Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Bromsy wrote:
That isn't what you should apply. What you should apply is... our goal is to mitigate bias, so disregard your preconceptions...

Did you miss the part where a big part of the problem is that middle-class straight white men (especially in the college student age range) far too often assume that their life IS the neutral perspective, and that they don't have any preconceptions because they're just normal and average? That's the whole point of calling them out specifically.

 Bromsy wrote:
But still - that is historically, hardly where we are at today, especially in a college environment. Would it have hurt anyone to to say - let's try to disregard any bias based on race, class, or creed you may personally hold? It's fewer letters. Save on the overhead. Fewer dead trees. Less ink used. And I mean really, are white, middle class American men that vast of a majority of in political science classes these days, that this is such a serious problem to be addressed?

But it isn't saying to disregard any creed or bias. It's saying write as if not everyone else holds that same bias. So you can still hold your view, but examine why you believe and look to write it in such a way that is makes sense for someone who doesn't necessarily come from the same background as you.

Which is actually just a good tip for writing in general.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bromsy wrote:
That isn't what you should apply. What you should apply is... our goal is to mitigate bias, so disregard your preconceptions... Unless I missed something and the specific goal of the class was to disregard the majority opinion in favor of the minority opinion?

The goal isn't to mitigate bias or have anyone disregard their preconceptions. It's to have students understand their bias, understand how it developed from their own experiences, and to account for that in their writing. So you aren't required to just drop your belief, but you are expected to state your belief and state why you believe it. Look to convince the other party of it, or at least have the other party understand your POV, instead of just assuming that because yuo've grown up with your views out there in the mainstream then everyone must think the same.

Whembly posted a make-white-conservative-dudes-angry-by-distorting-an-incident story? Stop the presses.

I remember when Fraz used to post every piece of junk like this that someone forwarded to his inbox. Some of them were literally years old; junk stories that just floated around people's email boxes because 99% of the people who read them would prefer to be angry over nothing than to bother fact-checking to get the entire quote.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:
That isn't what you should apply. What you should apply is... our goal is to mitigate bias, so disregard your preconceptions...

Did you miss the part where a big part of the problem is that middle-class straight white men (especially in the college student age range) far too often assume that their life IS the neutral perspective, and that they don't have any preconceptions because they're just normal and average? That's the whole point of calling them out specifically.

I think I did miss that part, because it is something you came up with on your own. I think plenty of people think they are neutral when they are not, and encouraging everyone who is not part of a specific group to think that they are neutral is a bad idea.

 sebster wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:
But still - that is historically, hardly where we are at today, especially in a college environment. Would it have hurt anyone to to say - let's try to disregard any bias based on race, class, or creed you may personally hold? It's fewer letters. Save on the overhead. Fewer dead trees. Less ink used. And I mean really, are white, middle class American men that vast of a majority of in political science classes these days, that this is such a serious problem to be addressed? /quote]

But it isn't saying to disregard any creed or bias. It's saying write as if not everyone else holds that same bias. So you can still hold your view, but examine why you believe and look to write it in such a way that is makes sense for someone who doesn't necessarily come from the same background as you.

Which is actually just a good tip for writing in general.

 Bromsy wrote:
That isn't what you should apply. What you should apply is... our goal is to mitigate bias, so disregard your preconceptions... Unless I missed something and the specific goal of the class was to disregard the majority opinion in favor of the minority opinion?

The goal isn't to mitigate bias or have anyone disregard their preconceptions. It's to have students understand their bias, understand how it developed from their own experiences, and to account for that in their writing. So you aren't required to just drop your belief, but you are expected to state your belief and state why you believe it. Look to convince the other party of it, or at least have the other party understand your POV, instead of just assuming that because yuo've grown up with your views out there in the mainstream then everyone must think the same.

That made me look like I was arguing with myself, and I am no where near that drunk. But I would agree that holding a bias is fine if you can defend it.


okay, the edit made it better.

 Bromsy wrote:
That made me look like I was arguing with myself, and I am no where near that drunk. But I would agree that holding a bias is fine if you can defend it.


okay, the edit made it better.

And I just noticed I had a typo in my sig. It appears I've lost the art of proofreading. Anyway, cool that you get it now.

 sebster wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:
That made me look like I was arguing with myself, and I am no where near that drunk. But I would agree that holding a bias is fine if you can defend it.


okay, the edit made it better.

