Kendi seems to misunderstand (whether on purpose or not) what "simplistic" means. He takes McWhorter as stating that Kendi has distilled complex material into an approachable package. Quite the opposite. By labelling the work simplistic, McWhorter means that it lacks nuance or understanding. Simplistic does not mean simplified.
I agree. I don't think what John meant was unclear - if it was, I wouldn't come down on Kendi so hard. I even think it would have been clear what John meant even if he said "simplified" instead, based on the surrounding context.
The intentional or unintentional misunderstanding probably wouldn't have stood out to me (or anybody, really) if Kendi hadn't immediately used it to attack McWhorter - calling him a racist over it took it to another level.
I don't think that Kendi meant "McWhorter complained that my book was simple, therefore he's a racist." Rather, I think he meant "McWhorter is a racist, so of course he doesn't like my 'simple' definition according to which this is the case." (Not that this is much better!)
Indeed, in his book, Kendi does label some of McWhorter's views as racist. In particular, Kendi labels as racist the view that cultural factors could lead to different outcomes across races, even if these factors are themselves the legacies of racist policies. Of course, whether this is a good definition or not is another matter, but I think these are the grounds on which Kendi is saying McWhorter is a racist.
Finally, the distinction between 'simple' and 'simplistic' does start to fade if you assume, as Kendi sometimes seems to, that your arguments are definitely obviously right. After all, when we complain that an argument is simplistic, we mean that it is too simple and thereby false. If Kendi knows his arguments aren't false and knows McWhorter must know it too, McWhorter must just not like how simple Kendi's arguments are.
Of course, it would still be hard to describe this mentality as good-faith engagement.
I think I'd agree with you more if Kendi hadn't explained what he was claiming McWhorter meant by "simplistic". It's such a substantial jump from what McWhorter is saying to "He's worried that my book is readable, because this will reveal that he's a racist" that it's harder for me to be forgiving.
I think that this does work better for other complaints here - where Kendi thinks there aren't any good-faith dissenters or he doesn't think anybody who disagrees with him understands his work, it's more understandable as plain arrogance/overconfidence.
Thanks! I think your first paragraph here might be the crux of our disagreement.
I don't think Kendi means to assert that McWhorter’s argument was that Kendi’s book is too readable. Rather, I think Kendi intends to make two points. First, that he views the simplicity of his own arguments as a strength rather than a weakness, for example because it makes his book more readable. Second, that another effect of this simplicity is that it exposes people like McWhorter as racists, and that this second effect explains McWhorter’s motivation to push back against Kendi’s arguments.
To elaborate on the first point, when Kendi explains that simplicity = readability, I think he means to present an argument in favor of his approach, and is not attempting to say that this particular benefit of simplicity is what McWhorter is objecting to. In a sense, I think you are being too charitable in assuming that Kendi is trying to engage with McWhorter here!
My point here isn't to defend Kendi's comments, because I think he comes out looking bad here either way (at best his comments are a non sequitur followed by an ad hominem). Rather, I think that figuring out what someone really intends to say - especially in extemporaneous speech - can be difficult, and that it's especially important to keep this in mind when someone seems really, really wrong.
Kendi seems to misunderstand (whether on purpose or not) what "simplistic" means. He takes McWhorter as stating that Kendi has distilled complex material into an approachable package. Quite the opposite. By labelling the work simplistic, McWhorter means that it lacks nuance or understanding. Simplistic does not mean simplified.
I agree. I don't think what John meant was unclear - if it was, I wouldn't come down on Kendi so hard. I even think it would have been clear what John meant even if he said "simplified" instead, based on the surrounding context.
The intentional or unintentional misunderstanding probably wouldn't have stood out to me (or anybody, really) if Kendi hadn't immediately used it to attack McWhorter - calling him a racist over it took it to another level.
I don't think that Kendi meant "McWhorter complained that my book was simple, therefore he's a racist." Rather, I think he meant "McWhorter is a racist, so of course he doesn't like my 'simple' definition according to which this is the case." (Not that this is much better!)
Indeed, in his book, Kendi does label some of McWhorter's views as racist. In particular, Kendi labels as racist the view that cultural factors could lead to different outcomes across races, even if these factors are themselves the legacies of racist policies. Of course, whether this is a good definition or not is another matter, but I think these are the grounds on which Kendi is saying McWhorter is a racist.
Finally, the distinction between 'simple' and 'simplistic' does start to fade if you assume, as Kendi sometimes seems to, that your arguments are definitely obviously right. After all, when we complain that an argument is simplistic, we mean that it is too simple and thereby false. If Kendi knows his arguments aren't false and knows McWhorter must know it too, McWhorter must just not like how simple Kendi's arguments are.
Of course, it would still be hard to describe this mentality as good-faith engagement.
I think I'd agree with you more if Kendi hadn't explained what he was claiming McWhorter meant by "simplistic". It's such a substantial jump from what McWhorter is saying to "He's worried that my book is readable, because this will reveal that he's a racist" that it's harder for me to be forgiving.
I think that this does work better for other complaints here - where Kendi thinks there aren't any good-faith dissenters or he doesn't think anybody who disagrees with him understands his work, it's more understandable as plain arrogance/overconfidence.
Thanks! I think your first paragraph here might be the crux of our disagreement.
I don't think Kendi means to assert that McWhorter’s argument was that Kendi’s book is too readable. Rather, I think Kendi intends to make two points. First, that he views the simplicity of his own arguments as a strength rather than a weakness, for example because it makes his book more readable. Second, that another effect of this simplicity is that it exposes people like McWhorter as racists, and that this second effect explains McWhorter’s motivation to push back against Kendi’s arguments.
To elaborate on the first point, when Kendi explains that simplicity = readability, I think he means to present an argument in favor of his approach, and is not attempting to say that this particular benefit of simplicity is what McWhorter is objecting to. In a sense, I think you are being too charitable in assuming that Kendi is trying to engage with McWhorter here!
My point here isn't to defend Kendi's comments, because I think he comes out looking bad here either way (at best his comments are a non sequitur followed by an ad hominem). Rather, I think that figuring out what someone really intends to say - especially in extemporaneous speech - can be difficult, and that it's especially important to keep this in mind when someone seems really, really wrong.