"Racist" professor found dead in home

[marshwiggle]

Come on, kids.  That is not what they are saying.  I highlighted everything and underlined further to make sure the context is clear.  You are the ones cherry-picking and taking out of context.

Academics, of all people, should not do that.

I said:

What We Believe

We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement

You highlighted the part after this, but not this. What is the "nuclear family structure requirement", and why is it inherently "Western"? And what does it mean to "disrupt" the "requirement"? If most people drink coffee for breakfast, I doubt many people would call opening a tea shop "disruptive". Recognizing alternatives isn't disruptive by nature; it's only disruptive when there's some effort to undermine.

You haven't answered the question.

I grew up in the 60's in a single parent family, and there are probably others older than me here who did as well. We didn't get sent to internment camps, we didn't have to wear a scarlet letter, we weren't denied access to school, so I say again:

What is the "nuclear family structure requirement"?
Who requires it and for what?

[Wahoo Redux]

Come on, kids.  That is not what they are saying.  I highlighted everything and underlined further to make sure the context is clear.  You are the ones cherry-picking and taking out of context.

Academics, of all people, should not do that.

I said:

What We Believe

We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement

You highlighted the part after this, but not this. What is the "nuclear family structure requirement", and why is it inherently "Western"? And what does it mean to "disrupt" the "requirement"? If most people drink coffee for breakfast, I doubt many people would call opening a tea shop "disruptive". Recognizing alternatives isn't disruptive by nature; it's only disruptive when there's some effort to undermine.

You haven't answered the question.

I grew up in the 60's in a single parent family, and there are probably others older than me here who did as well. We didn't get sent to internment camps, we didn't have to wear a scarlet letter, we weren't denied access to school, so I say again:

What is the "nuclear family structure requirement"?
Who requires it and for what?

I usually don't read your posts.

Look up the term "cavil" and for why.

[marshwiggle]

Come on, kids.  That is not what they are saying.  I highlighted everything and underlined further to make sure the context is clear.  You are the ones cherry-picking and taking out of context.

Academics, of all people, should not do that.

I said:

What We Believe

We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement

You highlighted the part after this, but not this. What is the "nuclear family structure requirement", and why is it inherently "Western"? And what does it mean to "disrupt" the "requirement"? If most people drink coffee for breakfast, I doubt many people would call opening a tea shop "disruptive". Recognizing alternatives isn't disruptive by nature; it's only disruptive when there's some effort to undermine.

You haven't answered the question.

I grew up in the 60's in a single parent family, and there are probably others older than me here who did as well. We didn't get sent to internment camps, we didn't have to wear a scarlet letter, we weren't denied access to school, so I say again:

What is the "nuclear family structure requirement"?
Who requires it and for what?

I usually don't read your posts.

Look up the term "cavil" and for why.

Look up the term "sidestep".

[Wahoo Redux]

Come on, kids.  That is not what they are saying.  I highlighted everything and underlined further to make sure the context is clear.  You are the ones cherry-picking and taking out of context.

Academics, of all people, should not do that.

I said:

What We Believe

We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement

You highlighted the part after this, but not this. What is the "nuclear family structure requirement", and why is it inherently "Western"? And what does it mean to "disrupt" the "requirement"? If most people drink coffee for breakfast, I doubt many people would call opening a tea shop "disruptive". Recognizing alternatives isn't disruptive by nature; it's only disruptive when there's some effort to undermine.

You haven't answered the question.

I grew up in the 60's in a single parent family, and there are probably others older than me here who did as well. We didn't get sent to internment camps, we didn't have to wear a scarlet letter, we weren't denied access to school, so I say again:

What is the "nuclear family structure requirement"?
Who requires it and for what?

I usually don't read your posts.

Look up the term "cavil" and for why.

Look up the term "sidestep".

Well, the people to ask are all at BLM.

