|
Post by nighttimer on Oct 23, 2017 12:35:13 GMT -5
So much for MLK's dream. Too bad he didn't throw something in there about dangly bits, or the lack thereof, as well. MLK threw in a lot of things in the 1963 March on Washington speech, but as to be expected, guys like you always cherry-pick it and treat it like a buffet: choose what you want and ignore the rest. That's quite annoying to those of us who embrace the entire speech, not just the bastardized parts. ...one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. And so we've come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.
In a sense we've come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the "unalienable Rights" of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note, insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds."
But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. And so, we've come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.
We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of Now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children.
It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. And those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. And there will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.It's appalling how someone who styles himself as such an intellectual icon he goes so far to quote himself, could miss the subtle warnings and direct confrontation in MLK's speech. Why hasn't King's dream come to pass? Because the crisis conditions he described here have not been resolved. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their self-hood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating: "For Whites Only." We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until "justice rolls down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream." If you truly believe in the Dream you can't dilute it down to a catchphrase. It must be taken in its totality. If you can't or won't then leave MLK and his dream the hell alone.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Oct 23, 2017 5:29:46 GMT -5
I have supported my points. I can't make you read or understand or reach the same conclusions as I have. No, I don't care about convincing you if convincing you means swapping tales of days gone by. That's pleasant enough in a casual conversation, but we're not simply shootin' the shit. I was asked to "support" my points by Amadan and once delivered he rejected it. You didn't even acknowledge it, so what's the use in trying to convince you? You did not support your points. You posted links to a couple of articles talking about how racism exists in academia. Which was not in dispute, and not what I asked you to support. Stop claiming your arguments are being ignored or rejected when you aren't actually addressing the topic. You were about as on-target as if I had said "Japanese were a threat in World War II so interning Japanese-Americans was the right thing to do," you asked for proof, and I provided a couple of articles about Pearl Harbor and the Rape of Nanking. See above where I repeat what you clumsily edited out of the quote, slick. I'm supposed to take seriously a guy who says I'm not actually addressing the topic who just scribbled a screed about affirmative action and what he thinks about it? That's not the topic either and seriously who cares what you think about affirmative action? You have provided nothing to prove how eeeeevil progressive stacking is only demonstrates yet again your slippery evasiveness and craven intellectual dishonesty. That's always been your fallback move. Demand proof and then reject it out of hand because it doesn't conform to your ever-shifting guidelines and weasel out of replying by demanding more evidence. Feed the troll, please. You can't pick the argument apart because you're not clever enough to do so, but you can snort "Bah! Insufficient! Rejected."Enjoy your drinking game with yo' drunk buddy.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Oct 22, 2017 22:13:09 GMT -5
You take me very seriously, Opty. If you didn't you'd simply ignore me instead of whining and ranting when you get called on your hypocritical crap. "Hypocritical." You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Fixed that for ya. You're welcome. Sure you have, champ. You just keep basking in your own brilliance. I'll be over here recalling how bent out of shape you were when I informed you how your boy James Damore was a KKK-slurping sucker. <Insert sad trombone sound here> Not anybody, Opty. Just you.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Oct 22, 2017 22:04:09 GMT -5
