Welcome to the DBD, a W4C community board where one can talk about pretty much anything… like… tell the DBD as many lies as possible in three sentences or fewer.
George Santos, champion 1988 freestyle and breaststroke specialist for the Soviet Union
Subscribe to Write For California to vote on this poll
Webby confirms the first exoplanet - an Earth-sized planet about 41 light years away. It appears to have a carbon dioxide rich atmosphere and its year lasts about two days.
[WaPo] DOJ subpeened Trump campaign official in December. The DOJ is interested campaign finance improprieties centering on grift from Trump PACs that were supposed to fight the "Steal" but just enriched Trump.
It would be kind of funny if Trump continues to get away on "aggressive" tax strategies around real estate because he's at the edge of normal and instead trips over being too obvious about misuse of campaign funds. (I assume abuse of those funds is rife by candidates, but some more so than others)
Time Magazine's Sexiest Man Alive received more than $1.75m in earnings from an unregistered campaign company despite claiming to have only made $55k. His wife Morgan Fairchild is apoplectic.
I never understood why in English you can’t just say “Latin” and avoid the gender issue present in Spanish that way.
That being said, it is pretty ridonc to ban the term. I mean the taxpayers are paying you to work on their behalf, and you spend your time and their money on this? How about improving the education system or public safety FFS. Seems like the right wing version of the SF school board renaming project
Besides the gender issue, I believe a major reason why they use LatinX is to try to show that Latinos in the Caribbean, Central America, South America, and Latino immigrants in the US/Canada are very diverse in culture, language, cuisine and history so the term Latin is too generic. Not to mention you have Afro-Latinos and indigenous-Latinos that are viewed very differently in their home countries and the US.
I think this speaks to the problem, the minute you need a dissertation to explain it, it reeks of elitism and an unwritten code of conduct that others need follow to be elite themselves, or else risk opprobrium from others.
That is such a cisgender heteronormative thing to say! 😀
Kidding! You are totally right. I also wonder if we are teaching children to be hypersensitive a bit? People seem to jump to the worst conclusion about every slip of the tongue. I think we are still working through this stuff - the prison house of language guys are totally right about how language can shape your worldview, so it’s worth it to bring it up to the discursive consciousness and discuss how we might change it. But there needs to be a way to do that without being elitist shitheads about it, or else Sarah Huckabee type reactionaries may win the day in all these arguments.
there's also the legacy of people getting riled up about languages with gender for nouns and male plural being used for mixed groups, but because I am old and no fun, I have a hard time taking it seriously - just seems like an elaborate way of being tone-deaf and condescending (if Spanish speakers are rolling their eyes and Latinos aren't universally enthusiastic about Latinx, then it seems like the wrong battle to be fighting)
There are a some contending issues. One is letting linguistic details interfere with delivery of the bigger or core issue being communicated, to the point of distracting from that overriding point.
Another is that the intense focus on some of these linguistic details is in reaction to incidents of intentional manipulating of the message, which can subtly happen, at least initially. (See politically charged discourse on almost any subject in today's world.)
Meanwhile, people who actually do make unintentional miscues in precision get vilified, and the real point they are trying to make gets lost.
I still use the term "guys" with certain audiences. For me, it is a folky way of relating to others. Also sometimes, striving for perfect language makes the conversation feel stilted and insincere.
I don't get this. I've always associated "guys" with males. I have also always associated "gals" with females. At the same time, I was raised by an older generation who were quick to make gender distinctions, even with less formal terms.
There is no history though of people using the term “gals” to refer to both men and women. If there were, then it would not be as insulting as you seem to assume it is now
Oh this reminds me - curious what folks think re this. I have three daughters, and my sister in law bought them one of those “Rebel Girls” books that has a one or two page summary of the lives of famous women like Frida Kahlo, Amelia Ehrhardt, etc., etc., written for an audience of maybe 4-10 year olds. They are good but the summaries always include words to the effect of “Despite the challenges she faced as a woman” and so my kids ask me what are they talking about re challenges? And then the story kind of becomes mostly about sexism and they ask well is there still sexism? And I say yeah but not as much. I wonder if maybe the phrase “despite the challenges she faced as a woman” should be deleted given the age of the intended audience? I dunno, it makes reading them more of a bummer than the (I think) uplifting stories they are intended to be
The phrase you quote says as much about the world and the men in it as it does about the women. It could be framed as eradicating sexism is a challenge for everyone, *especially* men.