But I think BLM is simply trying to be inclusive of people not in a traditional family.  Yes, family structure is a problem for black families, but shaming people for that does nothing good.  Furthermore, if you are capable of reading, you will see that they are extending the "family" to the community, a concept meant to support those people not in a nuclear family (a concept they apparently associate with "Western" hegemony which has not always been kind to black communities) and meant to consolidate all families, no matter their structure.

Now, you should have been able to figure that out on your own.  Apparently you were not able to.

Instead you didn't, you didn't want to, you just wanted to have a typical little Mashsnit, and that's why I generally ignore you.

[marshwiggle]

But I think BLM is simply trying to be inclusive of people not in a traditional family.  Yes, family structure is a problem for black families, but shaming people for that does nothing good.  Furthermore, if you are capable of reading, you will see that they are extending the "family" to the community, a concept meant to support those people not in a nuclear family (a concept they apparently associate with "Western" hegemony which has not always been kind to black communities) and meant to consolidate all families, no matter their structure.

The incredible irony here is that is precisely "Western" countries that are most accepting of non-nuclear families; i.e. same-sex marriages, single parent families, common-law situations, etc. These are all much more problematic in non-Western  countries. (For example: Where are the countries people flee because of persecution for being gay? Hint: NOT the ones most people would associate with being the most "Western".)

[Wahoo Redux]

But I think BLM is simply trying to be inclusive of people not in a traditional family.  Yes, family structure is a problem for black families, but shaming people for that does nothing good.  Furthermore, if you are capable of reading, you will see that they are extending the "family" to the community, a concept meant to support those people not in a nuclear family (a concept they apparently associate with "Western" hegemony which has not always been kind to black communities) and meant to consolidate all families, no matter their structure.

The incredible irony here is that is precisely "Western" countries that are most accepting of non-nuclear families; i.e. same-sex marriages, single parent families, common-law situations, etc. These are all much more problematic in non-Western  countries. (For example: Where are the countries people flee because of persecution for being gay? Hint: NOT the ones most people would associate with being the most "Western".)

Cavil, Marshy.  Cavil.

The perspective BLM is espousing is not the one you are taking issue with.  The experience of many African-Americans with the Western world is problematic----acknowledge that.  Genuine conservatism has many good arguments.  Cherry-picking, finger-wagging, misinterpreting, and caviling have none.

[mahagonny]

But I think BLM is simply trying to be inclusive of people not in a traditional family.  Yes, family structure is a problem for black families, but shaming people for that does nothing good. 

I don't know for sure that it would or that it wouldn't. Who's shaming them? I don't see anyone doing it.
Instead of shaming people for being a flop at keeping a family together, there could be much more discussion about how the family units helps black lives. There could be less emulation of black hip hop criminal entertainers by white entertainers and fewer white people buying their recordings.
But then again if Black people are already voting democratic, that's all some people want from them.
George Floyd T-shirts and other merchandise are selling, BTW.

[Wahoo Redux]

But I think BLM is simply trying to be inclusive of people not in a traditional family.  Yes, family structure is a problem for black families, but shaming people for that does nothing good. 

I don't know for sure that it would or that it wouldn't. Who's shaming them? I don't see anyone doing it.
Instead of shaming people for being a flop at keeping a family together, there could be much more discussion about how the family units helps black lives. There could be less emulation of black hip hop criminal entertainers by white entertainers and fewer white people buying their recordings.
But then again if Black people are already voting democratic, that's all some people want from them.
George Floyd T-shirts and other merchandise are selling, BTW.

You may not have meant it, but your own comments imply shame.  Rightly or wrongly, who would not feel demoralized, embarrassed, ashamed, or marginalized when told that their single-parent household is part of the problem in the community?  I think this is exactly what BLM was trying to avoid.  As the kids say, it is what it is. People outside the community, people (sometimes) with the best intentions (often white), have yet another sling-and-arrow aimed at black families.  BLM wants to include the non-trad family.  BLM may actually want to redefine the notion of family.  I see nothing to suggest BLM wants to dissolve the family unit.  Most of the language is language of inclusion for all sorts of people, whites included.

None of which alters your misinterpretation of what BLM was actually saying.

