The Metro is terrible, and here's how it happened.
For people growing up in the 50s, I Love Lucy was the single way they learned about Cuba, however distorted the show presented it.
It's nice to hear people who don't care about politics talking about politics because it reminds me that there is more to life.
This is a story that will make you like Justin Bieber more. It's still worth reading.
Responses:
1. The venom in those responses is excessive and excessively unhelpful. This stuff makes you just want to disengage, so I'm glad she wrote that article.
2. As long as the government isn't spending taxpayer dollars, I'm all for that idea.
3. Theirs is a nice story, and it's a great concept for a restaurant. We can check it out next week.
4. Do we know anyone who still lives in Los Angeles? If not, I like the idea of going to Annandale from time to time. We aren't usually disappointed. And that quesadilla looks intriguing.
5. Other than the lack of chairs and the sponsorship by Urban Outfitters, it seems like a nice life.
6. You have to give the people what they want.
R2R:
1. Only if something truly terrible happens.
2. I think I'm slowly getting caught up.
5. Curves probably still has a place in society, perhaps for the more fixed-mindset women out there. In my view, the real downside is the potential for inequality arguments. It costs a fair amount of money to participate in these classes. As most reasonable fitness buffs note, it is entirely possible to be fit without spending hundreds of dollars a year on classes, memberships, etc., in much the same way that it is possible to eat healthily without spending thousands of dollars a month at Whole Foods or on boutique smoothie chains. All that said, though, for as intense and crazy as my SoulCycle class was, and for as intense and insane as Cross Fit can sometimes be, it's all in service of a really good thing, which is affirmative dedication to physical health as both an aspiration and a way of life, rather than a chore.
R2R2R:
4. That makes sense. The reason I missed it was that, from now on, I associate the whole privilege conversation with bad, annoying people, and I happen to like John Mulaney.
R2R2R2R:
1. As I said, I suspect that the media in China will report it, assuming of course that it does not go against whatever reporting norms are imposed by the Communist Party there. Part of the reason I find it reasonable that such an event would not appear in a U.S. newspaper is that, in crappy countries (and for these purposes, China is a crappy country), disasters attributable to negligence or impoverished conditions are far more common, and the answers are not necessarily sensible to an outside audience (e.g. if 100 people died in a mine in the U.S., there would be in-depth media coverage, massive lawsuits, Congressional action, etc., in large part because we understand what our government and society will tolerate and, more specifically, we think we are too advanced for such accidents). So from a media narrative perspective, it's a "dog bites man" story. To be sure, the death of 100 people is certainly tragic, but the tragic nature of a story isn't why the media reports on it.
This all comes down to how you define news and the role of the media. To me, news includes (or ought to include) information that is relevant to our daily lives (e.g. weather and traffic), interesting from a cultural or social perspective (e.g. movie and restaurant reviews, community developments), and, most importantly, informative in service of the objective of fostering an informed people capable of self-government under the Constitution. On this last point, that would include developments in our respective local, state, and federal governments, as well as foreign developments that have an impact on our national interests (in a specific or general way). To me, 100 people dying in a mine in China would not fall within any of these spheres, but the San Bernardino shooting does, even if you do not live in San Bernardino or surrounding areas, because it will likely inform how politicians create policies related to immigration, terrorism, foreign affairs, gun control, etc. That does not diminish the (hypothetical) tragedy of the people who died in our (hypothetical) mine, but I have never viewed showing up in the newspaper as a sign of importance.
Of course, if you have a different view of the role of the media, that is completely reasonable (inasmuch as that view is reasonable), but I think we have to resist the temptation to interpret how the media (or any entity) does its job through our own subjective lens of how they should do it. In other words, we have to resist the taking the conclusion that the media "doesn't care" about the (hypothetical) mine and concluding something nefarious or ulterior.
B
Tuesday, December 22, 2015
Monday, December 14, 2015
Sleeping Polar Bear
I like that this lady gives IBM the benefit of the doubt
is this a possible way to save the earth?
this place seems worth trying
Consider this your primer for Sichuan food. I've tried everything except the chicken, which is apparently specific to this restaurant. And this is probably more specifically useful as this is my back yard. Or rather than braving the Asian restaurant lingo, we can try making this.
I want this person's life
did you know there's a camera watching you while you sleep?
Responses
1. Heavens, you think someday we will earn as little as $118,200/year? *gasp*
Still, that would be quite disappointing if the welfare state includes people making that much money. As a taxpayer potentially supporting such new initiatives, it didn't make me feel very good that the guy who won the lottery just moved from one apartment to another. It's as if the city thought, well he shouldn't have to live like that but it's ok if the next tenant who lives in his old apartment will. Even the most liberal people realize that rent control is not a solution. It's a very expensive way to solve the problem for 1% of the population that needs help.
