing on parent's/guardian's part. The ward has done something derp, and they care enough to call them out, and attempt to remediate the faux pas so that it doesn't continue making the ward's life more difficult than need be.

Same dynamic is going on here, without the implied authoritative relationship. In an exchange of ideas amongst equals with different viewpoints, instead of taking any further attempts at counterargument in good faith as an indicator you might be doing something in error, missing something, or as an invitation to broaden your view by considering from a different point of view, you instead double-down by asserting that it is an illustration of bad faith on the part of the person reaching out and trying in good faith to commiserate with you. In that sense it is little more than an overly elaborate rhetorical exchange stop point, as there is no further room for exchange of meaningful information if all you're going to do in the end is shunt further exchange into the "Haha, White Fragility" bucket.

Just figured I'd point that out in case no one else can figure out a way to make the point more obvious.

>Illustrating the idea that you can't help yourselves is meaningful.

No, it isn't. Eliciting a response to rhetorical bad form is like saying that a compiler is fragile because it calls out syntax errors.

[throwaway894345]

> To accuse someone of not "caring about the standards of intellectual argument" based on the utterance of a single phrase is hostile.

"white fragility" is inherently bad faith (both because it's inherently racist but also because "fragility" is a kafka trap as previously discussed), and you immediately clarified that you were, in fact, using it in bad faith: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23634713.

[bsanr2]

Repeating unsubstantiated statements, as if that makes them any less unsubstantiated, is a favorite exercise of some famously fragile white people, but is ultimately fallacious and futile.