[marshwiggle]

But I think BLM is simply trying to be inclusive of people not in a traditional family.  Yes, family structure is a problem for black families, but shaming people for that does nothing good. 

I don't know for sure that it would or that it wouldn't. Who's shaming them? I don't see anyone doing it.
Instead of shaming people for being a flop at keeping a family together, there could be much more discussion about how the family units helps black lives. There could be less emulation of black hip hop criminal entertainers by white entertainers and fewer white people buying their recordings.
But then again if Black people are already voting democratic, that's all some people want from them.
George Floyd T-shirts and other merchandise are selling, BTW.

You may not have meant it, but your own comments imply shame.  Rightly or wrongly, who would not feel demoralized, embarrassed, ashamed, or marginalized when told that their single-parent household is part of the problem in the community? 

Suppose a student who is struggling in a course comes to the instructor for help. The instructor points out that the difficulty is due to the fact that the student did not submit assignments 2 and 3, and since the material is cumulative, not understanding that material will make the later material much harder.

Is that "shaming"?

The student may have missed those assignments due to illness, or to family emergencies, or to being hung over. But whatever the reason, it doesn't change the turth of the instructor's comment. Whatever help the instructor is able to give will not negate the truth of the way that missing those assignments has made the student's situation difficult, and if the student is going to catch up, it will essentially require returning to the missed material and filling in that gap.


In our current society, the trend is to call any inconvenient truth "shaming" or "harm" unless it somehow implies that people have absolutely no agency, and so these circumstances are entirely the fault of someone else, or even better, "the system". Unfortunately, helping people with anxiety involves exactly the opposite; i.e. teaching them how they have agency and can take action to change their circumstances.

[mahagonny]

But I think BLM is simply trying to be inclusive of people not in a traditional family.  Yes, family structure is a problem for black families, but shaming people for that does nothing good. 

I don't know for sure that it would or that it wouldn't. Who's shaming them? I don't see anyone doing it.
Instead of shaming people for being a flop at keeping a family together, there could be much more discussion about how the family units helps black lives. There could be less emulation of black hip hop criminal entertainers by white entertainers and fewer white people buying their recordings.
But then again if Black people are already voting democratic, that's all some people want from them.
George Floyd T-shirts and other merchandise are selling, BTW.

You may not have meant it, but your own comments imply shame. Rightly or wrongly, who would not feel demoralized, embarrassed, ashamed, or marginalized when told that their single-parent household is part of the problem in the community?  I think this is exactly what BLM was trying to avoid.  As the kids say, it is what it is. People outside the community, people (sometimes) with the best intentions (often white), have yet another sling-and-arrow aimed at black families.  BLM wants to include the non-trad family.  BLM may actually want to redefine the notion of family.  I see nothing to suggest BLM wants to dissolve the family unit.  Most of the language is language of inclusion for all sorts of people, whites included.

None of which alters your misinterpretation of what BLM was actually saying.

We both said it's a problem. You did, and I agreed. But the problem, more specifically, is too many living irresponsible lives and the democratic party exploiting them for votes.
Including the non-trad family could mean two parents of the same gender in a romantic relationship with each other who both relate to the children as parents. Fine. To me that speaks of stability and responsibility. It could could mean a divorced couple, they tried but couldn't make it together, only one lives with the children, but both either live with them or visit regularly, and both provide financial support and guidance and a decent role model. In no way do these healthy scenarios compare to the George Floyds of the world (who, I'm pretty sure, are not universally admired by American Blacks, especially those with drug dealers and home invaders in their vicinity) who father a bunch of kids with different women, disappear and in their late forties are milling around downtown at ten o'clock at night passing phony money and probably planning their next drug score. And sure, it's terrible what happened to him. But if you take Derek Chauvin and that other thug policemen out of the picture, and George Floyd is still with us, he's still a loss at life. truth be told.
Shaming is how we got Americans to stop smoking cigarettes.