2. Maybe I'm douchey but this didn't seem too douchey to me? Or maybe it's normal for women to discuss their clothing in this esoteric, rich person way even when the women themselves aren't rich. Or maybe I read too much Gwyneth Paltrow. And Esquire.
In any case, I know Bear is not doing anything wrong! He looks great and he shops at Brooks Brothers!
3. All I can say is I'm quite surprised that I'm getting my information on the color of the year from you. My fashion bona fides may be slipping.
4. I think this article raises a good point in that shaming others for niceties is eroding our society much more than failing to pass emergency gun legislation ever could. Like saying there's no worth in sympathy cards, kind gestures or even *gasp* meaningful changes to one's Facebook profile picture. I guess the gym is the last bastion of community we have left!
5. I think gym as community is a good thing. I think gym as religion is slightly weird. I also think the gender disparity is very interesting. Boutique fitness classes are the new Curves. I feel like this might lead to something insidious in the future - maybe fat shaming? women with no disposable income? - but I can't see anything too negative about this trend currently.
6. This is very interesting and I applaud Zuckerberg for trying something new. Some people see it as greed but I see it as innovation that could ultimately really help people and spur more people to invest in charity in the future.
R2R
3. I figured you'd agree with her =P but I thought it was interesting that she said that INTJs always marry ENFPs. That's not exactly us but it's very close. =P We were destined!
4. It's the logical extension of privilege in my mind. Privilege is this idea that life is just super easy for some people and super hard for others. And if life is super hard for a kid - they are very small and have no money - then maybe we should make accommodations for them in life so that their lives are easier. We can start by accepting explanations of their lack of privilege as answers on a test. So instead of x=3, we would accept, I'm poor.
Even so, I thought it was a very cute joke.
6. My bear really is around the corner!
R2R2R
1. Are you sure that if 100 people die in China, the media will report it? That seems like something we should very much not be sure of.
But I guess the point is, I see these stories in small articles in Western papers. Maybe people don't care because China is not part of Europe. But it's a little jarring to see the big headlines for 14 people killed in San Bernadino, next to a tiny article about 100 people being killed in a mine in China.
R2R2R2R
1. True. If you're against bullying, you should be against all forms of bullying, no matter the victim or the bully.
R2R2R2R2R
I think we are ultimately on the same page here. I feel like I should write a similarly lengthy response but I think we are on the same page. We just need more empathy all around when it comes to dating. I know Pauline was very fixed mindset for awhile about whom she wanted to marry and she ended up with Justin, who fulfills just a few of those traits (male, Christian, Asian). But they seem very happy. So even though she was legendarily picky, she came around, as I kinda knew she would.
In a related-to-empathy but kinda-tangential note, I just clicked on one of those ubiquitour "she had the greatest reply to someone who said this" articles. And I am always looking for wit but it always turns out to be a mean retort and a mean reply. I need to stop clicking on these articles because they're just empathy holes. And they're not witty.
is this a possible way to save the earth?
this place seems worth trying
Consider this your primer for Sichuan food. I've tried everything except the chicken, which is apparently specific to this restaurant. And this is probably more specifically useful as this is my back yard. Or rather than braving the Asian restaurant lingo, we can try making this.
I want this person's life
did you know there's a camera watching you while you sleep?
Responses
1. Heavens, you think someday we will earn as little as $118,200/year? *gasp*
Still, that would be quite disappointing if the welfare state includes people making that much money. As a taxpayer potentially supporting such new initiatives, it didn't make me feel very good that the guy who won the lottery just moved from one apartment to another. It's as if the city thought, well he shouldn't have to live like that but it's ok if the next tenant who lives in his old apartment will. Even the most liberal people realize that rent control is not a solution. It's a very expensive way to solve the problem for 1% of the population that needs help.
2. Maybe I'm douchey but this didn't seem too douchey to me? Or maybe it's normal for women to discuss their clothing in this esoteric, rich person way even when the women themselves aren't rich. Or maybe I read too much Gwyneth Paltrow. And Esquire.
In any case, I know Bear is not doing anything wrong! He looks great and he shops at Brooks Brothers!
3. All I can say is I'm quite surprised that I'm getting my information on the color of the year from you. My fashion bona fides may be slipping.
4. I think this article raises a good point in that shaming others for niceties is eroding our society much more than failing to pass emergency gun legislation ever could. Like saying there's no worth in sympathy cards, kind gestures or even *gasp* meaningful changes to one's Facebook profile picture. I guess the gym is the last bastion of community we have left!