You answered three minutes after I posted. Did you read the links? The reason for progressive stacking isn't necessarily that POC are wildly raising their hands and not being called on. (Did anyone actually claim this?) The point is to let previously unheard voices be heard--and yes, to even give them priority. They HAVE been ignored. That's why I posted the link regarding racism in primary schools. That's why I posted the link regarding racism happening right now on campuses. University classrooms can help to balance the scales for POC. I honestly do not understand why this is so offensive. Oh, I do. But nobody wants to say it or put it in writing because the Internet never forgets. Which is what I was specifically asking about, because (1) that's the problem "progressive stacking" is supposed to address and (2) shifting every argument to "But racism exists!" serves no purpose except soapboxing. Yes. Racism exists. Sexism exists. That doesn't mean that every goddamn thing in the universe is attributable to racism or sexism. Nor does it mean that any action that vaguely purports to wave a hand in the direction of racism is a good one. Absent a better suggestion from you, I'll stick with the one in play. Thanks for admitting racism and sexism exists. Some of us already knew that. Every goddamn thing in the universe isn't attributable to racism or sexism. That's no reason to wait for you or anybody here to tell me what is. Pour me a glass of Pappy Van Winkle neat and maybe I will. But probably I won't because to share my irrelevant and unimportant anecdotes proves nothing except I have them. I don't know when you were in school, Cassandra. You said something about 1958, but I thought you were a little younger than that. I'm asserting racism in academia is still a thing. Either you accept it or you don't. Sure. You don't have to support your points. You won't convince me that way, but apparently you don't care. So... Yeah. That was fun. I have supported my points. I can't make you read or understand or reach the same conclusions as I have. No, I don't care about convincing you if convincing you means swapping tales of days gone by. That's pleasant enough in a casual conversation, but we're not simply shootin' the shit. I was asked to "support" my points by Amadan and once delivered he rejected it. You didn't even acknowledge it, so what's the use in trying to convince you? It wasn't fun. Not even a little bit.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Oct 22, 2017 21:18:13 GMT -5
Admittedly, this does not specifically address how people of color are dealt with in the lecture hall, but it does confirm institutions of higher learning are not discrimination-free safe zones. The same benighted attitudes about Blacks which abound and thrive in the larger society continue to flourish in academia. Which is what I was specifically asking about, because (1) that's the problem "progressive stacking" is supposed to address and (2) shifting every argument to "But racism exists!" serves no purpose except soapboxing. I've offered significantly more evidence there is a problem in academia of racism which progressive stacking is a method employed to address than you have offered any evidence there's no need for it. I've shown you mine. Show me yours. Otherwise, you have nothing to add but only wanted to be included in the thread.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Oct 22, 2017 21:15:33 GMT -5
On the contrary. As far as I can tell, this is turning into the thread where Cass explains how she conquered sexism, and how Black people should take notes. Yeah. You and nt show some actual evidence of women (woke TA mentioned women, too, did she not?) and people of color with hands raised Hermione-style trying desperately to participate in a modern college classroom and getting ignored by professors who only call on white males. I'll wait. I've never seen it, not have I experienced it. So show me some goddamn proof. All you have is snark and virtue signaling, at the moment. And I can't see that's better than what I have. What is this? Are you from Missouri and I have to "show you?" Gotta tell ya, Cassandra, telling me I have to "show you some goddamn proof" does not send chills down my spine and scurrying to Google. The world does not exist to validate your takes and neither do I. That's not what I'm here for. I have no intention of spinning my wheels and wasting my time in pursuit of something YOU consider to be "actual evidence." I've presented MY sources. Where's YOUR goddamn proof? You don't want "actual evidence" Cassandra. You want acknowledgment your personal experience and anecdotal "evidence" is all it takes to carry the day. It doesn't. War stories about what a hard charging, go-getter you were back in the day may fascinate a chosen few, but in debate it means nothing. Less than nothing really, because just because YOU haven't seen it and YOU haven't experienced it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You say you are unmarried and childless. I am married and have children who no longer are children, but that doesn't make me the definite authority on the topic or that you have nothing to say about marriage and children, does it? There is nothing I can tell you about the law. There is nothing you can tell me about journalism. There is nothing I can tell you about being a woman. There is nothing you can tell me about being a man. There is nothing I can tell you about being White and there is nothing you can tell me about being Black. You and I can offer an opinion on all of those things, but unlike you, I'm willing to admit it won't be an informed opinion. I'm willing to engage in a civil debate with you, but I'm not going to accept demands from you to meet your expectations. I'm