Some people instinctively oppose calling out racism because they see being against racism as being woke, and they've decided anything woke is bad.
It's a weird kind of ideological partisanship where people will turn off their critical thinking rather than be seen as endorsing any kind of "wokeness".
A plea to the so-called anti-woke is not to paint yourself into such a corner that your "tribe" is racism, if only the subtle kind.
If you agree with the goal, then use your voice to call out racism.
Don't play this game where simply start labeling stuff "neoracism" or "woke racism" and think anyone really believes that you're now actually against racism.
Sometimes this stuff is real too, at least for some of us.
When you find yourself defending eugenicists and white nationalists, and refusing to acknowledge evidence showing you're wrong, stop and consider what you're doing.
Don't let it be always about "giving in to the woke". It's okay to simply agree sometimes.
I once again thank the American Psychological Association for the statement they released apologizing for their role in advancing racism.
They made a lot of people reveal blindspots that I hope they reflect on. In the meantime, their reactions revealed a lot to the rest of us.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I wanted to address some of these myths about black advantage because they are frequent refrains.
Black students are underrepresented in college enrollment. This to me reflects all the obstacles they faced to even reach the college gate. I obviously reject ideas of biological or cultural inferiority. Thus, black kids writ large don't have an advantage getting into college.
Scholarship data is hard to find by race. The most recent I could find was over a decade old. Black kids got more needs-based scholarship, but overall, white students got more in scholarship funding than others relative to population. There's no overall white disadvantage.
A black child growing up facing structural and systemic racism reaches college having suffered a massive disadvantage. A school then making adjustments for this reduces the disadvantage.
I get people who think black folks are either biologically or culturally inferior will think that there is no meaningful disadvantage getting to college.
They should at least understand the views of those who reject those premises.
I stand by the position that society owes a debt not just to children facing racism, but all children who grow up with societal adversity. The poor and the marginalized deserve *explicit* steps to help them. That's only a fraction of the weight of the adversity they face.
If someone says they won't sleep with a specific Jewish person, that's perfectly fine. If they don't go out of the way to say anything, that's fine too.
If they explicitly say they won't date *any* Jewish person, yeah, I've got questions.
Now in truth, people are allowed to have their preferences, even if those are not immune from judgement. Most people don't go out of their way to say they wouldn't date a Jewish person. I don't think we should go around checking what's inside people's hearts either.
To go around explicitly stating, in public, that you wouldn't date a person of X identity invites public judgment. Don't misunderstand, that's okay in most cases. It all depends on what society and those around you judge.
Depending on your level in chess, you can look at a position and just have no idea what the right move is and why. All while it's just obvious to a stronger player.
Share my misery. White to move. Can you find the right idea and why?
I'll post the right answer in a bit. It's so subtle, but so clear once you see it. It's the fact that I didn't see it right away that's so frustrating.
There's nothing tactical, and that's how we often approach puzzles. The key is 1. b4, preventing black from taking the c5 pawn with a piece. After 1...bxc5, white plays 2. b5! and black is left with weak doubled pawns.