5. I think gym as community is a good thing. I think gym as religion is slightly weird. I also think the gender disparity is very interesting. Boutique fitness classes are the new Curves. I feel like this might lead to something insidious in the future - maybe fat shaming? women with no disposable income? - but I can't see anything too negative about this trend currently.
6. This is very interesting and I applaud Zuckerberg for trying something new. Some people see it as greed but I see it as innovation that could ultimately really help people and spur more people to invest in charity in the future.
R2R
3. I figured you'd agree with her =P but I thought it was interesting that she said that INTJs always marry ENFPs. That's not exactly us but it's very close. =P We were destined!
4. It's the logical extension of privilege in my mind. Privilege is this idea that life is just super easy for some people and super hard for others. And if life is super hard for a kid - they are very small and have no money - then maybe we should make accommodations for them in life so that their lives are easier. We can start by accepting explanations of their lack of privilege as answers on a test. So instead of x=3, we would accept, I'm poor.
Even so, I thought it was a very cute joke.
6. My bear really is around the corner!
R2R2R
1. Are you sure that if 100 people die in China, the media will report it? That seems like something we should very much not be sure of.
But I guess the point is, I see these stories in small articles in Western papers. Maybe people don't care because China is not part of Europe. But it's a little jarring to see the big headlines for 14 people killed in San Bernadino, next to a tiny article about 100 people being killed in a mine in China.
R2R2R2R
1. True. If you're against bullying, you should be against all forms of bullying, no matter the victim or the bully.
R2R2R2R2R
I think we are ultimately on the same page here. I feel like I should write a similarly lengthy response but I think we are on the same page. We just need more empathy all around when it comes to dating. I know Pauline was very fixed mindset for awhile about whom she wanted to marry and she ended up with Justin, who fulfills just a few of those traits (male, Christian, Asian). But they seem very happy. So even though she was legendarily picky, she came around, as I kinda knew she would.
In a related-to-empathy but kinda-tangential note, I just clicked on one of those ubiquitour "she had the greatest reply to someone who said this" articles. And I am always looking for wit but it always turns out to be a mean retort and a mean reply. I need to stop clicking on these articles because they're just empathy holes. And they're not witty.
Tuesday, December 8, 2015
Spoiler Alert
This doesn't seem like the best deployment of scarce resources, even if we could one day stand to benefit.
This is classic Skadden. It also makes me think I'm doing something way wrong...
Get your paint cans ready.
I thought this was a nice response to the anti-prayer folks out there.
I like the term "sweat equity" to describe this.
Mark Zuckerberg's big donation of his stock is a bit different from the usual mode of philanthropy.
Responses:
1. That's not that morbid. It recalls the no-zero-days mindset.
2. I might be able to tolerate that flight. :P
3. I can identify with what she said.
4. How does it relate to privilege?
5. The first one describes my schools from pre-school to 12th grade (at least the use of fear). The second one is fantastic.
6. Your bear is around the corner, bunny!
R2R:
1. I suspect if 100 people die in China, somewhere in China someone picks up the story. That said, I've never read Chinese media, so maybe not.
R2R2R:
5. Yes!
R2R2R2R:
1. I am not pro-bank. But I'm also not anti-bank, and I suspect that there are many people out there who would say, "Maybe that was unfair, but they had it coming." In the same way that I would object to the IRS or DOJ jerking an individual around for no reason, I object to the CFPB or the Fed jerking a bank around for no reason. The bank - indeed, any corporation - is just people. To be sure, I would also object to a bank jerking around an individual for no reason, although my objections would look different since it wouldn't be government abuse of power.
R2R2R2R2R2R2R2R2R2R:
1. The last statement proves too little or too much. For starters, it's not about judging other people. It's about observing the world and coming to conclusions about what works and what doesn't, for your own benefit and for the benefit of the people in the world with whom you interact. Yes, there is a harm principle element that governs when we do judge people (e.g. if you slap me for no reason, I judge you insofar as I tell you that your actions are inappropriate). But as much as I make fun of Swan for her position on what it means to be a Christian, I do so not because I think it's inappropriate for her to say that to her friends, but rather because she's wrong on the merits.