And I just noticed I had a typo in my sig. It appears I've lost the art of proofreading. Anyway, cool that you get it now.

Your edits made your points clearer, and it's not like I disagree categorically. I'm just saying ...if your goal is to mitigate bias apply that across the board. If your goal is to make people think about the general white male bias in history, make that the point of your class, If your goal is to have people understand their biases, don't ask that certain biases be disregarded outright while ignoring that others exist.

 Bromsy wrote:
Your edits made your points clearer, and it's not like I disagree categorically. I'm just saying ...if your goal is to mitigate bias apply that across the board. If your goal is to make people think about the general white male bias in history, make that the point of your class, If your goal is to have people understand their biases, don't ask that certain biases be disregarded outright while ignoring that others exist.

But I'm saying the goal isn't to mitigate bias. The request wasn't to write as if you weren't a white guy. The request was to write as if the reader wasn't, and therefore didn't necessarily share the same perspective. And that, basically, is a kind of thinking that only the majority has.

 sebster wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:
Your edits made your points clearer, and it's not like I disagree categorically. I'm just saying ...if your goal is to mitigate bias apply that across the board. If your goal is to make people think about the general white male bias in history, make that the point of your class, If your goal is to have people understand their biases, don't ask that certain biases be disregarded outright while ignoring that others exist.

But I'm saying the goal isn't to mitigate bias. The request wasn't to write as if you weren't a white guy. The request was to write as if the reader wasn't, and therefore didn't necessarily share the same perspective. And that, basically, is a kind of thinking that only the majority has.

Yeah, like I said, I'm not really disagreeing with you. I got that her point was to write as if you were getting outside the whole white male american general narrative our country has. I just think it's goddamned silly to pick out that one thing to focus on, unless the whole goal of your class is to point out that specific bias. If it's all just tangential to the point of the class, that is when I think grabbing up one perspective and saying "pretend like this thing isn't there" or "this thing is worse than this thing." is actively bad.

 Bromsy wrote:
I think I did miss that part, because it is something you came up with on your own.

That's not my own idea, and it's hardly a controversial one.

I think plenty of people think they are neutral when they are not, and encouraging everyone who is not part of a specific group to think that they are neutral is a bad idea.

Except that's not true at all.

First of all, it's not just about neutrality, it's about assuming you're the default. For example, look at most tv shows. Have you ever noticed that the default race for a character is white, and non-white characters are frequently forced into a role that is defined by their race (for example, "the black guy")? If you're an 18 year old white guy, probably not. On the other hand, if you're an 18 year old black guy in the same class you probably understand a lot better how rare characters like you are. The white guy needs a reminder that they need to make a conscious effort to look past society's messages and avoid thinking of themselves as the default, the black guy has been getting that reminder for their whole life.

Second, nobody is telling everyone else that they're already neutral. The professor isn't holding up a hypothetical poor gay black woman who just immigrated to the US as the perfect model of neutrality, they're just focusing the "be aware of your privilege" statement on the people who tend to need it most, and not giving redundant advice to people who don't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bromsy wrote:
Yeah, like I said, I'm not really disagreeing with you. I got that her point was to write as if you were getting outside the whole white male american general narrative our country has. I just think it's goddamned silly to pick out that one thing to focus on, unless the whole goal of your class is to point out that specific bias. If it's all just tangential to the point of the class, that is when I think grabbing up one perspective and saying "pretend like this thing isn't there" or "this thing is worse than this thing." is actively bad.

You keep arguing like we're living in this fantasy world where every group of people has an equal share in society's default messages. In that case sure, your opinion would be right, and everyone would need an equal amount of "be aware of your privilege and biases" statement. However, in the real world, it's entirely appropriate to recognize the fact that some groups get a MUCH greater amount of "you are the default" messages than others.

 Peregrine wrote:



You keep arguing like we're living in this fantasy world where every group of people has an equal share in society's default messages. In that case sure, your opinion would be right, and everyone would need an equal amount of "be aware of your privilege and biases" statement. However, in the real world, it's entirely appropriate to recognize the fact that some groups get a MUCH greater amount of "you are the default" messages than others.

