Philip.

Everyone says he's a massive racist now.

Ah, too slow.

The reaction to it has made me sit back and think about 'woke' culture more than anything else ever has.

He replied to someone and said that condemning a book without reading it was an attitude belonging to someone from ISIS or the Taliban. This was a reply to a white woman. Everyone is saying the comment was directed at 3 women of colour he had been disagreeing with.

Presumably those 3 had been condemning the book without reading it? His response just seems to me to be that of an out of touch man in his 70s, relating that level of control and criticism (burn the books!) to the sort of organisation that might do that. Once upon a time that would have been the nazis.

Perhaps I'm being too generous? I don't even know. It seems like everyone is reading the worst into what he said? But so many people have turned on him that it must be me that's wrong?

Not entirely sure that you need to read an entire book to spot and call out racism or ableism, particularly as this book is a memoir rather than a piece of fiction.

From what I saw there are passages in the white womans book (it’s relevant that she’s white) calling kids in her class almond eyes and chocolate.

Some Asian (brown) women highlight the trope of food in describing brown/black people because it essentially commodifies them like how food was imported and in the context that many were actual commodity (ie slaves) then perhaps it’s a bit dumb.

Then Pullman goes and defends the white woman author.

Then there’s a bit of a fall out as more people defend the white woman while there seems to be less defence from the white establishment for the brown women who raised the issue and are now getting abuse for being woke.

For me it’s a very intellectual debate which I think slightly undermines ideas about racism. Maybe if the white author called white kids “milkybar” or “Stilton” it’d at least show she just likes using food as a description but it’s not clear if that’s what happened.

Not really clear about pullmans defence other than he made it and he’s probably batting for someone he thinks is nice and the whole thing feels terribly horrific or whatever.

I don't think there is any debate - not anymore - about the language used in the book being something quite awful. It's more the accusations of Pullman saying the women of colour had the attitude of an Isis member that I'm not convinced of. I mean, it was clearly a stupid comment but from reading it I don't think it was aimed at women of colour at all. It was aimed at the white woman talking about not reading Ayn Rand and still judging it.

I think I need to quit Twitter. It's fucking horrible on there.

I just think Pullman was an idiot for publicly comparing anything to Isis/Taliban. It’s like comparing someone to the Nazis - if you stoop to that comparison, you’ve already lost the argument.

poprock wrote:

I just think Pullman was an idiot for publicly comparing anything to Isis/Taliban. It’s like comparing someone to the Nazis - if you stoop to that comparison, you’ve already lost the argument.

Using the name of the Taliban as a slur because it's in the current news cycle, is shitty.
But on the scale of Innocuous -> Danny Baker -> Tommy Robinson, Pullman's comment in isolation is merely misguided. 

But his intention is to defend a clear example of stereotyping with, the fuck... A stereotype!
Which is stereotypically bigoted behaviour.

And this would be a stereotypical response.

I think the original question that Crayon pointed out, is a fair and direct one for the author herself to answer though ('why are you using that kind of language?'). And it's fair for Pullman to take a side. But why he'd want to enter a debate regarding racism against central asians, with a comment about the war in Afghanistan is suspect, coming from a man I'm guessing is well known, and highly intelligent.

Fucking hell! Channeling her inner Prince Phillip!
I mean, this is what she thinks of the kids she actually 'liked'.



Somehow exhibits a remarkable level of 'cultural awareness'...

Nonsensical.

Yeah. It's the connection with the nationality that causes the problems. We overlay our pre-conceptions onto what we see as well. It's back to how wired we are to spot patterns. We need to be more aware of it because it can blind you.

I’ve literally never heard anyone describe anyone else as looking “so” Dutch or Swedish.

I don't know why she's putting so much focus and emphasis on their race and culture. Even if you take that out of it I probably still wouldn't like it, it's like she's observing wildlife or aliens or something

What does looking Afghan or Pakistani even mean though? If it's the qualifiers after (with his big nose and premature mustache/with his long lashed eyes and glossy hair) then what does the nationality mentioned add? If it's not that, well, what does it mean?

I've absolutely no idea what traits are attempted to being described, and if it's the ones she puts in it's redundant first of all, and secondly not something I've ever heard of.

There are clearly racial traits that are present in individuals that informs one to assume some heritage. To deny their existence is fallacious, to comment upon them racist? I don't know.