not here for that either. Cool story, Cassandra. But this is not about you is it? Racism in Academia is a real thing and if not active racism, unconscious bias is a real thing. Your personal experiences are not without merit, but they have no bearing to what students in 2017 experience in the lecture hall. Cite? For the "this is what students experience in 2017?" I think you just made my point. I'm convinced that you are actually a parody account. The ham-fisted race-baiting, the egregious sexism/misogyny, and the continual hypocritical contradictions that lack any semblance of self-awareness...it can't be real. There is absolutely no reason anyone here should ever take anything you say seriously either in the past or ever again. You take me very seriously, Opty. If you didn't you'd simply ignore me instead of whining and ranting when you get called on your hypocritical crap. You won't. Somewhere deep down in a dark place you don't want to acknowledge you kinda dig it. Taking aside actual evidence that people of color and women in 2017's college classes are routinely raising their hands and being ignored in favor of their white male classmates (and I'd still like to see such evidence, if it exists), I don't even see anecdotal accounts from people directly witnessing or experiencing such a thing. You have some anecdotes, nt and Christine? Did you spend your college years with your hand in the air while your professors called on white guys instead? Do you have some articles from today's students talking about their first-hand experience in 2017 with this alleged phenomenon in college classrooms? Absent some support, yes, I am way skeptical that this is a real problem, now, today, in U.S. universities. Certainly I think there's plenty of racism and sexism in this country. But unless someone can show me some evidence, I'm not buying that this is an example of it, in large part because my own observation and experience doesn't support it. Even less am I buying that this TA has hit on a good way to address it. Fine by me if you're not buying. I wasn't selling. I don't see any upside of sharing my anecdotal stories with strangers. There's way too much oversharing online. If I wanted you to know my personal info I'd send you a friend request.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Oct 22, 2017 20:46:13 GMT -5
What you and the others are not considering is progressive stacking is a solution to a problem and the problem is People of Color can raise their hands and be ignored. They can have the answer and they aren't called on. As usual, people are all up in arms over the remedy and don't even consider there might be an ailment it was designed for. I'm aware of studies showing that women are called on less frequently than men, though I'm having trouble finding any such studies that aren't pretty old, which makes me question whether it's still an endemic problem, given the current trend in education which is all about empowering girls. I have not been able to find any similar studies showing that non-white people are ignored in class more frequently. Do you have any? Or just anecdotal evidence, which you have established is irrelevant? Well, there's this: And there's this: Admittedly, this does not specifically address how people of color are dealt with in the lecture hall, but it does confirm institutions of higher learning are not discrimination-free safe zones. The same benighted attitudes about Blacks which abound and thrive in the larger society continue to flourish in academia. To be accurate, the source still matters and when it is obviously a biased and slanted source which specializes in shit-stirring, it doubly matters. What you and the others are not considering is progressive stacking is a solution to a problem and the problem is People of Color can raise their hands and be ignored. They can have the answer and they aren't called on. As usual, people are all up in arms over the remedy and don't even consider there might be an ailment it was designed for. It's much easier to believe than it is to think and this thread is ample evidence of it. Hey, Vince? "This person" has a name. It's Stephanie McKellop. If you're going to start this dogpile of a thread, it might not kill you to bother to learn it and use it. I saw this shit before with Liz Phipps Soeiro and its starting to look like a deliberate way to slight the subject as being unworthy of even minimal respect. Keep it classy. Yes? Is there a point you wanted to make here? A Black female has less agency than a Black male and a Black male has less agency than a White female and all three of have less agency than a White male. That's how it has been and that's how too many people think it should always be. The source was Twitter. I saw it there and posted. The fact that there was a link from the college fix on it is besides the point since you're not debating anything they said. You're simply endorsing what she's said. And it's not that no white man should ever take a back seat. It's that every student should be treated equally and fairly, regardless of their race or gender. Yes, every student should be treated equally and fairly, but they aren't and that means