Are you arguing with me or with someone else in this thread? No one is saying the things you are railing against. No one is saying people should by default come at issues from the perspective of white middle class american males. It seems like you have a tenuous grasp on what I was getting at at best. I mean, you made the point that somehow it's wrong for a society that is majority white to make the default character in tv shows white? As if that is somehow relevant? Are we even talking about the same thing here? I'm talking about a class that assumes that all white male middle class americans have a bias that needs discarding, whilst everyone else has useful or at least interesting insight. Once again, since it seems to be ignored - if we are talking about simply disregarding our countries historical narrative as being from a white male perspective, that is one thing. If we are talking about disregarding our personalities influencing our work if we are of a certain persona, and only that persona, that is something else.

I guess I do live in a 'fantasy world' where I expect equitable treatment for all, regardless of whether they have an equal share in the "default message of society." But I guess you are someone who believes life should be fair, instead of equal. You seem to be conjuring things whole from you imagination. Who else has been talking about assuming you are the default? That only entered the discussion when you made it up.

Us being the default is the whole point of the statements made by the professor.

And that just because we are the majority and the default doesn't mean that we should assume everybody has the same experiences as us. Pretty basic stuff really.

 Bromsy wrote:
Yeah, like I said, I'm not really disagreeing with you. I got that her point was to write as if you were getting outside the whole white male american general narrative our country has. I just think it's goddamned silly to pick out that one thing to focus on, unless the whole goal of your class is to point out that specific bias. If it's all just tangential to the point of the class, that is when I think grabbing up one perspective and saying "pretend like this thing isn't there" or "this thing is worse than this thing." is actively bad.

Yeah, it does seem something of an odd thing to throw into the middle of a class like that. But it's college, you get professors with strange little priorities floating in to their classes. Some of the time that's a good thing, some of the time it's a bad thing, but most of the time it's a pointless thing.

At worst, this odd little tangent is a pointless thing.

Were they saying it in the context of writing essays/papers or just in general?

 Bromsy wrote:
I mean, you made the point that somehow it's wrong for a society that is majority white to make the default character in tv shows white?

I didn't say that it's ethically wrong, just that it happens.

As if that is somehow relevant?

Of course it's relevant. It's an example of the kind of "I am the default" thinking that the professor is trying to get white middle-class male students to think about.

I'm talking about a class that assumes that all white male middle class americans have a bias that needs discarding, whilst everyone else has useful or at least interesting insight.

Which is a straw man.

Once again, since it seems to be ignored - if we are talking about simply disregarding our countries historical narrative as being from a white male perspective, that is one thing. If we are talking about disregarding our personalities influencing our work if we are of a certain persona, and only that persona, that is something else.

Nobody is saying that you need to disregard your personality entirely, not even the professor.

Who else has been talking about assuming you are the default? That only entered the discussion when you made it up.

It entered the discussion because that's what the professor was talking about. Seriously, go read the original article AND the later comments which give the entire context of the quote.

 d-usa wrote:
Us being the default is the whole point of the statements made by the professor.

And that just because we are the majority and the default doesn't mean that we should assume everybody has the same experiences as us. Pretty basic stuff really.

The professor can make all the points she wants. The discussion I'm involved in is on whether it's cool to say to one specific group, even if they are the majority, "Hey, knock off all that having an opinion based on your life experiences and stuff." whilst saying to other groups "Hey, keep on having opinions based on your life experiences and stuff." That is what I am saying, as much as I can reduce it. I don't get if you and peregrine are going off on tangents from what I actually said and filling in blanks that I didn't speak to or arguing with opinions other people posted.

 sebster wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:
Yeah, like I said, I'm not really disagreeing with you. I got that her point was to write as if you were getting outside the whole white male american general narrative our country has. I just think it's goddamned silly to pick out that one thing to focus on, unless the whole goal of your class is to point out that specific bias. If it's all just tangential to the point of the class, that is when I think grabbing up one perspective and saying "pretend like this thing isn't there" or "this thing is worse than this thing." is actively bad.

Yeah, it does seem something of an odd thing to throw into the middle of a class like that. But it's college, you get professors with strange little priorities floating in to their classes. Some of the time that's a good thing, some of the time it's a bad thing, but most of the time it's a pointless thing.

At worst, this odd little tangent is a pointless thing.

Yes, but pointless things, liberally sprinkled with booze seem like less pointless things. I'm satisfied that at least one person read what I wrote, so I am content; and sleepy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:
I mean, you made the point that somehow it's wrong for a society that is majority white to make the default character in tv shows white?