This isn't about judgment as much as it is about forming opinions. It seems inappropriate to go up to a stranger and explain to him why he's living his life incorrectly, but how is that different from proselytizing? In my view, the primary difference is the merits. But more to the point, the differences between being judgmental and having and expressing opinions are humility and empathy. It's the humility to consider that the world from someone else's perspective might look different, as well as the empathy to try to put yourself in the person's shoes. So if you encounter a non-believer, you don't walk up to him and say, "You're going to hell if you don't do what I, oh and I guess God and Jesus, say." You instead find a way to understand what he is about (i.e. empathy), and you find a way to overcome his reasonable skepticism about the implicit notion that somehow you have the answers and he does not (i.e. humility).
Returning to the issue regarding idiosyncratic dating preferences, it certainly makes sense as an initial matter to assume that people structure their behavior in the face of information and a worldview that is formed by their experiences, and thus to presume that the decision to date or not to date a person because of some quirk is not necessarily wrong. But you would stop there, and I don't think that makes sense. We have the ability to make observations about the rationale of a person's decision, as well as to consider the all-too-true fact that many people have only a partial understanding of their own decision-making. We also have the ability to place the decision into our worldview, as well as place our decisions into theirs. We can reasonably evaluate these decisions even if we don't have all the information, as long as we reasonably investigate and remember that we don't have all the information (to the extent that we don't). And we can reasonably form conclusions about all of this, whether or not we think it prudent to share such opinions with the parties whose decisions we are evaluating.
As to whether a racist person should be more open-minded about his dating choices, I think the answer has to be yes because that means he is being less of a racist. I would not conclude that sincerely harboring racist feelings and nonetheless dating a person whom you hold in contempt for racist reasons counts as being less of a racist. But maybe the answer for that person is to take a step back from the question of whether he should keep dating approved-race people while he works through his racism and instead try to deal with the question of how to understand his feelings of hate, contempt, etc., for a whole class of people and how such hate juxtaposes with his alleged feelings of love towards the approved-race people. But I don't agree with the implicit idea that we should treat racist people as though they have a fixed mindset, or even assume that the only way to conclude that racism makes sense is if you have evil in your heart. I think that in itself is an unfair judgment without more.
So yes, I agree with the sentiment of your last sentence (indeed, in my previous post, I said, "...I think it's important that we acknowledge that we should not sit in judgment of others..."), but the belief that someone has made a bad decision is not judgmental without more.
B
This is classic Skadden. It also makes me think I'm doing something way wrong...
Get your paint cans ready.
I thought this was a nice response to the anti-prayer folks out there.
I like the term "sweat equity" to describe this.
Mark Zuckerberg's big donation of his stock is a bit different from the usual mode of philanthropy.
Responses:
1. That's not that morbid. It recalls the no-zero-days mindset.
2. I might be able to tolerate that flight. :P
3. I can identify with what she said.
4. How does it relate to privilege?
5. The first one describes my schools from pre-school to 12th grade (at least the use of fear). The second one is fantastic.
6. Your bear is around the corner, bunny!
R2R:
1. I suspect if 100 people die in China, somewhere in China someone picks up the story. That said, I've never read Chinese media, so maybe not.
R2R2R:
5. Yes!
R2R2R2R:
1. I am not pro-bank. But I'm also not anti-bank, and I suspect that there are many people out there who would say, "Maybe that was unfair, but they had it coming." In the same way that I would object to the IRS or DOJ jerking an individual around for no reason, I object to the CFPB or the Fed jerking a bank around for no reason. The bank - indeed, any corporation - is just people. To be sure, I would also object to a bank jerking around an individual for no reason, although my objections would look different since it wouldn't be government abuse of power.
R2R2R2R2R2R2R2R2R2R:
1. The last statement proves too little or too much. For starters, it's not about judging other people. It's about observing the world and coming to conclusions about what works and what doesn't, for your own benefit and for the benefit of the people in the world with whom you interact. Yes, there is a harm principle element that governs when we do judge people (e.g. if you slap me for no reason, I judge you insofar as I tell you that your actions are inappropriate). But as much as I make fun of Swan for her position on what it means to be a Christian, I do so not because I think it's inappropriate for her to say that to her friends, but rather because she's wrong on the merits.
This isn't about judgment as much as it is about forming opinions. It seems inappropriate to go up to a stranger and explain to him why he's living his life incorrectly, but how is that different from proselytizing? In my view, the primary difference is the merits. But more to the point, the differences between being judgmental and having and expressing opinions are humility and empathy. It's the humility to consider that the world from someone else's perspective might look different, as well as the empathy to try to put yourself in the person's shoes. So if you encounter a non-believer, you don't walk up to him and say, "You're going to hell if you don't do what I, oh and I guess God and Jesus, say." You instead find a way to understand what he is about (i.e. empathy), and you find a way to overcome his reasonable skepticism about the implicit notion that somehow you have the answers and he does not (i.e. humility).
