Racism

[Mike]

well it troubled me because it was disingenuous. it troubled me when the students held the school president hostage. it troubled me when they physically threatened and shouted down the opposition. it troubled me when they stalked Weinstein allies and showed up at their homes. troubled me that they weren't interested in having an honest dialogue, just furthering what eventually became an authoritarian crusade. it troubled me that they were trying to resolve racism with more racism. it troubled me that they have no regard for freedom of speech. troubled me that 2 brilliant professors were unfairly labelled racist and forced to resign from the university. was troubled when the school president told campus police to stand down when innocent lives were in danger...

this video troubles me too:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=FH2WeWgcSMk

i was troubled by all of it basically

I'm sorry, i'm not trying to be glib! It's just that i have to be to work in half an hour, and i don't have the damn time atm to get into this like i would like. i'd love to unpack all this with a little more nuance, and will do so as soon as i get the chance.

[Ernie Nemeth]

As you state, I am not an expert. But the fundamentals are obvious, except to science because science has no way to approach these topics with objectivity - since they are not objective.

The right fundamentals.

Life is the reason for the universe.
Love is the feeling of unity.
Consciousness is universal.
The base reality is not substantial.
Life exists everywhere. By extension, intelligent life is common.

There are five.

I'll leave it to you to decide whether current research is valuable. All I know is that an effect of an effect is not a cause. That is all they are looking at because the truth is a sanctioned commodity in this as well as many other areas of science that comes too near the occult. It is designed to confuse and lead around and around, and away from the most profound paradigm-breaking discoveries we are not granted access to at any cost.

At least show an interest in (I say to science in general), how, for instance, DNA responds to the morphogenic field that transports information to individuals far removed from each other. Or possibly relate spontaneous asymmetrical hereditary adjustments to some mechanism of DNA. Either and many more would open the door to true 'science' that could help all of us advance our knowledge. These 'marker' games are for patent applications and big pharma investment.

I do tend to throw the baby out with the bath water so show me where the baby is...

[Mike]

Hi Mark, along with the video I posted in my last post here, these are really the boots on the ground type of videos that display the madness in all it's glory. I think each one is roughly 30 mins long. The first one is a slow warm up, but the second 2 are really something to see. It makes Bret's interview with Joe seem tame by comparison.

I'm just offering these here along with a strong suggestion to watch, but am also fully aware of how obnoxious it is for me to expect you to take time out of your busy day to do that.

I started writing a more detailed post in response to your post #390, but then realized that you might not have any idea what I'm talking about if you're not fully aware of the entire situation..

..so here it is. if it's something that interests you, have a look. if ya do, i think we can have a much broader, nuanced discussion on the entire event

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=A0W9QbkX8Cs

[/YOUTUBE]

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=2vyBLCqyUes

[Mark]

In support of the movement in science to opening the paradigm wider in regards to the potentiality for alien life to be present on earth. A really extraordinary article.

A controversial study has a new spin on the otherworldliness of the octopus
By Ephrat Livni



Octopuses are strange, smart creatures that certainly seem alien—what with the tentacles, camouflage, and shape-shifting skills. Still, the idea that they actually came from outer space would seem to fall strictly into the realm of sci-fi; an update of HP Lovecraft’s Cthulhu, say.

But in these interesting times, real life reads like fiction. Recently, a group of 33 scientists worldwide—including molecular immunologist Edward Steele and astrobiologist Chandra Wickramasinghe—published a paper suggesting, in all seriousness, that octopuses may indeed be aliens.

The paper, published in the March issue of the the journal Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, is controversial, obviously, and the vast majority of scientists would disagree. But the paper is still worthy of discussion—for one, as a thought exercise, because outlandish ideas are often initially rejected. And in provoking us with seemingly bizarre theories, it forces us to acknowledge that there are aspects of life on Earth for which classic evolutionary theory as yet has no explanation.

The octopus, for example, is traditionally considered to come from the nautiloid, having evolved about 500 million years ago. But that relationship doesn’t explain how these odd cephalopods got all their awesome characteristics or why octopuses are so very different, genetically speaking, from their alleged nautiloid ancestors. The paper states:

The genetic divergence of Octopus from its ancestral coleoid sub-class is very great … Its large brain and sophisticated nervous system, camera-like eyes, flexible bodies, instantaneous camouflage via the ability to switch color and shape are just a few of the striking features that appear suddenly on the evolutionary scene.

The transformative genes leading from the consensus ancestral nautilus to the common cuttlefish to squid to the common octopus can’t be found in any pre-existing life form, the authors say.

So far, so good. But then the paper gets highly speculative. The researchers continue, “It is plausible then to suggest they [octopuses] seem to be borrowed from a far distant ‘future’ in terms of terrestrial evolution, or more realistically from the cosmos at large.”

To make matters even more strange, the paper posits that octopuses could have arrived on Earth in “an already coherent group of functioning genes within (say) cryopreserved and matrix protected fertilized octopus eggs.” And these eggs might have “arrived in icy bolides several hundred million years ago.” The authors admit, though, that “such an extraterrestrial origin…of course, runs counter to the prevailing dominant paradigm.”

Indeed, few in the scientific community would agree that octopuses come from outer space. But the paper is not just about the provenance of cephalopods. Its proposal that octopuses could be extraterrestrials is just a small part of a much more extensive discussion of a theory called “panspermia,” which has its roots in the ideas of ancient Greece.

The word “panspermia” translates to “seeds everywhere.” The idea is that the seeds of life are everywhere in the universe, including space, and life on Earth may originate from “seeds” of some kind in space. In this paper, the authors argue that the “seeds,” or alien life forms invading Earth, come in multiple forms, including “space-resistant and space-hardy” viruses and bacteria. It supports this argument by pointing to organic matter found in comets, as well as various medical studies on the inexplicably intelligent self-replicating abilities and super-strength of viruses. The paper reviews 60 years of experiments and observations from a range of scientific fields to support its unusual conclusions.

Virologist Karin Moelling of the Max Planck Institute Molecular Genetics in Berlin isn’t convinced, although she says that the paper is worth contemplating because there’s still so much we don’t know about the origins of life on Earth. She writes in a commentary (paywall) in the same publication, “So this article is useful, calling for attention, and it is worth thinking about, yet the main statement about viruses, microbes and even animals coming to us from space, cannot be taken seriously.”

Evolutionary scientist Keith Baverstock from the University of Eastern Finland, in his commentary on the paper (paywall), is equally wary. The proposed theories “would support an extra-terrestrial origin of life,” he writes. Still, they don’t necessarily lead to that conclusion; there are other plausible explanations for the evidence the paper offers.

