Torrent details for "Woke Racism: How a New Religion Has Betrayed Black America by John McWhorter EPUB" Log in to bookmark
Controls:
Language:
EnglishTotal Size:
730.59 kB
Info Hash:
ebd022f2261620e5af5d3f55c5d0757970deacbe
Added By:
Added:
10-11-2021 09:23
Views:
763
Health:
Seeds:
6
Leechers:
0
Completed:
177
xx
Woke Racism: How a New Religion Has Betrayed Black America by John McWhorter EPUB
Acclaimed linguist and award-winning writer John McWhorter argues that an illiberal neoracism, disguised as antiracism, is hurting Black communities and weakening the American social fabric.
Americans of good will on both the left and the right are secretly asking themselves the same question: How has the conversation on race in America gone so crazy? We’re told to read books and listen to music by people of color but that wearing certain clothes is “appropriation”. We hear that being White automatically gives you privilege and that being Black makes you a victim. We want to speak up but fear we’ll be seen as unwoke, or worse, labeled a racist. According to John McWhorter, the problem is that a well-meaning but pernicious form of antiracism has become, not a progressive ideology, but a religion - and one that’s illogical, unreachable, and unintentionally neoracist.
In Woke Racism, McWhorter reveals the workings of this new religion, from the original sin of “White privilege” and the weaponization of cancel culture to ban heretics, to the evangelical fervor of the “woke mob”. He shows how this religion that claims to “dismantle racist structures” is actually harming his fellow Black Americans by infantilizing Black people, setting Black students up for failure, and passing policies that disproportionately damage Black communities. The new religion might be called “antiracism”, but it features a racial essentialism that’s barely distinguishable from racist arguments of the past.
Fortunately for Black America, and for all of us, it’s not too late to push back against woke racism. McWhorter shares scripts and encouragement with those trying to deprogram friends and family. And most importantly, he offers a road map to justice that actually will help, not hurt, Black America.
xx
Woke Racism: How a New Religion Has Betrayed Black America by John McWhorter EPUB
Acclaimed linguist and award-winning writer John McWhorter argues that an illiberal neoracism, disguised as antiracism, is hurting Black communities and weakening the American social fabric.
Americans of good will on both the left and the right are secretly asking themselves the same question: How has the conversation on race in America gone so crazy? We’re told to read books and listen to music by people of color but that wearing certain clothes is “appropriation”. We hear that being White automatically gives you privilege and that being Black makes you a victim. We want to speak up but fear we’ll be seen as unwoke, or worse, labeled a racist. According to John McWhorter, the problem is that a well-meaning but pernicious form of antiracism has become, not a progressive ideology, but a religion - and one that’s illogical, unreachable, and unintentionally neoracist.
In Woke Racism, McWhorter reveals the workings of this new religion, from the original sin of “White privilege” and the weaponization of cancel culture to ban heretics, to the evangelical fervor of the “woke mob”. He shows how this religion that claims to “dismantle racist structures” is actually harming his fellow Black Americans by infantilizing Black people, setting Black students up for failure, and passing policies that disproportionately damage Black communities. The new religion might be called “antiracism”, but it features a racial essentialism that’s barely distinguishable from racist arguments of the past.
Fortunately for Black America, and for all of us, it’s not too late to push back against woke racism. McWhorter shares scripts and encouragement with those trying to deprogram friends and family. And most importantly, he offers a road map to justice that actually will help, not hurt, Black America.
xx
User comments Sort newest first
by Guest-3752
on 2024-06-12 19:52:17
 | @Brrzrrkrr, "Reviews by people with no proven qualifications or expertise…” to judge the book, the movie, the music, the documentary, the audiobook and blah, blah, fekkin blah. Isn’t that what this whole site is about? YOU have no qualifications to judge a movie, a book, much less another person, but you do every time you log-in. Get over yourself. |
by Guest-4127
on 2024-02-01 19:37:22
| I'm about to download this book, NOT because I think it's a useful piece of work in any way. I have already read a hard copy, and I wanted people to know that it's being downloaded because it's an example of the most egregious misinformation and twisted illogical thinking. I'm a doctoral student in the United States and I'll be using this to cite examples of the kind of malign garbage that gets published to sway public opinion these days. Just to say it again, this is an awful piece of work, academically sloppy and misleading from end-to-end.