Returning to the issue regarding idiosyncratic dating preferences, it certainly makes sense as an initial matter to assume that people structure their behavior in the face of information and a worldview that is formed by their experiences, and thus to presume that the decision to date or not to date a person because of some quirk is not necessarily wrong. But you would stop there, and I don't think that makes sense. We have the ability to make observations about the rationale of a person's decision, as well as to consider the all-too-true fact that many people have only a partial understanding of their own decision-making. We also have the ability to place the decision into our worldview, as well as place our decisions into theirs. We can reasonably evaluate these decisions even if we don't have all the information, as long as we reasonably investigate and remember that we don't have all the information (to the extent that we don't). And we can reasonably form conclusions about all of this, whether or not we think it prudent to share such opinions with the parties whose decisions we are evaluating.
As to whether a racist person should be more open-minded about his dating choices, I think the answer has to be yes because that means he is being less of a racist. I would not conclude that sincerely harboring racist feelings and nonetheless dating a person whom you hold in contempt for racist reasons counts as being less of a racist. But maybe the answer for that person is to take a step back from the question of whether he should keep dating approved-race people while he works through his racism and instead try to deal with the question of how to understand his feelings of hate, contempt, etc., for a whole class of people and how such hate juxtaposes with his alleged feelings of love towards the approved-race people. But I don't agree with the implicit idea that we should treat racist people as though they have a fixed mindset, or even assume that the only way to conclude that racism makes sense is if you have evil in your heart. I think that in itself is an unfair judgment without more.
So yes, I agree with the sentiment of your last sentence (indeed, in my previous post, I said, "...I think it's important that we acknowledge that we should not sit in judgment of others..."), but the belief that someone has made a bad decision is not judgmental without more.
B
Monday, December 7, 2015
Birthday Bear YLT
morbid
perhaps it'll be awhile before we head to paris, but when we do, this seems like a good option
Penelope Trunk is an ENTJ too. makes sense.
Perhaps this is the logical extension of "privilege" but I would be completely charmed with this response.
What do you think of these quotes?:
“I think the big mistake in schools is trying to teach children anything, and by using fear as the basic motivation. Fear of getting failing grades, fear of not staying with your class, etc. Interest can produce learning on a scale compared to fear as a nuclear explosion to a firecracker.” —Stanley Kubrick (via psych-facts)
“Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper or your self-confidence.” —Robert Frost (via purplebuddhaproject)
a bunny waiting for her bear
Responses
1. I can definitely relate to the author's sentiments. Perhaps we shouldn't treat people differently, but there's no way we can. We are going to prefer people we know over people we don't and people like us over people not like us. Of course, "people like us" doesn't have to exclusively be "race." I always feel bad for accidents that kill people in China - not because they're Chinese, but because it just seems like there are so many people in China that no one cares. If 1 miner dies in America, it's big news, but in china, 100 could die and it's just a byline. Another thing that is "unjust" is why people killed in these mass shootings can so much more sympathy than random people killed as bystanders or in car accidents. Those people also don't get donations, the way the friends and family of Paris' victims will. But there are many people who die every year and we have to be somewhat discriminating in how many tears we are willing to cry for all of them.
2. I guess it's good that we go to UVA, because it wasn't named after Thomas Jefferson. =P I can see certain people's monuments getting torn down - Hitler comes to mind - but most people are a mix of good and bad as most people don't exterminate people. Also, I don't think you have to be a good person to get a building named after you - you just have to donate money. I'm not sure anyone has ever vetted a person's moral bona fides before accepting their money, so why should Woodrow Wilson be any different? I think it would be a big problem to gain donors if students could revoke your naming of a building somewhere down the line without requiring a refund to the donor.
3. Mac and cheese seems like a natural thing to have at carb-heavy Thanksgiving.
4. That yoga-teacher is impressively calm. It's very sad that they had to shut down a free class that was really helpful for a disadvantaged population. If you were really mean and a little creative, you could use this logic to shut down all sorts of enjoyable and enriching activities for any populations you despised.
R2R
1. I honestly just posted that for the title. However, I am not going to be buying almonds for awhile....
2. Wouldn't put it past him. He doesn't have that many endorsements.And Special-K is solid. Back in my dieting years - something like 8-10, I ate a lot of Special-K.
3. I believe some people are very open-minded when it comes to looks. (Some people might also be desperate). But I'm sure it works best when the person doesn't look like a prune. Still, maybe it's something one can add to their repertoire like the pickup artist routine. Say what you will about pickup artists, but they seem to be a growth-mindset bunch.