The authors are well aware of the intellectual resistance to their ideas, writing:

We certainly do not want this paper to read, as one reviewer has put it, ‘somewhat like a last-ditch and exasperated attempt to convince the main stream of the scientific community that…life has been carried to this planet from elsewhere in the universe on comets/meteorites.’

The researchers acknowledge that some forms of life originated on Earth. But they still say that other, perhaps earlier, forms originated elsewhere, like outer space. In other words, they argue that the two ideas aren’t mutually exclusive, and, taken together, they would help fill in some gaps in the current scientific understanding that the classic evolutionary theory cannot.

The paper is intended to be provocative. That said, it did withstand a year of intense peer-review before publication. As Steele told Cosmos, “It has thus passed some severe and tortuous tests already.”

If for no other reason, the ideas proposed in this rather radical paper are worthy of our attention because we always tend to agree with what we already believe. Yet the history of science is full of theories that were mocked and rejected out of hand, only to finally be accepted as truth. Or, in Steele’s words, “The situation is reminiscent to the problem Galileo had with the Catholic priests of his time—most refused to look through his telescope to observe the moons of Jupiter.”

Consider these scientists intellectual troublemakers. You don’t have to agree with their theories about octopuses from outer space to appreciate their contribution to the great conversation about the origins of life. Society and science need people to articulate unconventional ideas and shake up the status quo. They provoke us to rethink what we imagine we know.

[Mark]

Posted by Ernie Nemeth (here)
As you state, I am not an expert. But the fundamentals are obvious, except to science because science has no way to approach these topics with objectivity - since they are not objective.

The right fundamentals.

Life is the reason for the universe.
Love is the feeling of unity.
Consciousness is universal.
The base reality is not substantial.
Life exists everywhere. By extension, intelligent life is common.

There are five.

I like these. Can agree with every one of them. Yes, this is the direction and understanding that every field of science needs to move toward, post haste. From my observation of multiple fields of endeavor, I believe it is happening very fast, right now.

Posted by Ernie Nemeth (here)
I'll leave it to you to decide whether current research is valuable. All I know is that an effect of an effect is not a cause. That is all they are looking at because the truth is a sanctioned commodity in this as well as many other areas of science that comes too near the occult. It is designed to confuse and lead around and around, and away from the most profound paradigm-breaking discoveries we are not granted access to at any cost.

Agreed, but again, these truths are moving closer and closer to the mainstream as we engage here and now. The evidence of this, again, crosses fields. It seems that some of it is a deliberate form of tech release, of innovations and discoveries that we in the AltCom know have been around for decades and hundreds if not thousands of years, but which are being celebrated and highlighted in the mainstream press by sanctioned publications and practitioners.

Posted by Ernie Nemeth (here)
At least show an interest in (I say to science in general), how, for instance, DNA responds to the morphogenic field that transports information to individuals far removed from each other. Or possibly relate spontaneous asymmetrical hereditary adjustments to some mechanism of DNA. Either and many more would open the door to true 'science' that could help all of us advance our knowledge. These 'marker' games are for patent applications and big pharma investment.

How quantum entanglement in DNA synchronizes double-strand breakage by type II restriction endonucleases

Epigenetics: A Turning Point in Our Understanding of Heredity

I do believe the two articles above in some ways address your points? As I pay very close attention to these areas, if you describe the second, in regards to "spontaneous asymmetrical hereditary adjustments" and whether or not you are refering to epigenetics, we can delve into it deeper. These are vital areas of study and, I believe, they are being addressed by current practitioners.

Posted by Ernie Nemeth (here)
I do tend to throw the baby out with the bath water so show me where the baby is...

There is just so much going on, Ernie. So much it is hard to keep up with. It is like a renaissance of intense, scientific rigor. I have been watching and reading and sharing information at the forefront of the quantum exploration for years now and it is breaking into new scientific disciplines every day. The base idea of information being the foundation of Cosmos correlates to the "All is Mind" alchemical formulation of consciousness as foundational to this physical reality. And there are many, many more.

All of which relate to how we relate to each other, to bring it back to our current discussion on ethnic and racial interrelation and interconnectedness. Understanding how we are interconnected at the scholastic level cannot be expected from all, who do not have the time or the wherewithall to engage this data in depth as some of us do, nor should it be expected. And so ignorance as the rule remains the state of oceanic humanity, until such a time as we can achieve methods of information dissemination that are truly available to a population with the capacity, provided by education, economic stability and culture, to co-create what King called "The Beloved Community". We have a long way to go.

And a lot of unwilling segments of humanity to convince to go with us.

Fear and loathing is much easier. It requires no opening of the mind, only a further closing.

[Mark]

Posted by Mike (here)
I started writing a more detailed post in response to your post #390, but then realized that you might not have any idea what I'm talking about if you're not fully aware of the entire situation..

..so here it is. if it's something that interests you, have a look. if ya do, i think we can have a much broader, nuanced discussion on the entire event.

This morning my students are testing during 5th Period, 4 hours. I don't have a 5th Period class, so I'm now sitting in my classroom till lunchtime with no students. That said to say, I have had the time to watch these videos. What would you like to discuss about them?

Watching them has not changed my impressions. These are children of the multicultural media era, maturing into a world and within a protected culture provided by an educational institution staffed by liberals who have no idea what to do with the "monsters" they've created. And make no mistake: when I used the word "monsters" in this context, I mean it in the pure sense of its definition, "an imaginary creature that is typically large, ugly, and frightening."

These are babies. Early-20s and late teens. Many of them are, at least. Living within imagined realities addressing very real material conditions. The imagined reality is the college campus, a space deliberately designed to foster leaps of understanding by teaching the humanities, disciplines to include the Arts and the Sciences. They've just left mama and daddy's houses, the streets, segregated and integrated secondary systems and have found ideologies and adults that provide a structure for their lived, othered experiences of being black or otherwise melanated, white and othered as LGBTQIA, and, apparently, have also been trained in tactics designed to disrupt and forward controversial - to mainstreamed audiences - positions seeking fundamental societal change.

That is what college is for, to some folks. Exploration of possibility.

Nobody was hurt, that I can see. People yelling, screaming and crying, while others attempt to engage reasonably, is a sight often seen on college campuses and protest sites around the world.

This statue, on Texas State University's campus, the Fighting Stallions, is our Free Speech area. This is where you see such things here and it gets really, really rowdy. We get preachers and fundamentalists with large placards and pictures of fetuses, we get white supremacists, LGBTQIA, you name it.