We have two of those books (7-yo daughter). I didn't notice "overuse" of that phrase. I guess I read it as "a fact" for each story (individually) and didn't realize that it was said so often.
The one thing that I *did* notice was that they always noted when the person had red hair. And it was usually the pirates. There seemed to be a connection between the red hair and the "wildness" of the girls/women.
[Note that we have no redheads in the fam, so it's not like I'm particularly sensitive to it.]
Editing this would certainly make it just an inspirational story for the younger end of this demographic. At the same time, the story isn't really complete without some mention of the additional obstacles these women faced. What age is appropriate to introduce these concepts? That is part of the question. Also, there is a tenderness in sheltering your child and allowing them to be blissfully ignorant of the world's problems, at least up to a certain age.
Yeah, exactly, deleting that phrase is probably whitewashing the story too much in one sense, but for an audience that does not know that sexism is a thing that exists, I just wonder if mentioning the prejudices these women overcame kind of reinforces them in a way that is not intended.
For younger kids, I think avoiding labels associated with larger concepts can help with this. Avoid terms like sexism and discuss how, at the time these women were alive, men were in charge and did not always allow women the same rights and freedoms that men had. Being in a parent-child relationship, kids understand concepts of authority and fairness (or perceived unfairness). The complexity of these conversations can expand with age and maturity.
If you need/want anything from the New York Public Library Shop, you can get 20% off today with the code NEWYEAR https://shop.nypl.org/
Embellishments
SHE BLINDED ME WITH...
American Astronomical Society annual meeting is this week which is why you’re seeing more astronomy news than normal.
Webby confirms the first exoplanet - an Earth-sized planet about 41 light years away. It appears to have a carbon dioxide rich atmosphere and its year lasts about two days.
https://phys.org/news/2023-01-james-webb-space-telescope-exoplanet.html
Probably too hot for life.
Seems like the name of a pop song - too hot for life. Paging Harry Styles!
OUR CRUMBLING DEMOCRACY
[WaPo] DOJ subpeened Trump campaign official in December. The DOJ is interested campaign finance improprieties centering on grift from Trump PACs that were supposed to fight the "Steal" but just enriched Trump.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/01/11/trump-subpoena-jan6-campaign-officials/
It would be kind of funny if Trump continues to get away on "aggressive" tax strategies around real estate because he's at the edge of normal and instead trips over being too obvious about misuse of campaign funds. (I assume abuse of those funds is rife by candidates, but some more so than others)
Time Magazine's Sexiest Man Alive received more than $1.75m in earnings from an unregistered campaign company despite claiming to have only made $55k. His wife Morgan Fairchild is apoplectic.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2023/01/11/george-santos-harbor-city-capital/
A second search finds more mishandled classified documents by Biden. Fox News messes itself in excitement.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/01/11/biden-more-documents-found/
The 2018 Outland Trophy winner also claims to have been one of the first infected with Covid
https://www.businessinsider.com/george-santos-lied-bogus-covid-19-diagnosis-timeline-daily-beast-2023-1
Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders signs EO to ban the use of the term LatinX for official use. I'm not sure how many people she has upset with this.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/arkansas-gov-sarah-huckabee-sanders-bans-term-latinx-first-day-office-rcna65351
I have never really liked the LatinX term.
Latine is a much better term anyway
I never understood why in English you can’t just say “Latin” and avoid the gender issue present in Spanish that way.
That being said, it is pretty ridonc to ban the term. I mean the taxpayers are paying you to work on their behalf, and you spend your time and their money on this? How about improving the education system or public safety FFS. Seems like the right wing version of the SF school board renaming project
Besides the gender issue, I believe a major reason why they use LatinX is to try to show that Latinos in the Caribbean, Central America, South America, and Latino immigrants in the US/Canada are very diverse in culture, language, cuisine and history so the term Latin is too generic. Not to mention you have Afro-Latinos and indigenous-Latinos that are viewed very differently in their home countries and the US.
I think this speaks to the problem, the minute you need a dissertation to explain it, it reeks of elitism and an unwritten code of conduct that others need follow to be elite themselves, or else risk opprobrium from others.
Also, LatinX sounds like an X-Men team.
