Re: the New Truth
 

Free range is the best way. My kid will beat your ass if you talk shit about gays or minorities.

I’ve heard it. Very opinionated and pissy about it. But for rational reasons.

But then, atheism and skepticism have always been the rules of this house. We teach no ideologies. We attempt as best we can to teach how to succeed by not getting stuck on ideologies.

Because in the end, they don’t make you money. And the people who really run the world don’t care much about this sort of stuff.

But I never put it that bluntly. That’d create a person I wouldn’t like. Even if it’s only about a fiction, one ought to care to some extent.

I care about free speech. That’s my thing.

Re: the New Truth
 

I was not trying to give you shit. Ms. Slothrop and I love to watch other parents and tell each other what they're doing wrong. It's one of life's little pleasures.

Orwell Canceled?
 

Re: the New Truth
 

Her preschool is pretty diverse and half Spanish speaking. If she ever gets to go back. And we’ve got three black kids and one black adult on our block.

Nonetheless, we’re in a pretty white part of the city (you may have heard we’re rather segregated) and the public schools she’s headed to are about 70% white, I think. The school board is looking at changes that will increase overall diversity, but I don’t think it’s going to change much in her schools.

Re: the New Truth
 

Aren't you catholic?

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/ne...BZByAklBFqQxGI Lady Antebellum wants to change its name to Lady A, because Antebellum is racially offensive. But there is a singer named Lady A, has been out for a long time, and she is black. Lady A (the band) is suing Lady A (the black lady) so that it can be less offensive?

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

Apropos of the Harper's letter thing, I am baffled by many exchanges I see in my Twitter feed about it. Would appreciate any links to pieces that do a good job of explaining what each side thinks.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

I found this a fascinating article, and I read this one right afterwards.

The mayor* of Houston just cancelled the contract to host the state Republican convention here next weekend due to the terrifying rise in Covid cases here. Most Republicans--embodied in this article by Lt. Guv. Dan Patrick, who still hasn't died of COVID despite volunteering months ago--are predictably apoplectic about it, but eyepatch Dan Crenshaw says it wasn't the worst idea in the world to cancel. His (also mine) district is one of the most gerrymandered in the state, if not the country, but it's urban/suburban, and I'm guessing that he's sensing his constituents think any sort of gathering right now is batshit. This was an easy way for him to assure that he's not entirely deranged, while not deviating too far from the core principles of whatever insanity Trump brings next.


*Municipal elections in Houston are technically non-partisan, but they end up being partisan anyways. Sylvester Turner was a Democratic state senator for decades before he ran for mayor.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

fwiw, most of the people he's referencing in the Rowling fight identify as far left, not far right. And most/many of them are British, so the political spectrum is slightly different there. I don't even think the right gets involved in the TERF wars other than to occasionally pop in to say "trans bad" and then watch from the sidelines. I think he probably gives Rowling more credit than she deserves, but then I think she's chosen a really poorly thought out hill to die on.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

I think it's more a tribal thing than a what people think thing. The letter is very vague, and most of the Harpers' signatories are just kind of distraught that anyone would question them and don't explain themselves further, so there's a lovely free speech debate where everyone thinks everyone else should be more reasonable and also should stop saying reasonable things they don't mean because really there is something implicit in every post that is very sinister. It's sort of like a debate between Sebby and Kramer.

But check Popehat's thread on it for a good summary of the way the "issues" are being raised and response to it. Also, check out the threads of various Vox writers like Ezra Klein, Matty Yglesias and Emily VanDerWorff if you want to see just how insane it has gotten.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

What is Dan Patrick's issue?

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

In general or in this particular case?

In general, he's a nut job. In this particular case, it's vague. He's pissed that Turner waited until now to do it and/or that Turner did it at all. Just that somehow this is a dastardly plot and he won't stand for it.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

I see a lot of people criticizing all three, and I don't understand for what, apart from the assholes who are giving VanDerWorff a hard time because they can.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

I am just baffled by all the people who act like the various government closures are the problem, rather than an effort to stop a disease that is killing people. It's not just political. The local news here will have stories about changes in the restrictions, and then they'll interview business owners who will complain about how the restrictions make it hard to do business. Sure, but hello? The problem is that there is a pandemic killing your customers, and if you open your bar you will make it worse. Do they simply not get it? Patrick may be happy to kill himself, but most people aren't, it turns out.