It’s crazy as it’s stupidly short-sighted: they’ll just have to make a new announcement when somebody thinks up a new one next month. Far better to make it a free-form field. Then Arjan could be “Grandmaster”.
Fake apology? It’s difficult to know for sure…
Inevitably, he assured people that his outburst was “not the person I am”, and the video “did not convey the real me”, bolding up the word “not” for extra contrition points. Presumably the string of other occasions that Schlossberg has been accused of racially abusing strangers, including being filmed calling a man on the street “an ugly fucking foreigner” also aren’t the real him.
Schlossberg did not say whether his week-late apology was motivated by people leaving negative Yelp reviews for his law firm and numerous complaints made against him by elected officials to the New York court system.
Reading up on pronouns, Japanese pronouns are fascinating. There are some that can only be used by the Emperor.
No there’s not. In fact, that’s kind of the point here… neither of the people in those 2 categories should be offended BUT they do. So from that point forward you have 2 choices: either engage people in an antagonisitc/confrontational way or do it differently.
I think this actually goes to a big part of the problem with the tactics that are being used to “create change”, because they end up being perceived as “forcing change”.
Saying “oh anyone can have it bad, but white/male/straight people have it inherently better” is a bad tactic because you’re just engaging in a “suffering contest” and it’s not, and a lot people respond badly to it. Minimizing other people’s suffering is definetly NOT the way to go, even though you might think their suffering is indeed lesser.
I’m gonna sound like a fuckin’ hippie/new-ager but what you want to do is foster things like compassion and sympathy and empathy, NOT antagonise people by minimizing their own trials and tribulations.
But at the same time, there are valid reasons for saying “this group has it worse” - for instance prioritizing where and what needs should be addressed first. If two people walk into an ER and one of them has a gushing head wound and the other has a skinned knee you don’t say “Well, you’re both hurt” to avoid offending the person with the skinned knee.
You also look at groups rather than individuals for common sense reasons. The response to “there’s a gap in access to education between white and black students” isn’t “But what about Neil DeGrasse Tyson?” because it’s irrelevant to the conversation at hand. The same if the response is “But what about this particular white kid who wasn’t able to go to college?” It’s irrelevant, not because it isn’t important at all, but because it’s the exception or the outlier. If the conversation is about class (and that’s a conversation that’s as important as race with many of these issues, that’s different. But saying we should avoid talking about the macro differences and their impact, equates difficulties and challenges that aren’t the same, effectively minimizing the larger challenge.
The problem is making the issue about race when the gap in access to education is primarily driven by wealth.
And wealth disparity, particularly in the United States, is historically tied to race in a way that the two can’t easily be separated. That’s why it’s important to talk about both in the relevant contexts.
Expanding to add: factors that are complicate wealth and race include racial redlining creating impoverished school districts, school segregation, generational wealth, etc.
It’s tied to urban and rural too. Where’s the campaign for Montana??
What about schools in the Ozarks? What about Native American reservations? What about challenges for people with learning disabilities? What about the gender divide?
Yes, there are always other factors, other concerns, and other needs to be addressed. And there’s no silver bullet that’s going to fix all of them, so I don’t see the point in using what isn’t being talked about in a particular conversation to discredit what is, other than as a rhetorical move.
I’m not saying that to invalidate your concern, but for me, as a biracial educator in a city that is 83% African-American with a literacy rate around 47%, that’s a more immediate concern to me than those other factors.
I think there’s two separate issues here too. The way we analyse and identify the issues and then the way we address them. I have no doubt at all that poverty is tied to ethnicity or suicide to sexuality, the numbers are all there.
Then there’s how we tackle that and campaign for it and whether than approach engenders empathy, which I think is really important in tackling change.
I suspect Montana doesn’t want a “campaign.”
Poor, white rural people seem willing to accept their lot in life. Otherwise places like Montana and Kansas would be liberal strongholds instead of laboratories for Koch experiments.
Having lived in a rural, flyover area for most of my life, liberals don’t tend to give a shit about them. It’s one of the thing that made so many so susceptible to Trump. He was the first politician from either side who had even acknowledged that they existed in quite some time.
This is one of the biggest problems with a de facto two-party system. Every issue gets allocated to either the left or the right, and then it’s a game of “which thing do I care about most?” States like Montana and Kansas stay solidly read because of the 60% of things they align with Republicans and the same with blue states and Democrats. Then, once the numbers look settled, each party seems to ignore the opposing states as a waste of time/resources for campaigning, entrenching the separation even further.
Northern Ireland has an 8 party system and it’s a huge ball of shite. Two big tents with mostly centerist policies are the way to go. They’re what made the US King.
This might be a “the grass is always greener” scenario. I see the two centrist parties as why we’re in the situation we’re in now (helped in large part by increasingly partisan media coverage over the last two decades). I’d love to give something else a shot as I can’t see it ending up worse, though I could certainly be proven wrong.
I like a system where voters have more choices better, it can be unwieldy but I think it leads to better results in the long run. Although the parties have to be well managed in order for it to work, and they have to be willing to compromise to form a coalition government.
No point in derailing into political party discussion. That’s for another thread.
There’s no fix for rural life. Companies need connections and infrastructure so the suburbs are going to gobble them all up. Rural communities can only hope for shitty eyesore manufacturing plants that suburbs don’t want. Which means shitty work and low wages. And government can’t just subsidize rural communities when there so many demands for the money. The era of small town America is pretty much over.
Your analogy doesn’t work at all… but other than that, yeah I get it, some groups need more focus in certain areas. Fine… You’ll still get better results if you’re positive about it rather than taking a shit on people… that’s basic logic.
There’s a difference in saying “at this time we need to focus on X group for X issue because in the long run it’ll benefit everyone”… to saying “Y group’s got it easier for the same issue so they don’t need help at this time”.
I mean, here’s the thing, you do you, that’s fine… but guilt-tripping people into submission is not gonna work… EVER… On the contrary the only thing it’ll do is build-up resentment that’s gonna explode eventually.
The analogy works just fine. If we’re talking about the proportion of unarmed black men killed by a largely white police force and someone argues that unarmed white guys get killed too, well, yeah, they do. But not at the same proportion, which is the point.
The assumption you seem to be making is that it’s X group that’s just arbitrarily making the focus Y group, rather than Y group coming in and saying, “hey, we’ve got it bad, too” and then getting upset when it’s pointed out why that’s not the present concern. And, frankly, sometimes it makes no sense to avoid the elephant in the room. If the issue is addressing the education gap in Detroit, and a significant factor that contributed and continues to contribute to that is structural racism, trying to fix the problem without addressing that racism is like taking Tylenol to treat a brain tumor.
There’s also an argument - and I’m not quite there yet - that essentially boils down to not worrying about the feelings of white people in these scenarios at all, because they’re never going to be a part of the solution. That, at the end of the day, and when there’s a certain level of privilege, change is disruptive, and most people at that level don’t want disruption. And maybe part of the reason I’m not there is because of the level of privilege I have, as someone who is very light-skinned, educated, working toward a middle to upper middle class position, and male. If I had to face directly some of the same challenges that women, Muslims, Hispanics, the LGBTQ community, or darker-skinned blacks than me have to face on a daily basis I might also be ready to say that things need to change by any means necessary because the status quo isn’t tolerable and incremental change centered on changing minds hasn’t worked in the past and doesn’t seem likely to work now (see the rate at which the little progress made over the last eight years in the US is being systematically reversed in a fairly short period of time).