Their disruption of the campus and their monitoring tactics were admittedly extreme and effective, as far as getting their message out and engaging a wider audience. I'm of the impression that this is the aspect that you are concerned with, perhaps?

I'm sure some watching this all happen are seeing evocations of Saul Alinsky and the communist threat to disrupt American Democracy and Freedom, although, it seems to me, these days our community, the AltCom, as well as the American political Right and the Drumpfers have more engagement with Russia than diversity advocates on a college campus. It is also strange that we hear the word socialism mentioned a lot more than communism these days, as well.

Funny how that shift has occurred. Socialism was Europe, but now Europe is demonized among certain populations in the US and Russia is less so.

[Mark]

Horizontal Gene Transfer (HGT), where genes not directly received from our ancestors find their way into the code. Another indication of extraterrestrial origin being a possibility and where and how to find indications of such in the genetic code. Although, I think it is safe to say, that extraterrestrial genetic manipulation of hominids could only have occurred between species that already shared genetics.

Human genome includes 'foreign' genes not from our ancestors



Many animals, including humans, acquired essential ‘foreign’ genes from microorganisms co-habiting their environment in ancient times, according to research published in the open access journal Genome Biology. The study challenges the conventional view that animal evolution relies solely on genes passed down through ancestral lines and suggests that, at least in some lineages, the process is still ongoing.

The transfer of genes between organisms living in the same environment is known as horizontal gene transfer. It is well known in single-celled organisms and thought to be an important process that explains how quickly bacteria evolve resistance to antibiotics, for example.

Horizontal gene transfer is also thought to play an important role in the evolution of some animals, including nematode worms, which have acquired genes from microorganisms and plants, and some beetles that gained bacterial genes to produce enzymes for digesting coffee berries. However, the idea that horizontal gene transfer occurs in more complex animals, such as humans has been widely debated and contested.

Lead author Alastair Crisp from the Department of Chemical Engineering and Biotechnology at the University of Cambridge said: “This is the first study to show how widely horizontal gene transfer occurs in animals, including humans, giving rise to tens or hundreds of active 'foreign' genes. Surprisingly, far from being a rare occurrence, it appears that this has contributed to the evolution of many, perhaps all, animals and that the process is ongoing. We may need to re-evaluate how we think about evolution.”

The researchers studied the genomes of 12 species of fruit fly, four species of nematode worm, and ten species of primate, including humans. They calculated how well each of their genes aligns to similar genes in other species to estimate how likely they were to be foreign in origin. By comparing with other groups of species, they were able to estimate how long ago the genes were likely to have been acquired.

In humans, they confirmed 17 previously-reported genes acquired from horizontal gene transfer, and identified 128 additional foreign genes in the human genome that have not previously been reported. A number of genes, including the ABO gene, which determines an individual’s blood group, were also confirmed as having been acquired by vertebrates through horizontal gene transfer. The majority of the genes were related to enzymes involved in metabolism.

In humans, some of the genes were involved in lipid metabolism, including the breakdown of fatty acids and the formation of glycolipids. Others were involved in immune responses, including the inflammatory response, immune cell signalling, and antimicrobial responses, while further gene categories include amino-acid metabolism, protein modification and antioxidant activities.

The team identified the likely class of organisms from which the transferred genes came. Bacteria and protists, another class of microorganisms, were the most common donors in all species studied. They also identified horizontal gene transfer from viruses, which was responsible for up to 50 more foreign genes in primates.

Some genes were identified as having originated from fungi. This explains why some previous studies, which only focused on bacteria as the source of horizontal gene transfer, originally rejected the idea that these genes were ‘foreign’ in origin.

The majority of horizontal gene transfer in primates was found to be ancient, occurring sometime between the common ancestor of Chordata and the common ancestor of the primates.

The authors say that their analysis probably underestimates the true extent of horizontal gene transfer in animals and that direct transfer between complex multicellular organisms is also plausible, and already known in some host-parasite relationships.

The study also has potential impacts on genome sequencing more generally. Genome projects frequently remove bacterial sequences from results on the assumption that they are contamination.

“It’s important to screen for contamination when we’re doing genome sequencing, but our study shows that we shouldn’t ignore the potential for bacterial sequences being a genuine part of an animal’s genome originating from horizontal gene transfer,” adds Dr Chiara Boschetti from the Department of Chemical Engineering and Biotechnology.

[Mark]

What if these "ghost lineages" don't just exist in the far distant past? As the techniques for finding traces of them improve, it is quite possible that we will see more recent examples of populations that have snuck into Terran genetic lines, perhaps physically indistinguishable from some populations, but containing unmistakable genetic anomalies that point to an origin just a bit more distant from Sol than Terra.

Neanderthals may have interbred with a much older human lineage
The result is likely to be disputed, as it relies on a novel technique.

JOHN TIMMER



Shortly before the publication of the first Neanderthal genome, a number of researchers had seen hints that there might be something strange lurking in the statistics of the human genome. The publication of the genome erased any doubts about these hints and provided a clear identity for the strangeness: a few percent of the bases in European and Asian populations came from our now-extinct relatives.

But what if we didn't have the certainty provided by the Neanderthal genome? That's the situation we find ourselves in now, as several studies have recently identified "ghost lineages"—hints of branches in the human family tree for which we have no DNA sequence but find their imprint on the genomes of populations alive today. The existence of these ghost lineages is based on statistical arguments, so it's very dependent upon statistical methods and underlying assumptions, which are prone to being the subject of disagreement within the community that studies human evolution.

Now, researchers at the University of Utah are arguing that they have evidence of a very old ghost lineage contributing to Neanderthals and Denisovans (and so, indirectly, possibly to us). This is a claim that others in the field will undoubtedly contest, in part because the evidence comes from an analysis that would also revise the dates of many key events in human evolution. But it's interesting to look at in light of how scientists deal with a question that may never be answered by definitive data.

Looking for ghosts
Ghost lineages have made their presence known in two ways. In the first, sequences of DNA from different populations can reveal shared ancestry groups. Native Americans, for example, have sequences that descended from an ancestral population that contributed DNA to modern East Asians, as well as another population that contributed to modern Siberians. In West Africans, we've found a significant contribution from a population that doesn't seem to have contributed to any other existing population (along with contributions from groups that do have current descendants).

While that population's contribution is well within the range of normal human variation, we still don't know anything about who they were or where they interacted with the ancestors of West Africans. They're a historical ghost at the moment, though further studies could always provide more details.

