Unless the final paragraph contradicts âPosted something similar in another thread, but being âangryâ is a genuine racist trope used against black women and Ross should have stayed away from thatâ, then we have a disagreement not covered in it.
I detailed multiple reasons that this is a terrible strategy that will frequently end up amplifying racist tropes. This will particularly happen when itâs a somewhat rare trope that people are not fully aware of and itâs being brought up in a context thatâs a bit of a stretch, reflecting the awareness of the person pointing out the trope more than anything else. This is, very literally, a woman identifying as black who is multiply alleged to have inappropriate angry outbursts in the workplace.
Tiptoeing around that so much that you tell others it shouldnât even be mentioned will only further the purposes of extremely cynical IDpol, exactly the kind Morales is employing in this post. It covers for malice and harm. Itâs also the opposite of solidarity in this situation - the workers have a very real complaint, here.
I donât understand why you keep ignoring me very clearly saying that itâs right and good to report on her being abusive towards her workers. Thatâs not the same thing as having a temper. You can have a temper and not be abusive, you can be abusive and not have a temper. Surely if youâre worried about solidarity towards the workers it would be preferable for the emphasis to be on her being abusive towards them, rather than hiding that behind the much vaguer âhas a temperâ?
I donât understand why you keep ignoring me very clearly saying that itâs right and good to report on her being abusive towards her workers. Thatâs not the same thing as having a temper. You can have a temper and not be abusive, you can be abusive and not have a temper.
Her workers literally said she had anger problems and gave those as examples. The journalist in question is reporting what they said.
Surely if youâre worried about solidarity towards the workers it would be preferable for the emphasis to be on her being abusive towards them, rather than hiding that behind the much vaguer âhas a temperâ?
That didnât happen. The journalist didnât say any of that in their initial tweet, it was just part of the article alongside those examples. Instead, this was brought up in an antagonistic reply that cherry-picked out that quote to make a very similar point to you, but in a clearly cynical fashion just like Morales does. When the journalist and others did tweet about it, it was in response to that.
My mistake, I misread the tweets. Thanks for pointing that out. Iâm more conflicted now- I do wish Barkan had emphasised the abusive rather than angry aspect a little more, but Iâm not sure this really warrants criticism, and I agree that the replying tweet was using this as deflection.
