While I don’t follow Hanania or (the social media platform formerly known as) Twitter closely, it seems to me that this kind of ambiguity is strategic. He wants to expand what is acceptable to say publicly, and one way of doing this is to say things which can be read both in a currently-acceptable and a currently-unacceptable way. If challenged on any specific one you just give the acceptable interpretation and apologize for the misunderstanding, but this doesn’t do much to diminish the window-pushing effect.
He used to publish racist stuff under a pseudonym, right? Calling for deportations based on skin colour iirc correctly. Why shouldn’t I think he probably dislikes black people, given this track record?
He says he now finds the ideas he had when he was younger repulsive. Here are some quotes from it:
“My posts and blog comments in my early twenties encouraged racism, misogyny, misanthropy, trolling, and overall bad faith. Phrases like “racism” and “misogyny” get thrown around too easily, but I don’t believe there’s any doubt many of my previous comments crossed the line, regardless of where one thinks that line should be. Below, I’ll offer an explanation for why I wrote such things, and why I no longer hold such views.”
People know that what I think is reflected in my corpus of work over the last several years, rather than embarrassing takes in my early 20s about the 2008 election. Fifteen years is long enough to graduate junior high, go through all of high school and college, earn a PhD, and get a third of the way towards being a tenured professor. If that’s not a long enough time to be beyond the statute of limitations for holding repugnant views one later renounces, then there’s really no hope for us ever moving beyond cancel culture.
We appear to be moving past the worst of the cancellation trend. Most outside of a certain echo chamber realize this kind of reporting is contemptible. The goal is not to engage with ideas, but to simply silence a person and remove them from polite company. To not have to discuss their ideas on account of other ideas they put forward at a different time of their life and which they may no longer even believe in.
which is why such a large portion of my current work involves attacking right-wing collectivism and illiberal beliefs (see here and here). The truth is that part of it is self-loathing towards my previous life. I all too clearly notice the kind of sloppy thinking, emotional immaturity, and moral shortcomings that can lead one to adopt a quasi-fascist ideology, and am hard on others because I’m hard on myself for once holding such views.
One of the most dishonest parts of the Huffington Post hitpiece is the argument that I maintain “a creepy obsession with so-called race science” and talk about blacks being inherently more prone to crime. I do no such thing, and ultimately believe that what the sources of such disparities are doesn’t matter.
Should you think less of me for my previous writing? I can definitely see the argument for that. Many are tempted into becoming political extremists at an early age, but those who never feel that pull, or who refuse to succumb to it, should probably get some credit for that. At the same time, if you think my writing now shows any degree of wisdom or good judgment, consider what a miracle it is that I’ve come this far.
I judge things on track records. If I post a load of racist things, then apologise then post another probably racist thing, I think you should think I’m racist, not that the apology was like a magic spell that made all the previous bad behaviour disappear.
I am willing for hanania to do some work and convince me he isn’t racist, but he has to actually convince me. You seem to think I should just believe him. I don’t believe him.
I’ve actually read probably over 100 of his articles, and that’s what’s convinced me he’s not racist.
How much of his original content have you actually read? You can just check if you want. His writing is out there.
I think most of people thinking he’s racist have looked at one or two cherry-picked tweets and read articles written by other people about him and what he said, instead of looking at what he actually said.
I think the other thing that makes people think he’s racist is that he does talk about differences in outcomes between racial groups and talks about alternative theories to “it’s just because certain racial groups are oppressed”.
Some people think that considering that is racist itself. I doubt you’re one of those people, but if you are, then you’ll totally think he’s racist.
While I don’t follow Hanania or (the social media platform formerly known as) Twitter closely, it seems to me that this kind of ambiguity is strategic. He wants to expand what is acceptable to say publicly, and one way of doing this is to say things which can be read both in a currently-acceptable and a currently-unacceptable way. If challenged on any specific one you just give the acceptable interpretation and apologize for the misunderstanding, but this doesn’t do much to diminish the window-pushing effect.
There is some possibility that this is strategic.
But I think the hypothesis that he unthikingly posted an ambiguous tweet while he was feeling emotional is more likely.
Your prior should be on people occasionally posting unthinking emotional tweets.
Your prior should be that he has a strong dislike of crime apologists, which is one of his big hobby horses.
Especially if you’ve read more of his work, like I have.
He doesn’t hate black people.
He definitely strongly dislikes crime apologists.
He used to publish racist stuff under a pseudonym, right? Calling for deportations based on skin colour iirc correctly. Why shouldn’t I think he probably dislikes black people, given this track record?
He responded to that.
He says he now finds the ideas he had when he was younger repulsive. Here are some quotes from it:
I judge things on track records. If I post a load of racist things, then apologise then post another probably racist thing, I think you should think I’m racist, not that the apology was like a magic spell that made all the previous bad behaviour disappear.
I am willing for hanania to do some work and convince me he isn’t racist, but he has to actually convince me. You seem to think I should just believe him. I don’t believe him.
I’ve actually read probably over 100 of his articles, and that’s what’s convinced me he’s not racist.
How much of his original content have you actually read? You can just check if you want. His writing is out there.
I think most of people thinking he’s racist have looked at one or two cherry-picked tweets and read articles written by other people about him and what he said, instead of looking at what he actually said.
I think the other thing that makes people think he’s racist is that he does talk about differences in outcomes between racial groups and talks about alternative theories to “it’s just because certain racial groups are oppressed”.
Some people think that considering that is racist itself. I doubt you’re one of those people, but if you are, then you’ll totally think he’s racist.