5. Should I repost it in a few weeks?
R2R2R
1. You might be becoming too pro-bank... Meh, I find myself defending Big Pharma too. High-five!
4. I mean maybe it was for settlement talks though I'm not sure there's a hard and fast rule on that. I would imagine that these kids maybe had too much going for them - what with their lives and property being threatened and going to school and whatnot - to be able to contact a lawyer and get the process going.
R2R2R2R
4. I feel apprehensive before I go biking but I usually am very pleased after my bike ride. Getting started is such a difficult thing. It's really more than half the battle.
R2R2R2R2R
4. Well their spoiled children would care about the quality of their toys.
R2R2R2R2R2R
1. I think I would try as much as possible to defer to people's own idiosyncracies. I mean, it's bad for you to be racist, but if you're the one that's marrying the person, maybe marriage isn't the place where you should learn that people are people. Maybe you should take baby steps. Of course, we are definitely not going to be friends with these people.
I don't want to judge other people's choices in significant others because I know I wouldn't want to be judged on mine.
perhaps it'll be awhile before we head to paris, but when we do, this seems like a good option
Penelope Trunk is an ENTJ too. makes sense.
Perhaps this is the logical extension of "privilege" but I would be completely charmed with this response.
What do you think of these quotes?:
“I think the big mistake in schools is trying to teach children anything, and by using fear as the basic motivation. Fear of getting failing grades, fear of not staying with your class, etc. Interest can produce learning on a scale compared to fear as a nuclear explosion to a firecracker.” —Stanley Kubrick (via psych-facts)
“Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper or your self-confidence.” —Robert Frost (via purplebuddhaproject)
a bunny waiting for her bear
Responses
1. I can definitely relate to the author's sentiments. Perhaps we shouldn't treat people differently, but there's no way we can. We are going to prefer people we know over people we don't and people like us over people not like us. Of course, "people like us" doesn't have to exclusively be "race." I always feel bad for accidents that kill people in China - not because they're Chinese, but because it just seems like there are so many people in China that no one cares. If 1 miner dies in America, it's big news, but in china, 100 could die and it's just a byline. Another thing that is "unjust" is why people killed in these mass shootings can so much more sympathy than random people killed as bystanders or in car accidents. Those people also don't get donations, the way the friends and family of Paris' victims will. But there are many people who die every year and we have to be somewhat discriminating in how many tears we are willing to cry for all of them.
2. I guess it's good that we go to UVA, because it wasn't named after Thomas Jefferson. =P I can see certain people's monuments getting torn down - Hitler comes to mind - but most people are a mix of good and bad as most people don't exterminate people. Also, I don't think you have to be a good person to get a building named after you - you just have to donate money. I'm not sure anyone has ever vetted a person's moral bona fides before accepting their money, so why should Woodrow Wilson be any different? I think it would be a big problem to gain donors if students could revoke your naming of a building somewhere down the line without requiring a refund to the donor.
3. Mac and cheese seems like a natural thing to have at carb-heavy Thanksgiving.
4. That yoga-teacher is impressively calm. It's very sad that they had to shut down a free class that was really helpful for a disadvantaged population. If you were really mean and a little creative, you could use this logic to shut down all sorts of enjoyable and enriching activities for any populations you despised.
R2R
1. I honestly just posted that for the title. However, I am not going to be buying almonds for awhile....
2. Wouldn't put it past him. He doesn't have that many endorsements.And Special-K is solid. Back in my dieting years - something like 8-10, I ate a lot of Special-K.
3. I believe some people are very open-minded when it comes to looks. (Some people might also be desperate). But I'm sure it works best when the person doesn't look like a prune. Still, maybe it's something one can add to their repertoire like the pickup artist routine. Say what you will about pickup artists, but they seem to be a growth-mindset bunch.
5. Should I repost it in a few weeks?
R2R2R
1. You might be becoming too pro-bank... Meh, I find myself defending Big Pharma too. High-five!
4. I mean maybe it was for settlement talks though I'm not sure there's a hard and fast rule on that. I would imagine that these kids maybe had too much going for them - what with their lives and property being threatened and going to school and whatnot - to be able to contact a lawyer and get the process going.
R2R2R2R
4. I feel apprehensive before I go biking but I usually am very pleased after my bike ride. Getting started is such a difficult thing. It's really more than half the battle.
R2R2R2R2R
4. Well their spoiled children would care about the quality of their toys.
R2R2R2R2R2R
1. I think I would try as much as possible to defer to people's own idiosyncracies. I mean, it's bad for you to be racist, but if you're the one that's marrying the person, maybe marriage isn't the place where you should learn that people are people. Maybe you should take baby steps. Of course, we are definitely not going to be friends with these people.