That having been said, I wouldn't give McWhorter a cent of my money, so I am extremely grateful to zakareya     and TGx for being here and uploading these files. Thank you all very, very much. |
by LiberalLesbo
on 2023-09-09 22:06:37
 | Thank you for your efforts zakareya they are always much appreciated. This a great torrent, but alas, a poor book. I read the EPUB version of this book today (127 pages including preface), as recommended here:
When an academic writes any such text, at under-graduate level and beyond, if any empiricial claim is made (e.g., evolution may be defined as change over time), such claims must be accompanied by citations to the empirical evidence which gave rise to them (e.g., Darwin, 1888; Dawkins, 2009). Otherwise the claims made may be considered as merely evidence-free opinion, and dismissed as such. This book was recommended to me by a conservative fan-boy who -- in our frequent discussions -- has failed abjectly to present any such evidence for any of his own assertions. At 127 pages (including preface), and thus not really much longer than a good Master's project, it should come as no surprise to anyone that McWhorter himself failes to cite actual empirical evidence for any of his assertions. Blogs, TED talk,s YouTube videos, and yes, even books like this, do not constitute evidence, and without it, they are opinion pieces. Without doubt McWhorter's book is interesting and well-written, but poorly argued because of its lack of support by actual data. On only two occasions does the author refer to something like primary research (McWhorter, 2021, p. 48 and p. 77). On the first (p. 48), he links two pages from a law review article (Austin, 1992, p. 1775 and p. 1791), in a single quotation, which is taken out of context and misrepresented. On the second (p.77), he does not quote the article (Prescod-Weinstein, 2020) directly, instead preferring to misrepresent a lengthy, complex argument, with his own one paragraph interpretation. And in follow-on sentences, he inserts his own suggested meaning and profanity, to further misrepresent his reference. This is not a scholarly work by any stretch of the imagination. McWhorter "teaches linguistics, American studies, and music history at Columbia University" (McWhorter, 2021, p. 141), and could therefore -- not unreasonably -- be accused of venturing well outside of his speciality. The same could be true of the bio-sciences prof' writing this review. However, any inteligent person should be able to recognize an argument well-supported by replicable, testable data, and other evidence-based discourse. |
by LiberalLesbo
on 2023-09-09 22:13:19
| Edited references due to character limts: Austin, R. (1992). “The Black community,” Southern California Law Review. Darwin, C. (1888). On the origin of species. Dawkins, R. (2009). The greatest show on earth. Prescod-Weinstein, C. (2020). Making Black Women Scientists under White Empiricism. |
Like 1
Liked by - Cowboy4Life
by Guest-4229
on 2024-06-12 02:59:56
| Excellent review thanks liberal, I just came here from the Doc' Who page. My college degree was in psychology, and even as an undergraduate we had to follow American Psychological Association standards for citing references for our work. She’s right Brrzrrkrr. |
Like 1
Liked by - Cowboy4Life
by Guest-2518
on 2024-06-12 07:16:28
| Another typical attempt to undermine and belittle a respected black academic. This is the typical and sly racism we're used to by now. That doesn't make it okay. |
Like 1
Liked by - Brrzrrkrr
by LiberalLesbo
on 2024-06-12 14:04:58
| For a second edition, all McWhorter needs to do to make this an excellent piece of scholarly analysis is support his assertions with actual evidence. Until then, it remains an "interesting and well-written" (see above) opinion piece. One which you may reject or accept but with no more validity than a string of ideas. |
Like 1
Liked by - Cowboy4Life
by FauxGojira
on 2024-06-17 00:20:44
 | @4229 - sorry, but she's wrong and so are you. you're both complaining that the car is broken because half the wheels are missing but it's a motorcycle. this is not a scientific research paper. there's no reason to say it is except as a pretext to dismiss an argument because you can't defeat it on the merits. |
Like 1
Liked by - Brrzrrkrr
by Guest-5655
on 2024-06-12 20:04:06
