Read on Twitter
Gonna do a running commentary on my impressions of the Milo-Jangles debate.
Jangles opening. I'm extremely unimpressed. A lot of time was wasted on socialist criticism of current global slavery (undefined) at the expense of laying out a working definition of white fragility
1/?
Jangles opening. I'm extremely unimpressed. A lot of time was wasted on socialist criticism of current global slavery (undefined) at the expense of laying out a working definition of white fragility
1/?
or even explaining what their argument in favor of the statement is "white fragility is real" will be. Political institutions are only mentioned in relation to economic structures, and the roles of religion & political values (& to whom they applied historical) is ignored.
2/?
2/?
By the end, I've been told more about why I should feel guilt buying sugar & coffee, but nothing that helps me, as a white person, understand what white fragility is, its structural enablers / how it allows egos to get in the way of achieving racially equality.
Milo next.
3/?
Milo next.
3/?
Milo's opener is filled with petty swipes & Strawman attacks he relies on instead of making solid arguments. He calls out Jangles for avoiding the actual debate topic and I wish I didn't havw to say this, but he's right on that point.
By focusing on a class critique instead
4/?
By focusing on a class critique instead
4/?
of using going 1st as a chance to define the definition to be used, Jangles has ceded that power to Milo to be the 1st to set out the parameters of the debate. Poor tactics. Very poor.
Milo the moves to use only D'angelo's perspective on the topic, allowing him to frame it
5/?
Milo the moves to use only D'angelo's perspective on the topic, allowing him to frame it
5/?
In language that is incendiary to whites in the audience, as white on white crime, not as the reaction to some whites reaction to the dismantling of the white privilege the benefit from.
Milo is now setting up Diangelo as the topic to be debated, not the concept.
6/?
Milo is now setting up Diangelo as the topic to be debated, not the concept.
6/?
Milo now defines white fragility as the idea of white liberals to discredit it, likening it to #metoo 
in order to discredit both.
Nothing in Jangles' opening was laid out to anticipate and undercut this obvious counterpoint that Milo would raise.
7/?
in order to discredit both. Nothing in Jangles' opening was laid out to anticipate and undercut this obvious counterpoint that Milo would raise.
7/?
Milo generalises from Diangelo to all white liberals expressing their racism that whites on the right don't have. 
Milo again notes Jangles avoided directly addressing white fragility in their opener, & uses the opening to define it as Strawman, exploiting his advantage.
8/?
Milo again notes Jangles avoided directly addressing white fragility in their opener, & uses the opening to define it as Strawman, exploiting his advantage.
8/?
Milo closes by complimenting Jangles' criminal justice concerns & claiming they agree. This is a tactical move designed to make that agreement on the basis of his own worldview. This is something Sargon does a lot to seem like "a good guy" while saying awful things.
9/?
9/?
Jangles asserts they defined white fragility in their opening statement. Huh? I was listening. Nope. They didn't.
They don't then repeat the definition, they move on. Um. If you're challenged on giving a definition, give it. Don't just claim you did & change the topic.
12/?
They don't then repeat the definition, they move on. Um. If you're challenged on giving a definition, give it. Don't just claim you did & change the topic.
12/?
Jangles then goes after Milo personally, which appears to me as avoiding the topic. Again. Instead they point to general psychology points instead of dealing with the "white" part of "white" fragility. It seems evasive.
Jangles is basically denying white fragility is a
13/?
Jangles is basically denying white fragility is a
13/?
category of intersectional analysis even worth of it's own name, from my understanding of what they've said.
Milo now asks why Jangles even agreed to speak in the affirmative on the question and goddammit Jangles, you're making me agree with Milo! Stop putting me in a
14/?
Milo now asks why Jangles even agreed to speak in the affirmative on the question and goddammit Jangles, you're making me agree with Milo! Stop putting me in a
14/?
position where I see the same flaws in what you're saying that he sees! 
Milo just high roaded Jangles as being patronising, because they were. Damn it, when does the destruction begin because Jangles is destroying themselves so far
15/?
Milo just high roaded Jangles as being patronising, because they were. Damn it, when does the destruction begin because Jangles is destroying themselves so far
15/?
This is just PAINFUL. Jangles is now asking Milo why he thinks Jangles brought up global slavery in their opening. Ffs! If you have to walk people through the logic of opening defense of your position, you lost!
Milo is now dragging Jangles for avoiding the debate ? & for
16/?
Milo is now dragging Jangles for avoiding the debate ? & for
16/?
being patronising and rude. Anyone who did know these two would be siding with Milo at this point. It's a shit show. People shouldn't be advertising this as Milo getting destroyed. He SHOULD have been destroyed & anyone with any respect for intersectionality & the goal of
17/?
17/?
dismantling white supremacy COULD have destroyed him.
Sorry, not sorry. I'm just gonna say it Jangles has done terribly so far. Completely flubbed this & made Milo look reasonable.
Smdh
18/?
Sorry, not sorry. I'm just gonna say it Jangles has done terribly so far. Completely flubbed this & made Milo look reasonable.
Smdh
18/?
Ffs, Jangles is re-explaining his opening.
Because Jangles negated white fragility, saying it nothing more than standard psychology, Milo asserts Jangles would also accept "black fragility" as a concept & equates it with racist stereotypes.Jangles opened the door to this
19/?
Because Jangles negated white fragility, saying it nothing more than standard psychology, Milo asserts Jangles would also accept "black fragility" as a concept & equates it with racist stereotypes.
Jangles opened the door to this19/?
Milo said comparing his racist examples of "black fragility" to white fragility, white people come off looking good.
Jangled jumps on this, asking why white people come off looking better.
I hit pause. I swear if Jangels shifts to class analysis now, ima lose my shit.
20/?
Jangled jumps on this, asking why white people come off looking better.
I hit pause. I swear if Jangels shifts to class analysis now, ima lose my shit.
20/?
Jangles is just getting played by Milo at every turn. This is me for most of this debate.
Milo is blaming white liberals his characterisation as black immorality, utterly ignoring the actual white supremacist structures and the right wing that maintains and defends it.
21/?
Milo is blaming white liberals his characterisation as black immorality, utterly ignoring the actual white supremacist structures and the right wing that maintains and defends it.
21/?
Milo has a series of tantrums to get more time to talk on & on & on. The mod failed to be balanced, but honestly this is why I ALWAYS make times rounds a condition of being in a formal debate.
I don't see Jangles taking any notes. Another failure there. I'm gonna bail
22/?
I don't see Jangles taking any notes. Another failure there. I'm gonna bail
22/?
Why does Jangles keep asking Milo ?s that allow him run his mouth instead of MAKING AN ARGUMENT?!
This is a debate, not an INTERVIEW!
I can't do this anymore. No one should lie to Jangles that they did well. Milo got HIS agenda via this debate out & Jangles helped.
~Fin
This is a debate, not an INTERVIEW!
I can't do this anymore. No one should lie to Jangles that they did well. Milo got HIS agenda via this debate out & Jangles helped.
~Fin
Apologies for the many typos. After 12 tweets on my mobile my fingers get tired & I get lazy when re editing text to fit under the character limits!