addressing that inequality and unfairness may mean not everyone will be treated as they might wish to be. Everyone includes White men. It's about fucking time you and Christine acknowledged my presence in this thread. Up until now you were too goddamn busy talking to the white boys and pretending I wasn't here. Not the first time it has happened, either. I got as in your face as I could to try to change that dynamic. Mission. Fucking. Accomplished. And as a matter of fact, it's how I recommend students address this issue in a classroom, too. Really, you see people in classrooms waving their hand desperately and never getting called on, because only the white boys were? For years of college, three years of law school, a shitload of graduate course, and I've never seen it once. Not once. What I've sometimes seen in class are white boy nerds being up front and aggressive in their participation, while few others did. I'm an exception. I act like the white boys in class, and trust me, they didn't dominate me there any more than they do online. You want your presence acknowledge, Cassandra? Fine. You got it. You really think getting in my face gets me to respond? If so, you are so, so terribly and completely wrong. If acting like the White boys in class is how you got over, that's great. For you. All your years of college, your three years of law school, a shitload of graduate courses are great. For you. That was you and that was then. This is now and this is not you. The refusal or inability to see other students who were not may have been were treated differently than you doesn't speak to how your natural brilliance emerged. It indicates you might have been so dazzled by own light, you were oblivious the light didn't shine as brightly on your non-White classmates. Yeah, you are an exception, but that doesn't make you exceptional. Not everyone is as confident as you are or as self-assured as you are or as assertive as you are. It doesn't come as naturally or as easy to some as it does for you. Acting like the White boys has never been an option I thought was even remotely possible to pull off. I don't look like a White boy. I don't think like a White boy. I don't act like a White boy. Because being someone I'm not isn't how I roll. Your mileage may vary.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Oct 22, 2017 18:40:52 GMT -5
If I thought a professor was consistently ignoring me in class -- whether as an individual or as one of many women h/she was ignoring -- I'd raise it nicely after class, going on the assumption he/she was acting in good faith and was not doing so consciously. If it continued to happen, I'd raise it with the dean. Because, you know, I pay tuition. As a matter of fact, this never happened to me. I was a pretty damn active member of any class where I was interested in participating. Heh. I once had an undergrad professor privately tell me during office hours he was going to call on other people instead of me -- but that was because I dominated the class. I was often the only person regularly volunteering, usually kicked off discussions, and he wanted to get the rest of the class more involved. Alas, as it turned out, my not raising my hand didn't make my classmates more likely to do so. In fact, they became less likely to speak up because I was often the one breaking the ice, after which they'd speak up to agree or rebut me. After a while, the professor (with whom I got along splendidly, by the way), shrugged and told me to start being Hermione again. Cool story, Cassandra. But this is not about you is it? Racism in Academia is a real thing and if not active racism, unconscious bias is a real thing. Your personal experiences are not without merit, but they have no bearing to what students in 2017 experience in the lecture hall.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Oct 22, 2017 18:11:59 GMT -5
I agree with the fucking* white males in the thread. I don't want to be called on to the exclusion of others in the class, and I don't give a fuck who they are. I feel strongly enough about it that I'd give this professor's classes a miss, were I attending school there, unless I could not avoid them. And, as a wee woman with an Hispanic name, who thrusts my hand up vigorously a la Hermione Granger and speaks up when I want to participate....I always got called on. Where are these classes where women and minorities have their hands raised but only the white guys get called on? In 1958? Oh, so because you are a short woman with a Hispanic name and you always got called on when you stuck your short arm up that has to mean there's no problem here. Everybody gets treated the same by the professor or T.A. because there's no racial or gender bias in the lecture hall? That's called anecdotal evidence and its proof of nothing except one person's trip down Memory Lane. What America are you living in, Cassandra? The Happy Days version of 1958? To be fair, I first came across this on Twitter as the shit storm started. The next day, I posted the threads and looked for a few links. The College Fix was actually one I came across after I posted, so I edited it in. To be accurate, the source still matters and when it is