I really do not understand why you are asking me to explain a suspicion that I clearly said I don’t have. I mentioned in the original comment and in the reply that I do engage and consider the other possibilities that you mentioned. I read the books and blogs unless they are overtly racist and I have the time. I am saying that I don’t fault people people who don’t do that or have those defaults/reflexes.
Isa
Karma: 398
I think your reply misses the point of what I’ve said. I am not saying that “averages = individuals” or that you “can’t talk about differences between groups without it being sexist…. and thinking people are talking about you.”
My claim is that many people are skeptical about the intentions of people who spend their entire careers talking about those differences and how they should shape healthcare, policy, etc. I find some of that skepticism to be super reasonable (especially on the policy end), and I find it frustrating when that is reduced to what you’re saying above even though I default to a different approach personally.
(This comment is more of a general response to this post and others about Manifest than a response to what Austin has specifically said here)
I am a black person who attended Manifest, and I will say that I almost didn’t attend because of Hanania, but decided to anyway because my interest in it outweighed my disagreements with his work.
I walked past a conversation he was having where he was asked why he thinks “minorities [black people] perform so poorly in so many domains,” which did not feel great, but I also chatted to someone who runs a similar twitter as him and briefly told him my issues with it, which he was receptive to. I overall prefer cultures that give me space to have those sorts of conversations, but I do flinch a bit at the fact that my demographic is on the receiving end of so much of this. Many of the “edgy” people were super nice to me, I had fun conversations about other things with some of them, and their presence didn’t take away from my overall experience. I felt fine after those interactions, but many people wouldn’t. Perhaps they don’t “belong” at manifest, but that explanation isn’t very satisfying to me.
I think I’m much more tolerant of this sort of dynamic than many super reasonable people, including other black people. I’m personally fine engaging with critiques about how the Civil Rights Act has ushered in some not-so-great policy decisions over the last half century. “Woke Institutions” might just be civil rights law in action (according to Hanania) but the civil rights law is also, like, the reason why I have basic rights. I think it’s completely reasonable for a black person to see arguments like that and think to themselves “what the actual fuck? The person who wrote that book is probably racist, and a conference hosting him might be racist too.” I think it is good to be curious about the world and interested in exploring unanswered questions so long as this is the true motivation. I take most people’s self-reports about their intentions at face value. I’m happy that Hanania has made his self-described Journey Out of Extremism, but I don’t fault anyone for being deeply skeptical about his intentions and whether or not he actually has made that journey given his current/past work.
I don’t know what the right path forward is wrt allowing certain speakers at Manifest, but I want to encourage people not to dismiss that “wtf” feeling many people have towards him and other speakers as lacking some kind of intellectual rigor or curiosity about the world.
The anecdote from the conference was more about how those conversations made me feel which I should have been more clear about. This was prompted by Austin’s comments about how Manifest made people feel. I should have (maybe?) also said that Hanania answered in a way that made me uncomfortable, but I don’t think the details of that matter as I’m not advocating for something to change based on my discomfort. I’m unsure about my views on this, so I want to emphasize that this is (presently) not the case.
The statement about “people who spend their entire careers…” was a general statement about the “edgy” people and not necessarily about him (though I do think his book falls into the “reasonably skeptical” camp) which was also not super clear.