I didn't say that it's ethically wrong, just that it happens.

As if that is somehow relevant?

Of course it's relevant. It's an example of the kind of "I am the default" thinking that the professor is trying to get white middle-class male students to think about.

I'm talking about a class that assumes that all white male middle class americans have a bias that needs discarding, whilst everyone else has useful or at least interesting insight.

Which is a straw man.

Once again, since it seems to be ignored - if we are talking about simply disregarding our countries historical narrative as being from a white male perspective, that is one thing. If we are talking about disregarding our personalities influencing our work if we are of a certain persona, and only that persona, that is something else.

Nobody is saying that you need to disregard your personality entirely, not even the professor.

Who else has been talking about assuming you are the default? That only entered the discussion when you made it up.

It entered the discussion because that's what the professor was talking about. Seriously, go read the original article AND the later comments which give the entire context of the quote.

Great Odin's Ravens man, it's like you are arguing with the shadow of what you think I might have meant.

 Bromsy wrote:
The discussion I'm involved in is on whether it's cool to say to one specific group, even if they are the majority, "Hey, knock off all that having an opinion based on your life experiences and stuff." whilst saying to other groups "Hey, keep on having opinions based on your life experiences and stuff."

Which isn't what the professor said.

Great Odin's Ravens man, it's like you are arguing with the shadow of what you think I might have meant.

Maybe you should stop drinking and posting then?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:
The discussion I'm involved in is on whether it's cool to say to one specific group, even if they are the majority, "Hey, knock off all that having an opinion based on your life experiences and stuff." whilst saying to other groups "Hey, keep on having opinions based on your life experiences and stuff."

Which isn't what the professor said.

Great Odin's Ravens man, it's like you are arguing with the shadow of what you think I might have meant.

Maybe you should stop drinking and posting then?

It's certainly what she implied. And yeah, I don't think that's the issue, but being the compassionate soul that I am, if it makes the ghost of your reading comprehension rest more easily then we can go with that.

 Bromsy wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Us being the default is the whole point of the statements made by the professor.

And that just because we are the majority and the default doesn't mean that we should assume everybody has the same experiences as us. Pretty basic stuff really.

The professor can make all the points she wants. The discussion I'm involved in is on whether it's cool to say to one specific group, even if they are the majority, "Hey, knock off all that having an opinion based on your life experiences and stuff." whilst saying to other groups "Hey, keep on having opinions based on your life experiences and stuff." That is what I am saying, as much as I can reduce it. I don't get if you and peregrine are going off on tangents from what I actually said and filling in blanks that I didn't speak to or arguing with opinions other people posted.

Your discussion has nothing to do with the post then, unless you have some sort of idea how to tell a minority group to "stop thinking that everybody thinks just like you just because you are the majority".

 d-usa wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Us being the default is the whole point of the statements made by the professor.

And that just because we are the majority and the default doesn't mean that we should assume everybody has the same experiences as us. Pretty basic stuff really.

The professor can make all the points she wants. The discussion I'm involved in is on whether it's cool to say to one specific group, even if they are the majority, "Hey, knock off all that having an opinion based on your life experiences and stuff." whilst saying to other groups "Hey, keep on having opinions based on your life experiences and stuff." That is what I am saying, as much as I can reduce it. I don't get if you and peregrine are going off on tangents from what I actually said and filling in blanks that I didn't speak to or arguing with opinions other people posted.

Your discussion has nothing to do with the post then, unless you have some sort of idea how to tell a minority group to "stop thinking that everybody thinks just like you just because you are the majority".

There is a startling lack of grey area in your thinking considering we are discussing an institute which is supposed to foster intelligent debate. I mean really, the fact that white american middle class males are almost certainly not the majority in the class isn't enough to make them think outside their ironclad preconceptions? Only white middle class american males can possibly fall into the trap of thinking their preconceptions are reality? And of course, no middle class white american male could possibly realize that everyone isn't of the same opinions as they are without a syllabus laying it out for them. It is silly, and the whole idea laid out is open for debate on its relevance and equability. You have just been making blanket declarative statements, which are really just your opinion, and you should couch them as such.

Well, it is your opinion that people who have been the minolrity their entire life would somehow think that their viewpoints represent the majority?