obviously a biased and slanted source which specializes in shit-stirring, it doubly matters. What you and the others are not considering is progressive stacking is a solution to a problem and the problem is People of Color can raise their hands and be ignored. They can have the answer and they aren't called on. As usual, people are all up in arms over the remedy and don't even consider there might be an ailment it was designed for. It's much easier to believe than it is to think and this thread is ample evidence of it. Hey, Vince? "This person" has a name. It's Stephanie McKellop. If you're going to start this dogpile of a thread, it might not kill you to bother to learn it and use it. I saw this shit before with Liz Phipps Soeiro and its starting to look like a deliberate way to slight the subject as being unworthy of even minimal respect. Keep it classy. Yes? Is there a point you wanted to make here? A Black female has less agency than a Black male and a Black male has less agency than a White female and all three of have less agency than a White male. That's how it has been and that's how too many people think it should always be. Boo-fucking-hoo. He's still a White man and this entire thread is balanced on the shaky premise a White man should NEVER take a back seat to anyone. I don't have a problem with being attentive to subconscious biases - we are all familiar with the studies that show boys get called on more often than girls (partly because boys are more likely to eagerly put their hands up and speak out, Hermiones aside...). Making sure everyone gets an equal chance to be heard, and maybe giving extra attention to groups who tend to be heard less, is not unreasonable. The problem with this grad student's tweet is if I were in her class, I'd assume that being a white male, not only can I expect not to be called on (which, okay, fine, I don't feel like I need to put my opinion out there all the time and maybe sometimes I like being the guy sitting quietly in the back being ignored), but her attitude suggests active hostility towards me. I would transfer out of her class because I'd assume her judgment is going to carry over to her grading. That's not being upset that I don't get to speak over non-white guys, it's making a pragmatic assessment that this person who has power over me has said, in so many words, that she assumes I'm a bag of privilege who needs to be taken down a peg. So, basically, progressive stacking makes white men feel alienated and resentful, and we can't have that. (Yes, there's a bit of snark there, but I can agree the best solution to a problem is going to be the one that does not alienate anyone--if this is possible.) It's not. There's no such thing as a solution to a problem that does not alienate anyone. Some people are going to take offense to anything that even seemingly inconveniences them. We must protect our snowflakes at all costs. That's how you make America hate great hate again.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Oct 22, 2017 11:59:56 GMT -5
The only person who doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about is you, Opty, because as usual, you rant first and read never. The only regurgitation here is by you with yet another spewing of your boilerplate "REGRESSIVES! REGRESSIVES!" reactionary bullshit. IF you had bothered to check out Vince's first link you'd see The College Fix, which is subtitled "your daily dose of right-minded news and commentary" is just another rag full of junk guaranteed to push the hot buttons of right-wingers and pseudo-libs who hate liberalism. The College Fix is another internet shitpile whose business is to spread Outrage Manure on the gullible and easily rankled, and business is good. It's become something of a standard move here to be ready at all times to roast college instructors as being clueless even as the ones doing so go about it cluelessly without bothering to get their facts straight before getting their undies in a bunch. *Yawn* Please point out what I said in that quoted section of mine that you posted that was factually incorrect "... it’s not like she knows WTF she’s talking about anyway. She’s just mindlessly regurgitating the regressive, postmodernist bullshit she’s been brainwashed with by her humanities professors." That's called an opinion, not a fact. So you're incorrect. Again. You don't know what her humanities professors taught Stephanie McKellop. Welcome to not knowing What The FUCK you're talking about and you should feel right at home there. See above. You're welcome. You coming down with alcohol poisoning? Well, I wouldn't wish it on you, but I won't say it would fuck up my day either. Don't tease me unless you're going to please me. Oh, and I responded to everything you said, but to be honest you didn't say much besides "REGRESSIVES! REGRESSIVES!" Same as it ever was. Forgiven. Forgotten. Forgive me if I don't take seriously your huffy assertion you teach on a college campus or even if you do you're any good at it. Appeal to authority arguments don't mean much to me and particularly not when it comes from someone who screams "misogynist" yet somehow can't bear to call Ms. McKellop by name because it's more