But there are hints of additional ghost lineages in our past. In these cases, the contribution comes from something outside the normal range of human variability. Take the Neanderthal DNA, for example. European and Asian populations all share common ancestors that seem to have left Africa about 50,000 years ago and thus have a relatively small range of variations in their DNA. Neanderthals, by contrast, split off from the lineage that produced modern humans hundreds of thousands of years ago and have been largely separated since. They had plenty of time to build up their own variations that are distinct to their lineage and not found in modern human populations.



Thus, the DNA Neanderthals contributed to Eurasian populations included variants that fall well outside the range of the variation we see in other parts of the genome. And while we know about Neanderthals, it's possible you can get a similar contribution from a group we don't know about.

The problem is that this sort of branching is impossible to identify at the single-base level. There's no way to distinguish a variant that has arisen recently due to mutation from one that was brought in from a more distantly related lineage. In the diagram below, we take some known branches of the recent human family tree and add a potential ghost lineage. We can imagine an example where, at a specific location in the genome, modern humans and Neanderthals have an A, while Denisovans have a G.



One explanation for this is that modern humans got their A from Neanderthals, which we know interbred with us. But that interbreeding has mostly contributed to non-African populations, so this is unlikely. Another option is that a mutation occurred on the Denisovan lineage. But a third option is that the G came into the Denisovan population thanks to a completely separate human lineage that interbred with them. At the individual base level, these two options are impossible to tell apart.

Testing all the things
To discriminate among all the possible models of our evolutionary past, we have to consider both the information we know—that Neanderthal DNA is rare in African populations, for example—as well as statistical arguments. DNA variants tend to be inherited together, so if there is a contribution from a ghost lineage, it would likely involve some unusual variants clustering near each other in the genome. With enough solid knowledge and a careful statistical analysis of enough genomes, it should be possible to figure out which models are more likely and which can be ruled out.

That's more or less what this new research did. It starts with two Neanderthal genomes, one Denisovan genome, and one genome each from modern English, French, and Yoruban populations. It then builds different models of potential evolutionary histories—a branch here, a bit of interbreeding there—and determines how well each model is supported by the statistics. Given enough models to test, there should be a pattern where a collection of similar trees is favored. And that model better be consistent with the things we already know.

The rough outline of the tree that comes out of this analysis does a reasonably good job of matching up with things that have been seen in other analyses. The relatively recent gene flow from Neanderthals into modern humans is there, as is an earlier one from the ancestors of modern humans into early Neanderthals. There's also an indication of gene flow from a ghost population into the Denisovan lineage, which has been seen in other studies. This ghost lineage would have had to occupy some part of Eurasia as a contemporary of the Neanderthals and Denisovans, something that's certainly possible, given that the two groups we know about managed to get there.

Trees upon trees
Things start to get a bit strange, however, in the earlier parts of the favored tree. The same ghost lineage would have also contributed DNA to the common ancestor of Neanderthals and Denisovans, suggesting it was a distinct lineage already by the time of their split from the part of the tree that includes modern humans. There's no indication, however, of it contributing to the modern human lineage (except perhaps indirectly via its contribution to Neanderthals). That would suggest that the ghost lineage was outside of Africa by the time the modern human lineage started and only encountered the Neanderthal/Denisovan ancestors once they migrated into Eurasia.

That's possible, but the only lineages that we know were present outside of Africa at the time were variants of Homo erectus, a much earlier lineage.

What are we missing?
Which brings us to the dates of the different splits. The authors use what they acknowledge is a low estimate of the mutation rate/generation to figure out when the lineage splits occur. The estimate produces early splits for all the lineages compared to estimates from other sources. But even accounting for that, the lineage splits are older than most other estimates in the literature.

And that has a rather dramatic impact on the origin of the ghost lineage. Even using a mutation rate that produces a relatively recent split, the ghost lineage would have been a distinct branch of the human family tree roughly two million years ago. That's right about the same time as Homo erectus shows up in the fossil record. So this tree would have an extremely early branch of H. erectus moving out into Asia and being isolated from the rest of the human lineage until the ancestors of Neanderthals showed up roughly a million years later.

There's no shortage of reasons to be skeptical about that theory, including the rapid isolation of the lineage from the lineages that remained in Africa and the fact that fertility was still possible after such a long time spent in reproductive isolation. That, plus the fact that the dates disagree with so much else in the literature pretty much guarantees that the paper will be controversial.

But the paper was never going to be the final word, since the analysis it describes doesn't even try to include a number of additional events in human evolution that we know to be significant. We know that Denisovans contributed DNA to a number of Asian and Pacific lineages, but there are no sequences included from modern humans in those lineages. We also know another ghost lineage from around the time of the branch leading to modern humans contributed DNA—including an entire Y chromosome—to a small group of West African populations. Those aren't represented here, either.

It's not hard to understand why. More sequences and more branches would mean increased computation time for each tree evaluated, and adding additional potential branches means that far more trees have to be evaluated in total. But including these sorts of well-defined cases of interbreeding have the potential to provide a strong validation of any results produced by this analysis.

Fortunately, the data is all out there, and someone will undoubtedly find the computer time to make sure it gets done eventually. But this is a case where it's unlikely to be the sort of certainty provided by obtaining a genome from the ghost lineage, given the age of these events. And it may be that the remaining signals in populations we can get genomes from aren't strong enough to eliminate ambiguity.

It will be interesting to watch how researchers in the field deal with all these remaining uncertainties.

[Mike]

hey Mark, I think it's at the end of the 3rd video when Weinstein makes the comment that this isn't about free speech, racism, or college campuses. it's actually about the breakdown of logic in our civilization. I agree wholeheartedly, and that's why I see it as being fundamentally important. The Evergreen debacle represents a microcosm of this logical breakdown taken to the near extreme.

The common name given to this breakdown of logic is postmodernism...which you referred to earlier, and which, for those that don't know, is often characterized by a kind of militant, distorted version of equity (equality of outcome), a suspicion and denial of reason and logic, a suspicion and denial of science, an emphasis on group identity, and this idea that reality is not objective..among other things.

By the way, I mostly agree with everything you've written about the Evergreen thing, but I must admit that I was surprised that you don't appear to be giving any of the responsibility to the students for what went down. I understand free speech zones and rowdy debate - and the propaganda they've been exposed to, and the way they've been misled - but do the students kidnap and hold faculty hostage at your school? Do they barricade them in libraries and threaten them with violence? Do they stalk their ideological adversaries and show up at their homes? Maybe I'm out of the loop dude but that stuff seems pretty severe to me!