And if you are trying to foster intelligent debate, then helping students get rid of the basic idea that "my experiences growing up as a member of the majority culture and being surrounded by people that are just like me means that my experiences are the norm and everybody is like me" is a good start.

But having trouble seeing that is a common problem if you are part of the majority.

 Hordini wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It is the instructor's place to instruct, and the students' place to be instructed.

Nope.

It's the Student's place to seek knowledge... Instructors are there to help facilitate.

Small distinction, but very important.

Not in Accountancy.

You know this thread is about a political science class, right? And the teacher as facilitator/student as knowledge seeker model could certainly work in accountancy as well.

It is an important part of many disciplines to learn how to put aside feelings arising from one's personal identity and try to examine issues from a neutral viewpoint, or with empathy towards people who are different.

Possibly the most difficult personal identity to put aside is that of member of the majority power elite -- in the USA, the white middle-class male -- because membership of that group tends to insulate a person from realisation that things aren't the same for everyone. OTOH, all minority group members have a common experience of being part of a minority, low power group.

Thus I would argue that to urge WASP students to try and think outside the WASP box is a very sensible guidance on a course such as political science.

It's the "social justice" part that made me laugh out loud.

And at everyone defending this drek. I know the soft sciences aren't exactly known for credibility, but c'mon.

All I'm getting from this is that we should all think like legion from mass effect. No gender, no race.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Whembly posted a make-white-conservative-dudes-angry-by-distorting-an-incident story? Stop the presses.

I remember when Fraz used to post every piece of junk like this that someone forwarded to his inbox. Some of them were literally years old; junk stories that just floated around people's email boxes because 99% of the people who read them would prefer to be angry over nothing than to bother fact-checking to get the entire quote.

I'm very curious about the reactions here. I find this interesting... I really do.

So... could've I posted the whole article in here? (I did post the link). I thought was generally frowned upon in here...???

Carry on!

 whembly wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Whembly posted a make-white-conservative-dudes-angry-by-distorting-an-incident story? Stop the presses.

I remember when Fraz used to post every piece of junk like this that someone forwarded to his inbox. Some of them were literally years old; junk stories that just floated around people's email boxes because 99% of the people who read them would prefer to be angry over nothing than to bother fact-checking to get the entire quote.

I'm very curious about the reactions here. I find this interesting... I really do.

So... could've I posted the whole article in here? (I did post the link). I thought was generally frowned upon in here...???

Carry on!

Wait am I being picked on.

And my inbox now has iomportant things like "Reminder X is the deadline for scholarships for Aggieville" and of course very important Victoria's Secret updates.

 Frazzled wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Whembly posted a make-white-conservative-dudes-angry-by-distorting-an-incident story? Stop the presses.

I remember when Fraz used to post every piece of junk like this that someone forwarded to his inbox. Some of them were literally years old; junk stories that just floated around people's email boxes because 99% of the people who read them would prefer to be angry over nothing than to bother fact-checking to get the entire quote.

I'm very curious about the reactions here. I find this interesting... I really do.

So... could've I posted the whole article in here? (I did post the link). I thought was generally frowned upon in here...???

Carry on!

Wait am I being picked on.

And my inbox now has iomportant things like "Reminder X is the deadline for scholarships for Aggieville" and of course very important Victoria's Secret updates.

Wait... you've been holding out on us...
...
...
...
...
...
Come on man...
...
...
...
...
WHERE ARE THE VICTORIA'S SECRET UPDATES! (yes, I'm too lazy to use the interweb)

 whembly wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Whembly posted a make-white-conservative-dudes-angry-by-distorting-an-incident story? Stop the presses.

I'm very curious about the reactions here. I find this interesting... I really do.

So... could've I posted the whole article in here? (I did post the link). I thought was generally frowned upon in here...???

You can quote a whole article if you like (many do), although it’s often less readable inside a forum post/quote box than on its home page, and it might be missing pretty graphics and formatting which would be better viewed on the origin site. Often the better thing to do is excerpt it, quoting the first few paragraphs, providing a link and your thoughts or a question for discussion. That’s fine.