I don't want to judge other people's choices in significant others because I know I wouldn't want to be judged on mine.
Tuesday, December 1, 2015
Weird Times
There's been some blowback against the outpouring of support from the world to Paris somehow, but I think it's hard for people to make coherent arguments for why they feel a certain way to rebut the charge of racism. I think this is a successful attempt at explaining why many feel for Paris more than Beirut, or Kenya, or other places.
Princeton is getting into the immature protesting nonsense fun.
I always wondered why people from other parts of the country never mentioned mac and cheese for Thanksgiving.
Apparently doing yoga (unless you are Indian) makes you a Western-centric imperialist.
Responses:
1. The fervor of the various "ignorant hipsters" that their food of choice is so much better than yours is matched only by the intensity of their wrongness 18 months later. It's a hilarious cycle.
2. Does this mean we should expect J.J. Watt to endorse Special-K soon?
3. I remember hearing about this last year or the year before. It's a neat idea, but I wonder how long it lasts, as well as how it weighs against the other factors (e.g. physical appearance) that we consider.
4. I could go for that apple crisp. I enjoy apple turnovers, but I wonder about using applesauce instead of apples - I wonder if I'd miss the texture.
5. Maybe we can make this one our year-end posts.
R2R:
1. I mean that Ally Financial has to pay money based on this. Maybe you are less sympathetic, but we've represented this bank and clients like it, and I would hate to have to tell my clients that this was happening to them.
4. I suspect that there were some initial negotiations, first internal to the frat, and then with Rolling Stone. They also probably wanted this to take place after the spectacle of the scandal had died down so that Rolling Stone would be more amenable to a settlement. You know more about litigation than I do, but I imagine that when issues are heated, it's harder to negotiate.
6. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. And yes, these protesters seem to have an answer for everything and everyone. If you are white, then you are blinded by privilege, and if you are not, then you are a traitor and a sellout.
R2R2R:
3. It's such an easy setting involving people who typically know each other (Jerry Seinfeld and whichever guest he invites), and they talk about common interests and experiences in a humanizing way. I like reading Chuck Klosterman because he's good at making me care about stuff in a different way or care about stuff I didn't previously care about. I don't think pop stars are universally loathsome, but I attach a presumption because I don't trust most people to survive what pop stars have to survive with their normal social skills intact, and I am skeptical of the kind of people who want to become pop stars generally.
4. I like the way this guy thinks. The Gold's Gym in Rosslyn had a poster on the door that said "half of the battle is showing up." And I think that's true - not because showing up twice will equal a full workout, but because once you get yourself going, once you get started, that inertia makes it so much easier to finish. I don't think I've ever quit in the middle of a workout because it was too hard, but I've definitely decided not to go at all because I was tired/sore/busy/hungry/depressed. And every time I've gone when I've felt like staying home, I've finished and felt better for it. I like this mantra.
R2R2R2R:
4. We live in a world where people tried to boycott Chick-fil-A. Also, do you think these boycotters care about the quality of their kids' toys over the self-righteous stand du jour?
R2R2R2R2R2R2R2R:
1. I agree, but some people decide to hide behind idiosyncrasy or quirkiness because they want to rationalize laziness, prejudice, or worse. Also, there is a difference between a dealbreaker, a quirk, an annoying habit, or just a thing that is not common between two people. I notice that you put in parentheses that the guy was bad at everything. While his lack of skill at bowling may have been symbolic for you, I tend to think that you would not have broken up with him over bowling if he was an otherwise competent person who just didn't bowl or didn't like bowling.
But more to the point, we as individuals in a society evaluate the decisions that other people make all the time, if only to affirm or question the decisions that we make ourselves. This is especially true when we consume media. Most people would think it odd to respond to Chandler or Seinfeld breaking up with someone over some triviality by saying, "It's his life, and I don't have an opinion - he can do what he wants," at least in part because the character is fictitious, but also because one big thing we all do is decide whether what the character did was good, bad, or otherwise. Some people may not object to the move, but they would instead say, "I think it's fine that he broke up with her because that was important to him," while others would call the character petty or shallow.
With real people, I think it's important that we acknowledge that we should not sit in judgment of others, but that is true in that we accept our friends and the autonomy of strangers. We shouldn't stop being friends with people because they break up with their significant others for petty reasons, but we can certainly think for ourselves whether that was good or bad based on the information we have, and we should certainly talk to our friends about their and our decisions, since that's one way to be smarter about living life. If I had a friend like Chandler, I would almost certainly call him out on his pettiness in dating. And as for my example with the cats, while it was meant in jest, I think it's also somewhat symbolic (based on male acquaintances I have who have or like cats), and I would never advise anyone to make a decision based solely on that fact.