fun to call her " a bigoted idiot" who is " virtue-signalling out of her ass." That's not much more but male chauvinist shit-talking as you gleefully denigrate McKellop's intelligence, education, future job prospects and her rear end. Being called a misogynist by someone like you is like being called stupid by Donald Trump. Being called a race-baiter by someone who slathered sloppy kisses over James Damore's racist ass falls under the category of pots calling kettles. Why, yes I did just fucking use the word "fuck" toward you. If you want a much better example of being demonstrably hypocritical, go back and read your own posts. You're welcome. Ooooo...somebody did some RESEARCH!!!! Good for you! Rose to the challenge like a brook trout, Opty. You must be so proud. You probably didn't consult Wikipedia even once! But all you've done is sneer like a chump in the cheap seats of a ball game at Dr. Cabrera's credentials and research. All that does is prove you have a negative opinion of him and hostility toward his work. It does not make him wrong and you right. Thanks for trying. Still need to try harder. No, because who said I was trying to convince you of anything. After all, I'm not an Angry White Man who claims an "effective/convincing argument" is saying a teaching assistant is "mindlessly regurgitating the regressive, postmodernist bullshit she’s been brainwashed with by her humanities professors." Wow. That's really convincing, Opty. You find a website where students can rate their professors and do it anonymously and that's your proof Cabrera is a lousy professor. Welp, I'm sure convinced. It couldn't be whomever the moron is that wrote that crap flunked the class or is a racist shitbag or just happens to blow wet sloppy kisses to racist shitbags. Naaaaaah. Couldn't be that. Oh hey, Opty. You missed what another student had to say about Cabrera. Excellent- I learned so much! Hmph. Well, that's one person's opinion and proves not a thing. Tell you what. Why don't you post your credentials and your published works and your reviews? You like slapping around graduate students and real academics so much. Let's see what YOUR students have to say about good ol' Professor Opty. That should be good for shit n' giggles.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Oct 22, 2017 1:44:52 GMT -5
A University of Penn State Student teacher has come under fire for a tweet. www.thecollegefix.com/post/38120/I always call on my black women students first. Other POC get second tier priority. WW come next. And, if I have to, white men. www.philly.com/philly/columnists/helen_ubinas/university-of-pennsylvania-teaching-assistant-mckellop-progressive-stacking-20171020.htmlNow, the push back seems to be that the teacher is saying she wants to make sure marginalized students are heard, but that's not how the tweet read. It read that she always calls on women of color first, then POC, then WW then if she has to, white men. So if she has a class where every student is willing to participate, she'll never have to call on white men? There's a difference between making sure you're including everyone and having a pecking order based on race, and gender that you follow every time. Seems this is the latter, at least to me. Any thoughts? There is a difference and too bad you don't know what it is. A history teacher, apparently. Imo, any halfway decent teacher makes an effort to vary which students that they call on. It's not rocket science. Prioritizing systematically--based on race, sex, etc.--is not very bright, imo. Announcing that this is the system one is using is even less bright. A teacher can't say "I'm not going to let students in demo group X participate in my class unless I absolutely have to." Well, I guess a teacher can say that, but they should be fired for it, especially at a college level. Wrong. Any halfway decent teacher should make an effort to call upon students who may not have received an opportunity to be called up on because of their race or gender. It is very bright to include someone other than White males all the time, but it's no surprise to notice it's primarily White males displaying the greatest degree of butthurt. How is it the same group which decries any special treatment based upon race and gender has no problem when they are the ones on the receiving end of the special treatment due to their race and gender? Oh, if only there were a better definition of what "progressive stacking" is from a less slanted source than The College Fix. Maybe The Chronicle of Higher Education could help? Ask someone other than Chad and Brad to contribute in the class discussion? How radical! Only not. It's just White right-wingers getting all hot and bothered over nothing and then spreading the manure around. It's still crap and it still stinks. Apparently, she’s not even an actual teacher, just a freaking grad student teaching assistant, so it’s not like she knows WTF she’s talking about anyway. She’s just mindlessly regurgitating the regressive, postmodernist bullshit she’s been brainwashed with by her humanities professors. The only person who doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about is you, Opty, because as usual, you