whitlock,
I don't think you're racist. Or sexist. I don't think that would be possible for me to know, since I think you're a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Such is the lot of a hypocrite. Talent, no talent, it is all in aid of smoke you exhale to muddle the air of discussion. You are the equivalent of the Cosmo stories 26-year-old staffers write about fictional people saying fictional things about sex, work, life, death - you work off a false premise (that you're sincere) often to argue false premises. Your work is useful in the way it can be manipulated - hence my earlier post - in aid of a cause that, in an undetermined period from now, you will align yourself against. Another analogy: Your work is that which college debators could reasonably quote on the affirmative and negative sides, sometimes in the same column.
It works as gadfly journalism, and, on certain occasions, your work is so terrifically selfish and phony that it achieves a kind of grandeur. I don't question your influence or pull - I know you have it - nor do I deny the balsa wood that undergirds it. I can only say it appeals to the ugliest kind of intellectualism, that it is not affirming, but distracting, and whatever movement your work creates swirls more destructive forces than creative ones. It's base, not truth. Period. As so are so many of your posts here.