[Wahoo Redux]

Including the non-trad family could mean two parents of the same gender in a romantic relationship with each other who both relate to the children as parents. Fine. To me that speaks of stability and responsibility. It could could mean a divorced couple, they tried but couldn't make it together, only one lives with the children, but both either live with them or visit regularly, and both provide financial support and guidance and a decent role model. In no way do these healthy scenarios compare to the George Floyds of the world (who, I'm pretty sure, are not universally admired by American Blacks, especially those with drug dealers and home invaders in their vicinity) who father a bunch of kids with different women, disappear and in their late forties are milling around downtown at ten o'clock at night passing phony money and probably planning their next drug score. And sure, it's terrible what happened to him. But if you take Derek Chauvin and that other thug policemen out of the picture, and George Floyd is still with us, he's still a loss at life. truth be told.
Shaming is how we got Americans to stop smoking cigarettes.

I have no idea why you are saying these sorts of things.  What is the point? 

[mahagonny]

Including the non-trad family could mean two parents of the same gender in a romantic relationship with each other who both relate to the children as parents. Fine. To me that speaks of stability and responsibility. It could could mean a divorced couple, they tried but couldn't make it together, only one lives with the children, but both either live with them or visit regularly, and both provide financial support and guidance and a decent role model. In no way do these healthy scenarios compare to the George Floyds of the world (who, I'm pretty sure, are not universally admired by American Blacks, especially those with drug dealers and home invaders in their vicinity) who father a bunch of kids with different women, disappear and in their late forties are milling around downtown at ten o'clock at night passing phony money and probably planning their next drug score. And sure, it's terrible what happened to him. But if you take Derek Chauvin and that other thug policemen out of the picture, and George Floyd is still with us, he's still a loss at life. truth be told.
Shaming is how we got Americans to stop smoking cigarettes.

I have no idea why you are saying these sorts of things.  What is the point?

Personal responsibility has to be at least one piece of the conversation. You can't just say 'aw...that's shaming.' that's dismissive.
Actually, it already is. My responsibility, for instance. I'm being asked to overhaul my teaching so that it is non-racist. I would like to know what we may expect from the members of Black Lives Matter. As long as we're working together.

[mahagonny]

But I think BLM is simply trying to be inclusive of people not in a traditional family.  Yes, family structure is a problem for black families, but shaming people for that does nothing good. 

I don't know for sure that it would or that it wouldn't. Who's shaming them? I don't see anyone doing it.
Instead of shaming people for being a flop at keeping a family together, there could be much more discussion about how the family units helps black lives. There could be less emulation of black hip hop criminal entertainers by white entertainers and fewer white people buying their recordings.
But then again if Black people are already voting democratic, that's all some people want from them.
George Floyd T-shirts and other merchandise are selling, BTW.

You may not have meant it, but your own comments imply shame.  Rightly or wrongly, who would not feel demoralized, embarrassed, ashamed, or marginalized when told that their single-parent household is part of the problem in the community? 

Suppose a student who is struggling in a course comes to the instructor for help. The instructor points out that the difficulty is due to the fact that the student did not submit assignments 2 and 3, and since the material is cumulative, not understanding that material will make the later material much harder.

Is that "shaming"?

The student may have missed those assignments due to illness, or to family emergencies, or to being hung over. But whatever the reason, it doesn't change the turth of the instructor's comment. Whatever help the instructor is able to give will not negate the truth of the way that missing those assignments has made the student's situation difficult, and if the student is going to catch up, it will essentially require returning to the missed material and filling in that gap.


In our current society, the trend is to call any inconvenient truth "shaming" or "harm" unless it somehow implies that people have absolutely no agency, and so these circumstances are entirely the fault of someone else, or even better, "the system". Unfortunately, helping people with anxiety involves exactly the opposite; i.e. teaching them how they have agency and can take action to change their circumstances.

Calling white people racist is the shaming orgy of our time.

[Wahoo Redux]

Gone off the rails, boys...

[secundem_artem]

Gone off the rails, boys...

Indeed. 

And you're one of the engineers.