| I don’t know about Claudine Gay and I'd never heard of her until it became news that she was so obviously hounded out of her job for daring to be a smart black woman in Harvard. Oh the absolute temerity of that dark-skinned vagina-equipped human being! And really, WTF has she got to do with the price of fish? Thank you to the uploader for this book. I followed the link on the Doctor Who page and downloaded this (yes, I’m Guest-4229) from late last night. It’s an easy read it’s pretty short and I was up the whole night with an eight-month old anyway. IMHO LL is right. McWhorter has written a pretty obvious grab for populist support from people like the extreme right, who think that a social media post from NuttyNazi or whoever is evidence for their social toxicity. He’s certainly convinced the lunatic fringe on here… I’m more convinced that McWhorter and his fans are so desperate for anything to support their dying philosophies, that they’d grab at any old theory and call it worth selling to the proud boys. Download it and read, it’s not worth buying and it won’t take a lot of effort. |
by LiberalLesbo
on 2024-06-17 21:13:45
| Faux-Brrzrrkrr, what a lot of misdirecting nonsense. (1) McWhorter discusses the term "scholar" or "scholarly" eleven times (not including the index) in this book, often to criticize other scholars for their work. Yet he does not follow even undergraduate level standards in his own. That is poor work whichever way you would like to try and spin your interpretation. The book is not a research paper, but that is not what "to be scholarly" entails. If you make a statement that you expect someone to accept, you need to support that statement with evidence to support your statement. McWhorter fails to do that throughout his 127-page opinion-piece. As an opinion piece, that is his prerogative, if he wants the work to be considered seriously, then it requires major revisions. "Cite the work of those individuals whose ideas, theories, or research have directly influenced your work. The works you cite provide key background information, support or dispute your thesis, or offer critical definitions and data. (p. 253)" American Psychological Association (APA). (2020). Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). APA. All standards of scholarly work (e.g., AMA, Chicago, Harvard, MLA referencing guidelines) have similar requirements. You must then decide what constitutes sufficient evidence for a given claim. Generally, the greater the claim, the greater the requirement of, and the more reliable should be, the standard of evidence: YouTube, newspapers, web pages on interest-group sites, are woefully insufficient. Which brings us to... (2) I remain -- as does the majority of science, arts and humanities study -- of the opinion that peer-review, as one part of academic assessment, remains the gold-standard in evidence. Internet sources, YouTube and popular books are simply not sufficient. Or would you rather base your philosophical foundations on "The Critical Drinker"? (3) I remain confident in peer-review despite what people that are ignorant of the combined parts of the scientific method may have said (particularly over the last five years). That is not "bold", it is a system that helps put technology in the hands of the masses, prevents disease, treats affliction and furthers our thinking in areas such as political philosophy. I have put enough time into countering your trolling here, and neither of you are saying anything new. |
by Guest-3814
on 2024-06-17 22:05:11
| Faux-Brrzrrkrr  I’m not the only one who thinks these two sound like the same  then? |
Like 1
Liked by - LiberalLesbo
by Brrzrrkrr
on 2024-06-22 00:52:31
 | I know McWhorter is a respected academic. As you've no evidence of being the same, and constantly deride any non-Woke source as being 'unscientific' or not sufficiently scholarly, your argument is moot. Misunderstanding a normative argument suggests your brain is smooth like a river rock. |
Like 0
by Guest-3525
on 2024-06-12 18:08:34
| I don’t know about Claudine Gay and I'd never heard of her until it became news that she was so obviously hounded out of her job for daring to be a smart black woman in Harvard. Oh the absolute temerity of that dark-skinned vagina-equipped human being! And really, WTF has she got to do with the price of fish? Thank you to the uploader for this book. I followed the link on the Doctor Who page and downloaded this (yes, I’m Guest-4229) late last night. It’s an easy read it’s pretty short and I was up night anyway. LL is right, McWhorter has written a pretty obvious grab for populist support from people like the extreme right, who think that a social media post from NuttyNazi or whoever is evidence for their social toxicity. He’s certainly convinced the lunatic fringe on here… I’m more convinced that McWhorter and his fans are so desperate for anything to support their dying philosophies, that they’d grab at any old theory and call it worth selling to the proud boys. Download it and read, it’s not worth buying and it won’t take a lot of effort. |