The points I was making (or reiterating, as others had made them before) were:

1. This is another “manufactured outrage” story, where the article’s author went looking for something to get people angry about, and to that end distorted and exaggerated what really happened, when it’s actually completely innocuous.
2. You do this kind of a lot. And you don’t seem to give these kind of articles much critical evaluation before regurgitating them onto this forum.
3. We’ve seen this kind of pattern of posting behavior before in other members. It seems like some folks get lots of these kind of junk conspiracy/outrage of the week/our country’s going to hell/Liberals gone wild articles forwarded to their email, and just repost them here without thinking much about it beyond “Wow!” Or “Sounds about right!”

I get a bunch of unsolicited crap to one of my emails too. Of course, the stuff I get is mostly from liberal organizations and PACs. Obviously in election season it was tons of emails looking for money to back various candidates, and talking about how bad their opponents were. Other times it’s stuff from Nation of Change, Firedoglake, Cuentame, NARAL, Union of Concerned Scientists, Don Siegelman’s family, Color of Change, Bradley Manning’s defense fund, People for the American Way, Bernie Sanders, Brave New Films, etc. Generally they want to solicit support for a given cause or issue, whether donations, petition signatures, or emails or phone calls to politicians regarding various issues. Often times they’ll try to motivate interest by talking about something awful someone they’re politically opposed to is doing or wants to do.

When I get one of these, if I have time to read it and don’t just delete it, I apply some critical evaluation to it. Not all the things I’m asked to be angry about actually make me angry. Very rarely do I actually forward them to anyone else or repost something here on Dakka. And again, if I do, I read it carefully first and try to make sure it’s not deceptive or misleading.

This story truncates the professor’s actual quote to distort the meaning of what he said, to make it look more offensive. It’s a bad story not just because it’s manufacturing outrage (which is a tactic which motivates people to the polls, but is not very constructive or good for dialogue), but because it engages in deception to do so.

It’s our responsibility to treat incoming information coming from our “side” of the political sphere as critically as we do pronouncements and claims made by people with whom we disagree. Obviously that can be difficult to do, but we’re all better off if we don’t just assume something’s right because it fits with our political worldview.

--
Which actually brings us back rather close to the point of the professor’s comments. Which basically amount to:

Hey, us guys who are in the majority and around whom most of our culture is centered? We need to make an extra effort to challenge our assumptions and be conscious of our voices when we write. Because our life experiences are constantly being reinforced as being the default expectation of “how life is”, it’s usually a harder task for us to set that aside.

Here are a few examples of assumptions about life which I might have to correct for if I was writing a paper:

Race related: If I walk or drive by a cop, he will pay me no special attention. If one pulls me over, and I’m respectful and polite, there’s a decent chance I’ll just get a warning. If I visit my wife’s relatives in Eastern Europe, I don’t have to worry about any particular prejudice toward me.

Gender related: A public restroom by default, includes standing-use urinals in its design. If I were to picture one off the top of my head, of course I would usually think first of one with them, as those are the ones I generally use. A less funny one- If I dress up “sexy” to go to a night club in the city (which for a dude includes maybe a fitted shirt, possibly with a v-neck and/or showing more of the bicep, and a more form-fitting pair of jeans), I can comfortably and safely walk back to my car by myself, without taking precautions against being followed by a creepy dude I turned down at the club.

Nationality: Electoral politics revolves around the opposition of two (and functionally only two) parties. Political history only goes back a couple of hundred hears, and STARTS with the principle that all men are equal before the law, and have certain fundamental and unalienable rights. Among which is carrying a firearm.

Religion: I don’t have this one, but if I were a member of any major Christian sect, it could be something like- If I move to a new city, I can expect there to be at least one, if not multiple, church(es) of my denomination at which I can attend services. Full-time clergy are on staff to provide services and counseling if I am in need. I can join the choir and sing familiar hymns which I grew up with.

The above kind of assumptions inform our perceptions about what the world is like, and they need to be accounted for. It’s completely appropriate for a professor to remind us of that fact, especially if we’re in the privileged position of not having them challenged on a daily basis on TV and in the news.

Really, the only story here is “Article Writer Misunderstands Professor; Distorts Statement and Draws False Conclusions From it to Generate Ad Revenue Through Readers Getting Their Anger Fix”.

Um... "looks sheepishly around"... ^^^ /thread

Ragnar... have an exalt.

(it was getting quiet after the election and I grabbed something meaty)

Thank you sir. I think you're a good dude; but man, you frustrate me sometimes.

Mannahnin is getting really quite awesome.


That is all.