rant first and read never. The only regurgitation here is by you with yet another spewing of your boilerplate "REGRESSIVES! REGRESSIVES!" reactionary bullshit. IF you had bothered to check out Vince's first link you'd see The College Fix, which is subtitled "your daily dose of right-minded news and commentary" is just another rag full of junk guaranteed to push the hot buttons of right-wingers and pseudo-libs who hate liberalism. The College Fix is another internet shitpile whose business is to spread Outrage Manure on the gullible and easily rankled, and business is good. It's become something of a standard move here to be ready at all times to roast college instructors as being clueless even as the ones doing so go about it cluelessly without bothering to get their facts straight before getting their undies in a bunch.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Oct 20, 2017 22:54:11 GMT -5
Sorry, but I don't click links blindly based upon "go look at this then come back and answer my questions." Tell me what you think and then maybe I'll check it out and tell you what I think. Or not.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Oct 20, 2017 10:01:15 GMT -5
What a mess. Now that the family member is backing up Wilson's side, Trump is basically forced into the position that they are both lying and he's the one telling the truth. John Kelly's comments don't seem to inspire much confidence that Trump didn't say this, either. The thing to keep in mind about John Kelly is he was General John Kelly. He started as a NCO, a regular soldier who rose through the ranks to become a general. Kelly is a man of distinction with accomplishments and accolades for his service to his country. A service he is now extending as Trump's Chief of Staff. Too bad by doing so Kelly is shitting all over his legacy. It wasn't Representative Wilson who politicized this story. Trump did when he said this: Let that hang out there for a minute. Trump says Obama and other presidents didn't make calls to the families of the Fallen. That prompted a furious volley of return fire from former Obama and Bush officials:We know what happened next. Kelly came out to the press to defend his boss, criticize Rep. Wilson and be a good soldier. All it took was willing to back the SOB who dragged his dead son into the discussion. That says a lot about Trump's character and reveals much about the lengths Kelly will go to jump on a grenade for Trump.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Oct 19, 2017 14:07:56 GMT -5
As you say, we all know Trump is bad at this. And I agree with the idea--that you proffered, as well--that Trump was trying to acknowledge and show sympathy for the family's pain (while perhaps also trying--and failing miserably--to convey the idea that soldiers are very brave, because they know they might be killed). So, Trump remains an ass, perhaps uniquely unsuited to be the President, due to his painful inability to be effective in these kinds of situations. All that said, how a bout a "for fuck's sake" for the people--like Rep. Wilson--using this family as a prop, making their pain a national issue simply because it represents a convenient tool to bash Trump? As far as I'm concerned, this "story" is overflowing with assholes. Trump may be the biggest one, but he's far from the only one. Bullshit. The only thing Rep. Fredericka Wilson is guilty of is rocking those dumb cowboy hats. That makes her a fashion victim, but Trump is the only asshole in this story. No quotation marks needed because it IS a story and a much larger one than this toad sucking at doing his fucking job. Trump is the Commander-In-Chief who rails endlessly at Black football players for taking a knee or refusing to stand at attention for the national anthem because they're pissed about cops killing Black people, calls White supremacists "good people" and when asked about making calls offering condolences to the families of fallen soldiers, his immediate go-to move is to claim the Black dude who had the job before him didn't always call either. This is called a pattern of behavior. When in doubt: Blame Obama. Now he places a call to La David Johnson's pregnant widow, says something so callous, so thoughtless, so abysmally stupid, there's no reason to give Trump the benefit of the doubt. It sounds precisely like the type of brain-dead b.s. that flows out of rancid sewer whenever he's awake. After going TWO WEEKS without tweeting about the four soldiers killed in Niger (and Sgt. Jackson's body wasn't found until two days after the attack), Trump finally stops ranting about Bob Corker, the NFL, and pulling aid for Puerto Rico to break off a short call to Johnson's family. And he totally shit the bed. To add insult to injury, Trump apparently didn't even know the name of the fallen soldier. Trump is a sick man. He goes about the duties of the presidency with bored detachment, clueless disinterest, and totally disconnected from feeling any sympathy for anyone but himself. This dispute is a secondary distraction. Serious in its own way, but not as serious as finding out what happened in Niger and why did it take so long for Trump to acknowledge anything happened at all?