by LiberalLesbo
on 2024-06-13 21:20:37
| Wow, deja vu  So good you posted it twice?   |
Like 1
Liked by - Cowboy4Life
by Brrzrrkrr
on 2024-06-12 00:41:42
| Reviews by people with no proven qualifications or expertise to judge the book. There is strong evidence (to be found in her posts) that LiberalLesbo is a Woke fanatic and dedicated activist. She believes herself to be among the elect and privy to insights and a unique morality that are unsupported by any facts. Quote from a McWhorter interview: Interview Highlights Why is it that you assert that people who are pushing a particular kind of anti-racism are practicing something like a religion? Part of many religions is that at a certain point, you're supposed to suspend disbelief. At a certain point, you're supposed to stop using logic and you're just supposed to, for example, believe. You're just supposed to have faith. That is the way this new anti-racism goes in many cases. ... This is a religion where instead of it being about your faith in Jesus, it's about showing that you know that racism exists above all else, including basic compassion. That's religious. |
by LiberalLesbo
on 2024-06-12 14:23:01
| And throughout the history of my comments and our personal message discussions, I have consistently requested the highest standards of peer-reviewed evidence to support all claims. I have provided such for mine, you and your ilk B., have never done so. Hold on to your ranting B., it's all you have. |
Like 1
Liked by - Cowboy4Life
by Brrzrrkrr
on 2024-06-12 18:02:33
| Peer reviewed counts for nothing when the peers involved are yourself, and those who are similarly religiously indoctrinated. It's also an inappropriate demand outside the context of a document due for publication from an academic journal. |
Like 0
by LiberalLesbo
on 2024-06-13 15:50:32
| That's a patently absurd argument. Peer review is a standard throughout academia. You know full well that nobody reviews their own work, and non-acceptance of work, retracted work, and recognizing academic fraud are all parts of a self-regulating system that has worked well for longer than you or I have been alive. |
Like 1
Liked by - Cowboy4Life
by Brrzrrkrr
on 2024-06-13 18:52:02
| Peer reviews are only as good as the people reviewing the work. Unfortunately, they're often biased, such as your own (though I doubt you're qualified to act as a peer). Your Woke religious affiliations and rabid hatred of those who oppose those views make it obvious you came to a conclusion before looking at the work. |
Like 1
Liked by - FauxGojira
by LiberalLesbo
on 2024-06-13 19:01:45
| As I said, you are being absurd now B., and just raving with insulting attacks that are never supported by evidence. Neither one of us will (and should) never provide documentation to the other for our qualifications etc., and you know it. I am done feeding your particular troll for now. PM me if you wish to continue. |
Like 1
Liked by - Cowboy4Life
by Brrzrrkrr
on 2024-06-13 23:11:17
| Refusing to admit your obvious biases, and that you are NOT McWhorter's peer (you lack the qualifications), is the absurdity here. Also, you don't understand the flaws inherent in the system you're championing: https://www.sciencealert.com/this-is-why-a-lot-of-peer-reviewed-research-is-actually-wrong |
Like 1
Liked by - FauxGojira
by Guest-9062
on 2024-06-14 03:08:14
| Like the woman said, peer-review is one cog in the wheel of a self-regulating system that works. It's given us vaccines and treatments, all while identifying fraud like Surgisphere & hydroxychloroquine and Johnathan Matson's peer-review malpractice. They're even listed in Wikipedia, research is your friend. |
Like 1
Liked by - Cowboy4Life
by FauxGojira
on 2024-06-16 21:30:15
| @LL - You insist on evidence & peer-reviewed sourcing for claims as if all claims being argued are empirical (most disputes you engage in aren't) and despite the fact that for the subset of claims where peer review is potentially valuable, it's often worthless due to corruption. Your epistemic standards aren't legit. |
Like 1
Liked by - Brrzrrkrr
by FauxGojira
on 2024-06-16 21:51:35
