Mushnick!

Get out of my trendy urban garden!

 

If it counts for anything, I thought Joe Lapointe was a pseudonym. But I'm just a (presumed) lone minority voice being overlooked in this discussion among older white gentlemen evaluating the logistics of racial prejudice. Don't mind me.

 

Always felt using a real name may have given posters license to be as haughty as they wished.

 

AKA "The Whitlock Rule."

 

Maybe overcompensation for his plebeian origins, which he of course used for false effect in his work.
I must be acknowledged!
Validate my existence, or I will fail to be!

 

Not that discussing the merits of anonymity isn't fascinating, but I have another point to make about Phil Mushnick: He doesn't make his points very well.

I went back and reread the column that led to this debate, and I couldn't help but notice how little attention he paid to the basic rules of argumentation. He relied heavily on readers knowing his long history of writing on these topics, which isn't realistic at all in the Internet age. He mixed examples without making any clear connections to them.

Why are the new LeBron James sneakers, which are not red and black (or, at least, are not limited to red and black) similar to gang-color New Era hats? Why are the Olympic uniforms even mentioned, aside from Mushnick's color-blindedness?

He writes for shock value. The Brooklyn N-----s column was more overt. Even YankeeFan can admit, though, that Mushnick is writing to get people talking about his writing. It's akin to Skip Bayless, who talks to get people to talk about his talking. Even their good points are undermined by the brashness and lack of credible, logical argumentation.

I guess that's the long way of saying, Phil Mushnick talks down to his audience. He allows for no disagreement or gray area. If you disagree with him, you're wrong. There's no room for nuance or deeper understanding or intellect.

 

A lot of salient points very respectfully made on this thread in reference to a specific column with specific problems. So I'm not sure I understand why anonymity is an impediment to a craft discussion. On the internet you are as you post.

Would Joe LaPointe or anyone else take my arguments more seriously if I worked at a big newspaper? If I wrote for a magazine? If I was collected in an anthology he taught from? (All of which biases authority. Or just bigfoots us.)

As it is for each of Mr. Mushnick's columns, our posts here stand or fall on their own merit.