Post modernism, from what I can tell, attempts to create a type of authoritarianism masquerading as utopia. It's structure is as follows..as I understand it (all within the context of the Evergreen events):

- the death of logic and reason: I'm not sure where to even begin. It's just endless. The council seems to be trying to end racism with more racism. The hiring procedure is preposterous. It required an equity justification for every single position on campus. In a meeting, food was provided for people of color only. Seats were provided for people of color only. Whites are basically required to apologize for their very existence at every turn. It was clearly more of a power play than anything else, in my view.

- authoritarianism: the council offers a dense plan for what they're calling equity, and while they "invite conversation" about it, they threaten anyone who might question it. And even though they did not reveal it initially, they basically demanded that everyone ask for permission to be apart of it all. One counsel member describes their implementation plan thusly: political organizing, violence, and prayer. When Bret is accused of racism at one particular meeting, he is told - as he begins to defend himself - that this isn't the place to do that. When he asks where he can defend himself, he is told that he will not get that opportunity.

- the death of science: even though Evergreen was likely the most progressive, liberal college in the country at the time, the students appear to be quite enraged about racism on campus...even though no credible reports of racism ever surfaced. The council declared that to even ask people of color about incidents of racism was a form of racism..which is kind of a sinister Orwellian maneuver. Science needs hypothesis, testability and falsifiability, as Heather says, so it would appear to be one of the first things to go. At one point Bret offers to give a seminar on racism - where it came from and why it exists - to put all the scientific underpinnings in place, but he is treated as if he's going to give a lecture on eugenics or something. Lots of other stuff I can't remember now..but anyway, it's all discordant with the scientific understanding of the world as an objective reality

- emphasis on group identity: I was saying this in another thread, but it appears as though the lgbqti...community is beginning to crumble under the weight of it's own rainbow metaphor. New oppressed groups are being manufactured daily, and the 'community' is beginning to eat itself as it competes for the victimhood trophy. In one of the videos a student or council member (sorry can't recall) goes on a rant about "gay whites taking over the movement". One of their seminars had to do with "how Asians are contributing to white supremacy". There's also this issue of transgender women in female sports(see my thread on that if interested), and the resentment biological women are feeling in response to it. It feels like a deck of cards to me at the moment, in some ways, because there are too many people seeking power, not authentic equity.

- the seeking of power masquerading as equity(also, see: authoritarianism): well, that's sprinkled thru all these bullet points. and I'm getting tired lol. at one point whites are sent fetching stuff for the black students. at another they reprimand the university president for using his hands in a way that suggests "micro-aggressions". When he complies with their demands to stop they all laugh and ridicule him. It was all preposterously disingenuous. The council and the activist students weren't actively trying to eradicate racism, they were trying to reverse the historical roles of blacks and whites, and thus achieve a position of power.

So anyway, like I said in the beginning, these events appear to represent the breakdown of logic and reason in our civilization, and therefore are quite important as a case study type of thing. I've put all this here in the racism thread, but it might actually more appropriately belong in a comprehensive thread on post modernism

[Mark]

Hey there.

Postmodernism: a late-20th-century style and concept in the arts, architecture, and criticism that represents a departure from modernism and has at its heart a general distrust of grand theories and ideologies as well as a problematical relationship with any notion of “art.”.

All of the things you are discussing above, in regards to post-modernism, are a very skewed and unrealistic understanding of a movement that has changed the world. In all actuality, all of the work we do here is postmodern. You can't deny others the same. Just because you don't agree with or understanding their way of breaking down the metanarrative.

[Mark]

I'm interested in hearing perspectives as to why this is not real, or why it should not be discussed. Despite the best efforts of many individual, group and national actors, it seems that the world continues to become a smaller place where ethnonationalism is increasingly at odds with growing diversity as the descendants of colonization inhabit the colonizing nations alongside the descendants of colonizers. There is a certain symmetry to it, obviously, but is is accompanied by indignant backlash, from generations educated in systems that did not disclose the full costs of their national wealth and so live under illusory systems of belief in their own innocence, goodness and lack of culpability in the nature of the world.

There are many indicators that this is breaking down for many people who actually realize and own up to their own participation in systems of oppression. Recognizing that it is not their fault, it is just a relic of the system they were indoctrinated in from the youngest ages. Breaking down that system with those who do not want to see it, or even admit the system's existence, is really difficult in the best of times. And even more difficult than that in a place like Avalon, where everyone already believes they are outside of the system and inured to its effects.

A SOCIOLOGIST EXAMINES THE “WHITE FRAGILITY” THAT PREVENTS WHITE AMERICANS FROM CONFRONTING RACISM

By Katy Waldman



In more than twenty years of running diversity-training and cultural-competency workshops for American companies, the academic and educator Robin DiAngelo has noticed that white people are sensationally, histrionically bad at discussing racism. Like waves on sand, their reactions form predictable patterns: they will insist that they “were taught to treat everyone the same,” that they are “color-blind,” that they “don’t care if you are pink, purple, or polka-dotted.” They will point to friends and family members of color, a history of civil-rights activism, or a more “salient” issue, such as class or gender. They will shout and bluster. They will cry. In 2011, DiAngelo coined the term “white fragility” to describe the disbelieving defensiveness that white people exhibit when their ideas about race and racism are challenged—and particularly when they feel implicated in white supremacy. Why, she wondered, did her feedback prompt such resistance, as if the mention of racism were more offensive than the fact or practice of it?

In a new book, “White Fragility,” DiAngelo attempts to explicate the phenomenon of white people’s paper-thin skin. She argues that our largely segregated society is set up to insulate whites from racial discomfort, so that they fall to pieces at the first application of stress—such as, for instance, when someone suggests that “flesh-toned” may not be an appropriate name for a beige crayon. Unused to unpleasantness (more than unused to it—racial hierarchies tell white people that they are entitled to peace and deference), they lack the “racial stamina” to engage in difficult conversations. This leads them to respond to “racial triggers”—the show “Dear White People,” the term “wypipo”—with “emotions such as anger, fear and guilt,” DiAngelo writes, “and behaviors such as argumentation, silence, and withdrawal from the stress-inducing situation.”

DiAngelo, who is white, emphasizes that the stances that make up white fragility are not merely irrational. (Or even comical, though some of her anecdotes—participants in a voluntary anti-racism workshop dissolving with umbrage at any talk of racism—simmer with perverse humor. “I have found that the only way to give feedback without triggering white fragility is not to give it at all,” she remarks wryly.) These splutterings “work,” DiAngelo explains, “to reinstate white equilibrium as they repel the challenge, return our racial comfort, and maintain our dominance within the racial hierarchy.” She finds that the social costs for a black person in awakening the sleeping dragon of white fragility often prove so high that many black people don’t risk pointing out discrimination when they see it. And the expectation of “white solidarity”—white people will forbear from correcting each other’s racial missteps, to preserve the peace—makes genuine allyship elusive. White fragility holds racism in place.