| @9062 - You're using the pandemic to argue peer review is NOT discredited? Bold. How did the system perform when scientific questions became politically charged? The accredited 'peers' got a mob mentality and engaged in gatekeeping based on whether views were unfavored instead of on proper methodological criteria. |
Like 1
Liked by - Brrzrrkrr
by Brrzrrkrr
on 2024-06-12 18:05:26
| Your motivation isn't one of seeking truth. You are instead, dedicated to denying it's existence. McWhorter isn't alone in his observations, many other thinkers and academics have to the same conclusions. You keep talking about hatred, but your hatred of dissenting opinions is palpable. |
by LiberalLesbo
on 2024-06-12 18:49:09
| Oh B., I don't hate you babes, you should be pitied. As for the rest of that old  you're ranting to the faithful again B., with no evidence at all... still. |
Like 1
Liked by - Cowboy4Life
by Brrzrrkrr
on 2024-06-12 00:50:02
| This is not a scholarly work by any stretch of the imagination. McWhorter "teaches linguistics, American studies, and music history at Columbia University" (McWhorter, 2021, p. 141), and could therefore -- not unreasonably -- be accused of venturing well outside of his speciality. The same could be true of the bio-sciences prof' writing this review. However, any inteligent person should be able to recognize an argument well-supported by replicable, testable data, and other evidence-based discourse. You clearly don't understand the difference between hard and soft science, of which sociology is a part of the latter. For your education: "Hard science is the term used to define natural and physical sciences that study the universe through theories, hypotheses and experiments. The subjects that are included in this category are physics, math, chemistry, biology, anatomy, and astronomy, to name a few. Soft science, on the other hand, encompasses a specialized field or discipline that focuses on the study and interpretation of human behavior. Because it’s more difficult to establish measurable criteria when working on the analysis of how the mind works, these are less rigidly required to follow the scientific method, making them “soft” subjects. This category includes fields of study like sociology, psychology, political science, and anthropology." P.S. Look in the mirror. All of your behavior and writing is evidence that support McWhorter and the many others who have independently come to the same conclusions. |
by LiberalLesbo
on 2024-06-12 02:24:00
| Hard or soft science, if you attempt a scholarly work then you need to support your empirical statements with evidence. Please check any university web site and read a Masters paper in, for example, education or sociology. McWhorter's "material" would not earn him a passing grade in any course module. |
Like 1
Liked by - Cowboy4Life
by Guest-4078
on 2024-06-12 07:23:14
| Didn't Claudine Gay becomes president of Harvard University through plagiarism and DEI policies? I don't think modern academic standards apply. Why is it LiberalLesbo gets to determine what is and isn't a valid academic work? How is she qualified? She's certainly not as accomplished as McWhorter. |
Like 2
Liked by - FauxGojira Brrzrrkrr
by LiberalLesbo
on 2024-06-12 17:04:22
| No 4078, that is both irrelevant and almost a complete lie. I do NOT get to determine anything. Even my own work is mostly peer-reviewed. I DO however get to point out a verifiable account and support it with cited evidence. Something McWhorter -- or anyone else on this page -- has bothered to do. |
Like 1
Liked by - Cowboy4Life
by FauxGojira
on 2024-06-16 23:58:03
| @LL Almost a lie? He's right. You're imposing inappropriate standards to empower yourself to determine what is/isn't acceptable. I'm skeptical you read the book despite its brevity. If you had you couldn't think it's a research paper in social science. That's absurd.It's an extended argument about political philosophy. |
Like 1
Liked by - Brrzrrkrr
by Brrzrrkrr
on 2024-06-17 02:26:13
| FauxGojira is correct. Treating political philosophy as if it was a part of STEM doesn't work. Just as applying Woke value systems to subjects like mathematics and physics demonstrates an academic disconnect from objective reality. Your activism is motivated by religious fictions. |
Like 0
Comments need intelligible text (not only emojis or meaningless drivel).
No upload requests, visit the forum or message the uploader for this.
Use common sense and try to stay on topic.
No upload requests, visit the forum or message the uploader for this.
Use common sense and try to stay on topic.