In his recent Dividing Line broadcast (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_X9QuJGvgs), the Honorable Doc James White informs us (at the 11:08 mark) that he is "the most active English-speaking Christian apologist in the current day." Which surprised me a little. But you know, I can let him have Thursdays. There's six more days to go around.
Although maybe he's talking about active on his bike.
White also informs us (earlier at the 10 minute mark) that he's been consistently careful and charitable. I am actually quite grateful that he told us this, because otherwise no one would be able to tell.
I mean, just look at what White says at the 40 minute mark: "It is absolutely time to work through a basic outline on something called logic. Formal fallacies. Bad argumentation. What's modus ponens, what's modus tollens? What's the law of the excluded middle? What are these things? ...They are the laws of thought. And, what happened last week?"
And yes, so far I'm with White. But then, without a hint of irony, in the very next breath (literally--queue it up and listen), White proves how rational, logical, consistent, charitable, and reasonable he is: "Now, there have been various people who've attacked me. People like Steve Hays. Oh my gosh. Steve, dude, um, that was one of the worst things that ever appeared on Triablogue. I mean, you can't even pretend any longer to be even slightly unbiased. At all. I mean, you missed the forest for the trees so badly on that it was just shameful. I'm sorry dude you've lost it."
This is his entire response to Hays.
It takes a special kind of mind to go off on a complete abusive ad hominem WHILE IN THE MIDDLE OF SAYING YOU WANT TO TEACH LOGIC all whilst never examining even a single argument Steve Hays wrote.
And it's easy to see why White did this. The good doc is going after the people who responded to him from the side of critical theory and, as is wont the case when an ugly fact destroys a beautiful theory, Hays didn't attack White on that basis. He agreed with White's view on critical theory. Thus, Hays doesn't fit White's narrative.
Just to make it even more ironic, I happened to see some interaction that Hays had with some members on Facebook who were discussing this, and one of them literally said to Hays, "This might come as a shock, but White's Dividing Line show was not a response to your (far more reasonable) criticisms."
Far more reasonable.
Hmm. So White spends a ton of time going after the people who were far less reasonable, and he completely ignores Hays's arguments, instead substituting verbal abuse for argumentation. Yes, I'm sure that's the way to win hearts and minds. Even better, while doing that he should demand that people be calm and reasonable toward him, and that DeWitt provide logical arguments and reasons for treating White the way DeWitt did.
Oh wait. That is what he did?
Well then.
Is White consistently careful and consistently charitable? Well, he's consistently something. I'm thinking the word is "hypocritical."
Wait a second. Hypo...CRITICAL!
Critical Theory adherent confirmed!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteIt appears White has a double standard:
Delete1. On the one hand, White objects when DeWitt cautions people about reading White. On the other hand, White has no problem cautioning people about reading Hays.
2. On the one hand, White objects to DeWitt preemptively blocking him on Twitter. On the other hand, White has preemptively disabled comments on his YouTube videos so people can't comment on his YouTube videos. For example, see White's most recent video.
It only appears that way because it is that way, Hawk.
ReplyDeleteI have no problem at all with White being upset toward, and seeking answers from, DeWitt. And I likewise saw how lots of people just said, "RAAAAACIST!" in response. But substitute "biased" for "racist" and that's exactly how White responded to Hays, despite the fact that Hays had already done the very thing White is currently demanding DeWitt do: provide a reasoned argument for why White's Tweet was problematic.
White said lots of stuff I agreed with and made lots of points that deserve a response greater than just ranting...and so did Hays. Yet White treats Hays in the exact manner White condemns, thus demonstrating through his behavior that White actually has no problem at all with the tactics used against him by the left. No, they're okay for HIM to use, just not okay to use against him.
Even that wouldn't be so bad if White wasn't constantly prattling on about how consistent and charitable he was. I had thought more of White in the past. It's quite disappointing to see he's stared into the abyss too long.
It's funny that he did a DL yesterday whining about how he's been "deplatformed" by Dan Dewitt. He's up-in-arms because Dewitt has purged his syllabus of material by White.
ReplyDeleteSo White's M.O. is "deplatforming for me but not for thee."
It's okay if he warns folks not to read my stuff, but if someone warns folks not to read his stuff, that's intolerable!
In one respect that's a glaring double standard but in another respect, White is so wrapped up in himself that he's become the standard. Are you for him or agin' him? That's the yardstick by which he measures everything.
Funniest of all, James White goes ballistic over two tweets by Dan DeWitt, accusing DeWitt of defamation. What's ironic is that DeWitt didn't name White as the culprit in his tweets. By instantly recognizing himself in DeWitt's anonymous description, White outs himself a match for the profile.
ReplyDeleteWhy does he assume that DeWitt must be referring to him? Why does he assuming anybody reading the tweets will automatically associate the description with White? His defensiveness is unwittingly self-incriminating.