B
Princeton is getting into the immature protesting nonsense fun.
I always wondered why people from other parts of the country never mentioned mac and cheese for Thanksgiving.
Apparently doing yoga (unless you are Indian) makes you a Western-centric imperialist.
Responses:
1. The fervor of the various "ignorant hipsters" that their food of choice is so much better than yours is matched only by the intensity of their wrongness 18 months later. It's a hilarious cycle.
2. Does this mean we should expect J.J. Watt to endorse Special-K soon?
3. I remember hearing about this last year or the year before. It's a neat idea, but I wonder how long it lasts, as well as how it weighs against the other factors (e.g. physical appearance) that we consider.
4. I could go for that apple crisp. I enjoy apple turnovers, but I wonder about using applesauce instead of apples - I wonder if I'd miss the texture.
5. Maybe we can make this one our year-end posts.
R2R:
1. I mean that Ally Financial has to pay money based on this. Maybe you are less sympathetic, but we've represented this bank and clients like it, and I would hate to have to tell my clients that this was happening to them.
4. I suspect that there were some initial negotiations, first internal to the frat, and then with Rolling Stone. They also probably wanted this to take place after the spectacle of the scandal had died down so that Rolling Stone would be more amenable to a settlement. You know more about litigation than I do, but I imagine that when issues are heated, it's harder to negotiate.
6. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. And yes, these protesters seem to have an answer for everything and everyone. If you are white, then you are blinded by privilege, and if you are not, then you are a traitor and a sellout.
R2R2R:
3. It's such an easy setting involving people who typically know each other (Jerry Seinfeld and whichever guest he invites), and they talk about common interests and experiences in a humanizing way. I like reading Chuck Klosterman because he's good at making me care about stuff in a different way or care about stuff I didn't previously care about. I don't think pop stars are universally loathsome, but I attach a presumption because I don't trust most people to survive what pop stars have to survive with their normal social skills intact, and I am skeptical of the kind of people who want to become pop stars generally.
4. I like the way this guy thinks. The Gold's Gym in Rosslyn had a poster on the door that said "half of the battle is showing up." And I think that's true - not because showing up twice will equal a full workout, but because once you get yourself going, once you get started, that inertia makes it so much easier to finish. I don't think I've ever quit in the middle of a workout because it was too hard, but I've definitely decided not to go at all because I was tired/sore/busy/hungry/depressed. And every time I've gone when I've felt like staying home, I've finished and felt better for it. I like this mantra.
R2R2R2R:
4. We live in a world where people tried to boycott Chick-fil-A. Also, do you think these boycotters care about the quality of their kids' toys over the self-righteous stand du jour?
R2R2R2R2R2R2R2R:
1. I agree, but some people decide to hide behind idiosyncrasy or quirkiness because they want to rationalize laziness, prejudice, or worse. Also, there is a difference between a dealbreaker, a quirk, an annoying habit, or just a thing that is not common between two people. I notice that you put in parentheses that the guy was bad at everything. While his lack of skill at bowling may have been symbolic for you, I tend to think that you would not have broken up with him over bowling if he was an otherwise competent person who just didn't bowl or didn't like bowling.
But more to the point, we as individuals in a society evaluate the decisions that other people make all the time, if only to affirm or question the decisions that we make ourselves. This is especially true when we consume media. Most people would think it odd to respond to Chandler or Seinfeld breaking up with someone over some triviality by saying, "It's his life, and I don't have an opinion - he can do what he wants," at least in part because the character is fictitious, but also because one big thing we all do is decide whether what the character did was good, bad, or otherwise. Some people may not object to the move, but they would instead say, "I think it's fine that he broke up with her because that was important to him," while others would call the character petty or shallow.
With real people, I think it's important that we acknowledge that we should not sit in judgment of others, but that is true in that we accept our friends and the autonomy of strangers. We shouldn't stop being friends with people because they break up with their significant others for petty reasons, but we can certainly think for ourselves whether that was good or bad based on the information we have, and we should certainly talk to our friends about their and our decisions, since that's one way to be smarter about living life. If I had a friend like Chandler, I would almost certainly call him out on his pettiness in dating. And as for my example with the cats, while it was meant in jest, I think it's also somewhat symbolic (based on male acquaintances I have who have or like cats), and I would never advise anyone to make a decision based solely on that fact.
B
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)