What's the best, most rigorous evidence folks can point me to that sorting kids (or adults) by race for training purposes leads to improved outcomes of some sort?
2/ First Google hit is something of a case study. The organizers decided against formally evaluating their program partly because they were worried a negative evaluation would deter future funding of the (as-yet-totally-unevaluated) program. (Also potential legal issues.)
3/ Most importantly, let's say you're a kid trying to figure out which group to identify into. Moreover, let's say that lunch is provided by a random subset of parents in your group, and is homemade. Which group do you go with? Obviously not white but very tough choice otherwise!
4/ This is an interesting game theory exercise. Let's say white kids realize that for a shot at the better lunch, they'll have to identify as Asian. But then, if ALL the white students do this, it greatly inreases the probability the 'Asian' group has to eat, like, Wonder Bread.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Rittenhouse underage weapons charged dropped. A reader of mine called this, based on a pretty straightforward reading of certain exceptions in the law, 15 months ago. Waiting to see if he'll let me post his email.
2/ In Wisconsin you can just give a 17-year-old an AR-style rifle an he can carry it around, no permit or training or anything else required. Really good system! God I love America.
3/ Thanks to reader David Steele. This seems like a pretty basic thing for a bunch of major outlets to have missed! Probably didn't make sense to charge it in the first place but prosecutors have their reasons I suppose.
If I'm an editor at Scientific American, one of a small subset of mainstream publications devoted solely to, well, science, I definitely want to jump in with an aggressive take on each and every culture-war controversy. Very very good for the brand. scientificamerican.com/article/the-an…
2/ Scientific American is either being intentionally dishonest about the content of this Wisconsin bill or none of the four authors of this article, or any of the editors, bothered to read it.
3/ The link points not to the bill itself, but to testimony from a state rep who argues the terms in question *potentially* violate the bill. But the bill itself does not issue a blanket ban on using any particular terms. You can really just read it!
I'm not trying to get assaulted by any Slate staffers (historically dangerous bunch) but here's an example of me writing about 'wokeness' (or whatever you want to call it! truly don't care!) in a way that I think has some substance? Lotsa others have too. jessesingal.substack.com/p/when-we-argu…
2/ Freddie deBoer and Matt Bruenig are two lefties who come to mind who have long tried to explain the new norms that have come to dominate liberal spaces (though they weren't yet dominant when they began writing about them). Instead of engagement, endless accusations of bigotry.
3/ Maybe 'critique' is more accurate than 'explain,' but if in 2021 you are arguing that NO ONE who is critiquing this stuff has any point other than they are mad white men don't dominate everything (!!), you could maybe try reading more widely? Also, don't threaten violence!
The American Medical Association has just released "Advancing Health Equity: A Guide to Language, Narrative and Concepts," a strange document that calls for doctors to insert progressive politics into even plain statements of fact.
2/ After the lengthy "Land And Labor Acknowledgement" -- new to me but apparently the evolution of the land acknowledgement -- the document quickly lays out guidelines that would make it very hard for doctors to write or speak clearly.
3/ For example, the word 'vulnerable' is out. You're not supposed to say "vulnerable groups," because this doesn't communicate progressive political beliefs. Try "Groups that have been economically/
socially marginalized."
3/ Fellow lefties who hate Taibbi or Yglesias or to a lesser extent me constantly make this very self-flattering error of imagining our disagreement with them stems from a profound shortcoming on our part: We're jealous, or we think there are too many writers of color (LOL),
Anne Applebaum: This guy's career was ruined because he criticized arson
Michael Hobbes, summing up Applebaum's article: He got in trouble for criticizing BLM protesters
The dude is just fundamentally incapable of any charity or nuance when describing his perceived enemies
2/ This is *intentional*! He read the essay he is criticizing and decided to shield from his readers (no link to the incident either) the fact that the dude's career was destroyed because he said arson is bad. Instead, vague it up so it sounds like he's anti-BLM.
3/ “America is, like, the only country in the world that has prison rape” is the best Hobbes quote, from his Matthew Shepherd episode of YWA. (1:16:00 in that one.)
That this dude ever caught on as a debunker is just insane -- and it's such an annoying, dishonest style.