Re: Disturbing racialism in the New York Times Archived Message
Posted by margo on January 30, 2019, 3:43 pm, in reply to "Re: Disturbing racialism in the New York Times"
Thanks for the description,w. I was just curious because you say you've only skim-read the article but that the author Walsh is "the class-warrior in chief at the WSWS" and you therefore warn that because of that descriptive, his conclusions may not bear scrutiny. So I understand then that you don't think Walsh is neutral and because he's not neutral, his work doesn't bear scrutiny. May I ask, do you only use the word "warrior" (which infers less neutral, you say) in relation to journalists who primarily see through the prism of class analysis? If another journalist primarily sees things through the lens of gender, would you describe that journalist as a "gender warrior" and warn that their work might not stand up to scrutiny? Similarly, if a journalist looks more through the lens of race, are they a "race warrior" (ie less neutral and thus will not stand up to scrutiny?) (Not wanting to pick arguments or anything, w, just trying to understand the terminology so I don't err and annoy. I don't have perfect understanding, I'm learning as I go)
|
|