DiAngelo addresses her book mostly to white people, and she reserves her harshest criticism for white liberals like herself (and like me), whom she sees as refusing to acknowledge their own participation in racist systems. “I believe,” she writes, “that white progressives cause the most daily damage to people of color.” Not only do these people fail to see their complicity, but they take a self-serving approach to ongoing anti-racism efforts: “To the degree that white progressives think we have arrived, we will put our energy into making sure that others see us as having arrived.” Even the racial beliefs and responses that feel authentic or well-intentioned have likely been programmed by white supremacy, to perpetuate white supremacy. Whites profit off of an American political and economic system that showers advantages on racial “winners” and oppresses racial “losers.” Yet, DiAngelo writes, white people cling to the notion of racial innocence, a form of weaponized denial that positions black people as the “havers” of race and the guardians of racial knowledge. Whiteness, on the other hand, scans as invisible, default, a form of racelessness. “Color blindness,” the argument that race shouldn’t matter, prevents us from grappling with how it does.

Much of “White Fragility” is dedicated to pulling back the veil on these so-called pillars of whiteness: assumptions that prop up racist beliefs without our realizing it. Such ideologies include individualism, or the distinctly white-American dream that one writes one’s own destiny, and objectivity, the confidence that one can free oneself entirely from bias. As a sociologist trained in mapping group patterns, DiAngelo can’t help but regard both precepts as naïve (at best) and arrogant (at worst). To be perceived as an individual, to not be associated with anything negative because of your skin color, she notes, is a privilege largely afforded to white people; although most school shooters, domestic terrorists, and rapists in the United States are white, it is rare to see a white man on the street reduced to a stereotype. Likewise, people of color often endure having their views attributed to their racial identities; the luxury of impartiality is denied them. (In outlining these discrepancies, DiAngelo draws heavily on the words of black writers and scholars—Ta-Nehisi Coates, Toni Morrison, Ijeoma Oluo, Cheryl Harris—although, perhaps surprisingly, she incorporates few present-day interviews with people of color.)

In DiAngelo’s almost epidemiological vision of white racism, our minds and bodies play host to a pathogen that seeks to replicate itself, sickening us in the process. Like a mutating virus, racism shape-shifts in order to stay alive; when its explicit expression becomes taboo, it hides in coded language. Nor does prejudice disappear when people decide that they will no longer tolerate it. It just looks for ways to avoid detection. “The most effective adaptation of racism over time,” DiAngelo claims, “is the idea that racism is conscious bias held by mean people.” This “good/bad binary,” positing a world of evil racists and compassionate non-racists, is itself a racist construct, eliding systemic injustice and imbuing racism with such shattering moral meaning that white people, especially progressives, cannot bear to face their collusion in it. (Pause on that, white reader. You may have subconsciously developed your strong negative feelings about racism in order to escape having to help dismantle it.) As an ethical thinker, DiAngelo belongs to the utilitarian school, which places less importance on attitudes than on the ways in which attitudes cause harm. Unpacking the fantasy of black men as dangerous and violent, she does not simply fact-check it; she shows the myth’s usefulness to white people—to obscure the historical brutality against African-Americans, and to justify continued abuse.

DiAngelo sometimes adopts a soothing, conciliatory tone toward white readers, as if she were appeasing a child on the verge of a tantrum. “If your definition of a racist is someone who holds conscious dislike of people because of race, then I agree that it is offensive for me to suggest that you are racist when I don’t know you,” she writes. “I also agree that if this is your definition of racism, and you are against racism, then you are not racist. Now breathe. I am not using this definition of racism, and I am not saying that you are immoral. If you can remain open as I lay out my argument, it should soon begin to make sense.” One has the grim hunch that such an approach has been honed over years of placating red-faced white people, workshop participants leaping at any excuse to discount their instructor. DiAngelo, for all the outrageousness she documents, never comes across as anything other than preternaturally calm, patient, and lucid, issuing prescriptions for a better world as if from beneath a blanket of Ativan. Her almost motorized equipoise clarifies the book’s stakes: she cannot afford to lose us, who are so easily lost.

ADVERTISEMENT
Self-righteousness becomes a seductive complement to “White Fragility,” as gin is to a mystery novel. (“I would never,” I thought, when DiAngelo described the conversation in which her friend dismissed a predominantly black neighborhood as “bad,” unsafe.) Yet the point of the book is that each white person believes herself the exception, one of very few souls magically exempt from a lifetime of racist conditioning. DiAngelo sets aside a whole chapter for the self-indulgent tears of white women, so distraught at the country’s legacy of racist terrorism that they force people of color to drink from the firehose of their feelings about it.

The book is more diagnostic than solutions-oriented, and the guidelines it offers toward the end—listen, don’t center yourself, get educated, think about your responses and what role they play—won’t shock any nervous systems. The value in “White Fragility” lies in its methodical, irrefutable exposure of racism in thought and action, and its call for humility and vigilance. Combatting one’s inner voices of racial prejudice, sneaky and, at times, irresistibly persuasive, is a life’s work. For all the paranoid American theories of being “red-pilled,” of awakening into a many-tentacled liberal/feminist/Jewish conspiracy, the most corrosive force, the ectoplasm infusing itself invisibly through media and culture and politics, is white supremacy.

That’s from a white progressive perspective, of course. The conspiracy of racism is hardly invisible to people of color, many of whom, I suspect, could have written this book in their sleep.

[Mike]

Posted by Mark/Rahkyt (here)
Hey there.

Postmodernism: a late-20th-century style and concept in the arts, architecture, and criticism that represents a departure from modernism and has at its heart a general distrust of grand theories and ideologies as well as a problematical relationship with any notion of “art.”.

All of the things you are discussing above, in regards to post-modernism, are a very skewed and unrealistic understanding of a movement that has changed the world. In all actuality, all of the work we do here is postmodern. You can't deny others the same. Just because you don't agree with or understanding their way of breaking down the metanarrative.

postmodernism is infinitely more complicated than that Mark.

it's those mounting meta narratives that are acting as one enormous denial of the largest and most relevant narrative - objective reality. and we're only beginning to see the consequences.

some things are malleable, sure, but all the meta narratives that postmodernism has manufactured have taken that reasonable idea and blown it up into something preposterously unreasonable. i mean, if those videos aren't evidence of that, i don't know what is

[Mark]

Posted by Mike (here)
postmodernism is infinitely more complicated than that Mark.