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Oct 16, 2017 22:42:30 GMT -5
Also, Dr. Seuss shall not ever be disparaged. Funny, I had the impression it was "Ms. Soiero shall not ever be disparaged -- or indeed, criticized in any way -- because protests and the Resistance and Trump ." Your impression is as erroneous as was your assumption. No one has stated in this debate Ms. Soeiro was above criticism or being disparaged. The impression I have is it is perfectly legit to demonize Liz Soeiro as an unscrupulous shill for the Far Left and to do so with the same rudeness and incivility the librarian was accused of directing towards the First Lady. I am no more objective on this subject anyone else is, so it is conceivable my own ideological blind spots are whispering in my ear. At any rate, I have nothing further to add to this debate and will take my leave of it. Please. No applause. There are far more interesting issues of actual importance no one is discussing here. Continuing to feed this beast despite no new developments in the story in over a week would seem to be an unproductive expenditure of time and energy. This thread has descended into a tautological argument which is endlessly looping back upon itself swallowing its own tail. Despite what others might believe, I see no one moving off of their original stance and that includes myself. The Colline Gate now has its longest and most commented on and read thread in General Current Events ( nearly 300 replies almost 2500 views and you're welcome) and it's kind of amazing how it didn't change my mind even slightly about the correctness of my take on the Trump/Soeiro kerfuffle. I acknowledge I didn't change yours either. 'Twas never my intent. To Amadan and Opty's oft-asked question/demand, " Why are you here? You're so uncivil and rude. You're a troll" I offer this observation for your enlightenment and amusement: Why am I here? Because any board worth a damn needs a few contrarians. Contrarians are annoying, but conformists are boring-ass fucks. Debate does not thrive when there's nothing but harmony. Debate requires being contentious, confrontational, and complex. The only way anyone learns anything is not from taking in the perspective of those whom they agree with but with those they cannot stand. That's a thing I'm good at because you will never meet a person who cares less if he's liked and gives less than a fuck if anyone agrees with him. When all is said and done, what matters most is not who is right or wrong, but whose argument made us think? Thinking is hard. Believing is easy, which is most Westerners prefer to believe. If this board is as far removed from the unthinking masses as Cassandra and Amadan assert is is, we should give serious pause when we are as reactive, petty, nonsensical, emotional, irrational and argumentative as the two neighbors squabbling about the other's dog taking a dump in their yards. The question should not be "Do I agree?" but "Am I thinking deeply or reacting shallowly?" If we're honest, none of us can claim to always respond while thinking deep thoughts. Much more satisfying to bash and beat up the keyboard in righteous rage and fire back with red-hot bullets of emotional rhetoric instead of rational reason. An argument over the years I've seen legitimately levied against my own emotional rhetoric. Done far more skillfully by a rare few than the vast many. Most choose to believe than to think. We experience far greater difficulty disputing a well-thought out and reasoned deconstruction of our words than we do with a flaming-hot rhetorical drive-by. None of us are Internet Virgins and all of us have been embroiled in much hotter debates than this one. We talk, but do we hear? We know what we think but do we care what you think? Are we thinking or are we simply responding? If being the uppity Black man is my purpose here until I've served my purpose, it's something I'm good at. I'm not this board's diversity hire or Magic Negro, but I'm not shy about reminding posters here you are White with all the privileges that come with it including the option to forget you are White. That's a luxury denied to me because I live in an America that never stops reminding me I'm Black and forgetting is dangerous. Perhaps this is why I identify with Liz Soeiro so completely. I know what its like to be the odd one out. I prefer to be in the small minority than the large majority. You win fewer battles but when you do you enjoy it more. ::)If you believe nothing else about me, please believe this: I've been pissing off smarter, wealthier and more powerful people than you long before I got here. I'm good at that too and real sorry all for the mean, accurate things I said. Because here's the thing. It doesn't matter what I think about Melania Trump or Dr. Seuss. It doesn't matter what Cassandra thinks about Liz Soeiro or Dr. Seuss. I will not concede Cassandra is right and I am wrong anymore than she would. Hell, if you believe you're right, why give in and go along to get along? Earlier I asked Cassandra if she had an opportunity to speak with Melania or Liz, which one of the two protagonists would she choose? She chose Melania. I chose Liz. Because that's who we identify most with. Duh. It now occurs to me what actually might be best for everyone would be if Melania and Liz spoke directly with each other. Not to say they'd get on any better than we are here, but could they get on any worse? Wonder why nobody suggested that? How would it have gone down if Ms. Soeiro had invited Mrs. Trump to come to her library and respectfully express her concerns and reasons for rebuffing the Dr. Seuss books, and Melania accepted? Or flip the script and Melania invited Liz to the White House where they could discuss their differences in a respectful manner respecting each other's perspective. Crazy talk, they say. Why not, I say?
|
|