Granted. All things are more complicated than all explanations. All things are also simpler. Paradox is rife multiverse-wide, but we work within our current parameters and speak and share according to our understandings. Your understanding is skewed toward a perspective that leaves out othered perspectives. And that makes your interpretations one-sided and inimical to compromise or an allowance for other perceptive realities to exist that may be just as valid as your own.

Posted by Mike (here)
it's those mounting meta narratives that are acting as one enormous denial of the largest and most relevant narrative - objective reality. and we're only beginning to see the consequences.

Of what objective reality do you speak.

Posted by Mike (here)
some things are malleable, sure, but all the meta narratives that postmodernism has manufactured have taken that reasonable idea and blown it up into something preposterously unreasonable. i mean, if those videos aren't evidence of that, i don't know what is

Again. A university is a protected space, meant for projecting into possibilities. They have always served as such. This is how human societies evolve.

[Orph]

We all live in an imperfect world filled with crap we have no control over. We can only do our best to do what we feel in our hearts is right. But ultimately, we are all still part of the problem. ALL of us, by virtue of us just being alive on this planet, are part of this imperfection.

Animals suffer so we can eat meat. I can't be a vegan. The best I can do is try to eat as little meat and dairy products as I possible. But I've come to terms with the fact that I'm living in an imperfect world. I do the best I can do, and I move on.


WE ALL contribute to the pollution of this planet. No exceptions. So we do the best we can to limit our own personal pollution, knowing we live in an imperfect world, and we move on.

The government here in the USA is corrupt. I stopped voting a long time ago because the system is corrupt and voting won't change that. Regardless of whether you vote or not, you do what you feel is right, knowing we live in an imperfect world, and we move on.

When it comes to racism, I know I'm not perfect. But the world isn't perfect. I do the best I can and I move on. As far as discussing racism, what's the point? As a white male, I'm automatically a racist homophobic misogynist and the world would be better off if I just go jump off a tall bridge. I will always be wrong when it come to discussing racism, so why discuss it? The article states that I'm not allowed to say "I do the best that I can". Nope, that's not good enough. I must beat myself over the head and apologize for being white. Oh, now I see I have a new label, ... fragile white boy.

Look, if I live next door to you Mark/Rahkyt, and we see each other outside and I say "Hi neighbor. Beautiful day", and you say "Screw you white boy", you know what? I'm going to continue on with my day. I'm not going to try and discuss things. I'm going to know that you have the freedom to be however you want to be. Oh well. I'm going to move on. I'll continue to try and be a nice person, to try and do what's right. I know I won't always succeed. Occasionally I'll slip up. But if you aren't willing to see past the occasional slip-ups, then, ........... what's the point. Again, I'm not going to beat myself up for being white nor am I going to apologize for the imperfect world we all live in.

I know, if you were my neighbor, you wouldn't says those things to me. But, as my neighbor, if you can tell me something specific about me personally, I'm all ears. Such as ...... "Hey neighbor, do you realize your car is parked partly on my property"? ..... or ...... "Hey neighbor, all those druggie friends of yours are trashing my front yard". That's something I can personally work on to better myself. If you can tell me something about myself personally that I'm doing or saying that can be construed as racist, then yes, I'll listen.

But these generalizations that cover everybody, ..... well I'm tired of hearing that. If I lump all blacks into the category of being dumb and lazy, .... well, obviously that's wrong and will result in big problems. But if I have to get into a so called "discussion" that will only have one outcome, meaning, I'm white so I'm a racist homophobic misogynist fragile white boy and I've got to either beat myself with a cat-o-nine-tails or I have to go jump off a bridge, ...well, you know what? .............. It's a beautiful day, and I've got other things to do.

[Mike]

the objective reality i'm talking about is the one that acknowledges science and biology and mathematics and physics. the one that emphasizes facts as opposed to delusionally inspired subjective "narratives".

human societies actually devolve by making universities safe spaces. a university isn't a home, it's not a sanctuary...or at least it shouldn't be. it's often a place to be confronted by horrible ideas. history is horrifying, so is physics and biology and great literature. if a university makes you safe it's no longer a university. and worse yet, it's not preparing you for objective reality..which doesn't allow for a time out the moment your feelings get hurt

those kids at evergreen wanted all the power and all the victimhood at once. thats pathological, and doesn't represent growth in any sense of the word. theyre north american, for starters, which puts them at the top 1%. and theyre at what was a reputable, strong university which puts them at the top 1% of that. i'm not buying their "oppression" for half a second.

[Mark]

Posted by Orph (here)
When it comes to racism, I know I'm not perfect. But the world isn't perfect. I do the best I can and I move on. As far as discussing racism, what's the point? As a white male, I'm automatically a racist homophobic misogynist and the world would be better off if I just go jump off a tall bridge. I will always be wrong when it come to discussing racism, so why discuss it? The article states that I'm not allowed to say "I do the best that I can". Nope, that's not good enough. I must beat myself over the head and apologize for being white. Oh, now I see I have a new label, ... fragile white boy.

Ok. This personalizes it, when it is not personal. Your personality complex is not you and it is amenable to change. This is the "fragile" part, where you and others who think similarly don't even want to look at the potentiality that it is possible to change a/your way of seeing the world, because the idea of racism pulls up so much baggage. Perhaps you don't see a different way as a "better" way and, in the end, there is no better at all, there just is.

There is no discussion to be had in relation to your points as they are absolute, when the human personality construct is not absolute. Infinitely malleable.

But we do choose, who we are. And who we are does correspond with who others are, who resonate and live in certain systems that become the primary expression of their chosen personality matrix.

You are not "automatically" anything. There are many "white boys" who exist within a personal sphere of healthy interactions and thought processes regarding privilege and power, as well as the interconnectivity of the human family.

We can all change our labels. If we want.

Posted by Orph (here)
Look, if I live next door to you Mark/Rahkyt, and we see each other outside and I say "Hi neighbor. Beautiful day", and you say "Screw you white boy", you know what? I'm going to continue on with my day. I'm not going to try and discuss things. I'm going to know that you have the freedom to be however you want to be. Oh well. I'm going to move on. I'll continue to try and be a nice person, to try and do what's right. I know I won't always succeed. Occasionally I'll slip up. But if you aren't willing to see past the occasional slip-ups, then, ........... what's the point. Again, I'm not going to beat myself up for being white nor am I going to apologize for the imperfect world we all live in.

Your way of perceiving this issue is very clear by your word choice and syntax. It is not really conducive to real conversation or growth, it is a rant which is fine, but I do understand where you're coming from. You possibly don't believe that there is anything about your perception of race that needs to change. Since change begins with each of us and you don't perceive humans as being able to be any different than they are since the world is imperfect, your way of interacting with the world will remain the same and that imperfect world may indeed contain experiences where a black neighbor of yours tells you to screw off. It doesn't have to be that way for you, though.

Posted by Orph (here)
But these generalizations that cover everybody, ..... well I'm tired of hearing that. If I lump all blacks into the category of being dumb and lazy, .... well, obviously that's wrong and will result in big problems. But if I have to get into a so called "discussion" that will only have one outcome, meaning, I'm white so I'm a racist homophobic misogynist fragile white boy and I've got to either beat myself with a cat-o-nine-tails or I have to go jump off a bridge, ...well, you know what? .............. It's a beautiful day, and I've got other things to do.

Do you have these kinds of conversations often? Do you hear and see these words written or spoken, often? What, exactly, are you tired of?

You are projecting a lot of meaning in this conversation that was not there and you are not alone in doing so. It is a combative attitude that refuses to hear or countenance the reality of its own obtuse nature, which is, really, human nature.

I'm really glad you contributed today, Orph. Thanks for sharing your perspective. It is invaluable.

[Mark]

Posted by Mike (here)
the objective reality i'm talking about is the one that acknowledges science and biology and mathematics and physics. the one that emphasizes facts as opposed to delusionally inspired subjective "narratives".

Ah. That reality. Well, haven't you been paying attention to the most recent advances in quantum physics? Reality is imminently subjective. The truth can be different.

As a scion of Project Avalon, you also are engaged in the conversation I'm having with Ernie in this thread about the nature of science, including biology, mathematics and physics, it is a discourse we are all involved in about the nature of reality. The double slit experiment and the observer effect speak to the subjectivity of our perceptions which is given its "objective" state by the appearance of coherence at the atomic and molecular level. But that doesn't mean that quantum effects don't occur in the realm of individual and group perception and the formulation of culture. Our "delusionally" subjective narratives are just as real to us as those sciences you mention and that should be abundantly clear to anyone who seeks to study the world of culture and society as well as the effects of these ways of seeing reality that certainly have a very real effect upon our biosphere.

Posted by Mike (here)
human societies actually devolve by making universities safe spaces. a university isn't a home, it's not a sanctuary...or at least it shouldn't be. it's often a place to be confronted by horrible ideas. history is horrifying, so is physics and biology and great literature. if a university makes you safe it's no longer a university. and worse yet, it's not preparing you for objective reality..which doesn't allow for a time out the moment your feelings get hurt

Don't discount feelings. Every change of meaning in the world that has ever occurred started out as a feeling.

Just because that feeling threatens your idea of stability and safety in the world does not invalidate it. It just proves the subjectivity of your ideas, as well as the fact that "horrible" is a relative term, depending upon your individuated nature and group, cultural norms.

These students aren't physically safe. The use of that word is only in reference to the exploration of ideas. They're not physically safe on a university campus or anywhere in this nation and many places around the world. And they know it, hence the emotivity they display. Your approval or validation is not required nor sought. If you cannot step into their shoes and attempt to see it from their perspective then your position is oppositional to them without understanding them, which is also a valid way to live, as millions are doing so every day in the USA and in other nations around the world as well.

And that is just the way it is, proving the necessity of change in these pivotal and momentous times.

Posted by Mike (here)
those kids at evergreen wanted all the power and all the victimhood at once. thats pathological, and doesn't represent growth in any sense of the word. theyre north american, for starters, which puts them at the top 1%. and theyre at what was a reputable, strong university which puts them at the top 1% of that. i'm not buying their "oppression" for half a second.

There is no contradiction in that reality, of there being, in one personal vessel or one group, the coexistence of power and victimhood simultaneously. Opposites, poles, often agree. As an example, the only thing that divides the far Left and the far Right is race.

On every other conspiracy, they agree.

Go figure.

And as far as what you buy? These kids wouldn't put a dime down for your opinion because they would be able to hear by your tone and see by the expression on your face that you have absolutely no idea where they're coming from. Nor do you want to. Which is why this is all necessary.

[Mac]

Hasn't this always happened nothing new is it. Kids being kids, they're given too much attention and nothing to get bent out of shape about. As much as I like Mr Weinstein he does seem to court this and I always see a twinkle in his eye as well as contempt, rightly so I suppose. Tragic that racism is still a thing and still pushes buttons for some Both black and white have their racists so all we can do is try not be one and raise children to see the nonsense that it is. As far as education goes if you want a good one educate yourself through life as you go along. Every good teacher wants their pupils to think for themselves, and good teachers also learn from the pupils as they teach them . The standard of education today and some of the Teachers is a worry. I'm not a practicing Catholic but had a pretty decent RC education, and it shocked me when I saw the contrast to my children's education, very basic and sterile.

[Mark]

Posted by Mac (here)
Hasn't this always happened nothing new is it.

Absolutely. This is the way it must always be, within cultures that experience the dynamic shift of populations. It's just our turn.

Posted by Mac (here)
Kids being kids, they're given too much attention and nothing to get bent out of shape about. As much as I like Mr Weinstein he does seem to court this and I always see a twinkle in his eye as well as contempt, rightly so I suppose. Tragic that racism is still a thing and still pushes buttons for some Both black and white have their racists so all we can do is try not be one and raise children to see the nonsense that it is. As far as education goes if you want a good one educate yourself through life as you go along. Every good teacher wants their pupils to think for themselves, and good teachers also learn from the pupils as they teach them . The standard of education today and some of the Teachers is a worry. I'm not a practicing Catholic but had a pretty decent RC education, and it shocked me when I saw the contrast to my children's education, very basic and sterile.

All very true and pertinent points, thank you so much for sharing them! As an educator myself, I can attest to your observation, and that is what I teach my children. How to learn. How to think for themselves. How to go beyond the narratives of their friends, family and cultures and see the higher and more multiversal realities, a lens through which our mundane perspectives can truly be seen to be what they are, ephemeral exhalations of excess, exceedingly egoic, yet also, seemingly necessary for our repetitive human experience of worldly phenomenon.

My students often tell me of their other teachers, the ones who just teach from the book and to the test. Their disdain for them mirrors that we expressed as students as well, for teachers of a similar ilk. I think a lot of what we are discussing today has gotten in the way of real educations, as many educators are too scared to really talk to their students about the world for fear of losing their jobs.

[Mac]

I've read many of your posts Mark and would bet you find the right balance as an educator. 8)