It's always been associated with SpaceX in my mind
That is such a cisgender heteronormative thing to say! 😀
Kidding! You are totally right. I also wonder if we are teaching children to be hypersensitive a bit? People seem to jump to the worst conclusion about every slip of the tongue. I think we are still working through this stuff - the prison house of language guys are totally right about how language can shape your worldview, so it’s worth it to bring it up to the discursive consciousness and discuss how we might change it. But there needs to be a way to do that without being elitist shitheads about it, or else Sarah Huckabee type reactionaries may win the day in all these arguments.
there's also the legacy of people getting riled up about languages with gender for nouns and male plural being used for mixed groups, but because I am old and no fun, I have a hard time taking it seriously - just seems like an elaborate way of being tone-deaf and condescending (if Spanish speakers are rolling their eyes and Latinos aren't universally enthusiastic about Latinx, then it seems like the wrong battle to be fighting)
There are a some contending issues. One is letting linguistic details interfere with delivery of the bigger or core issue being communicated, to the point of distracting from that overriding point.
Another is that the intense focus on some of these linguistic details is in reaction to incidents of intentional manipulating of the message, which can subtly happen, at least initially. (See politically charged discourse on almost any subject in today's world.)
Meanwhile, people who actually do make unintentional miscues in precision get vilified, and the real point they are trying to make gets lost.
Yup.
I still use the term "guys" with certain audiences. For me, it is a folky way of relating to others. Also sometimes, striving for perfect language makes the conversation feel stilted and insincere.
I don't get this. I've always associated "guys" with males. I have also always associated "gals" with females. At the same time, I was raised by an older generation who were quick to make gender distinctions, even with less formal terms.
How would you feel if someone used the term "gals" instead to refer to you and a bunch of other people?
There is no history though of people using the term “gals” to refer to both men and women. If there were, then it would not be as insulting as you seem to assume it is now
Exactly!
Oh this reminds me - curious what folks think re this. I have three daughters, and my sister in law bought them one of those “Rebel Girls” books that has a one or two page summary of the lives of famous women like Frida Kahlo, Amelia Ehrhardt, etc., etc., written for an audience of maybe 4-10 year olds. They are good but the summaries always include words to the effect of “Despite the challenges she faced as a woman” and so my kids ask me what are they talking about re challenges? And then the story kind of becomes mostly about sexism and they ask well is there still sexism? And I say yeah but not as much. I wonder if maybe the phrase “despite the challenges she faced as a woman” should be deleted given the age of the intended audience? I dunno, it makes reading them more of a bummer than the (I think) uplifting stories they are intended to be
It cuts both ways.
The phrase you quote says as much about the world and the men in it as it does about the women. It could be framed as eradicating sexism is a challenge for everyone, *especially* men.
We have two of those books (7-yo daughter). I didn't notice "overuse" of that phrase. I guess I read it as "a fact" for each story (individually) and didn't realize that it was said so often.
The one thing that I *did* notice was that they always noted when the person had red hair. And it was usually the pirates. There seemed to be a connection between the red hair and the "wildness" of the girls/women.
[Note that we have no redheads in the fam, so it's not like I'm particularly sensitive to it.]
Editing this would certainly make it just an inspirational story for the younger end of this demographic. At the same time, the story isn't really complete without some mention of the additional obstacles these women faced. What age is appropriate to introduce these concepts? That is part of the question. Also, there is a tenderness in sheltering your child and allowing them to be blissfully ignorant of the world's problems, at least up to a certain age.
Yeah, exactly, deleting that phrase is probably whitewashing the story too much in one sense, but for an audience that does not know that sexism is a thing that exists, I just wonder if mentioning the prejudices these women overcame kind of reinforces them in a way that is not intended.
For younger kids, I think avoiding labels associated with larger concepts can help with this. Avoid terms like sexism and discuss how, at the time these women were alive, men were in charge and did not always allow women the same rights and freedoms that men had. Being in a parent-child relationship, kids understand concepts of authority and fairness (or perceived unfairness). The complexity of these conversations can expand with age and maturity.
Ah, I am just swimming in ignorance as usual! 😀
If people want to use whatever term, they should use it. Seems so lame to get all Academie Francaise about it and ban terms.
RIP Jeff Beck. Legendary guitarist passes away at the age of 78 due to bacterial meningitis.
But still, 78
...as in RPMs? (ducks, runs)
DBD AV CLUB
Short Round's lawyer is Chunk. That is, Ke Huy Quan had Jeff Cohen (UC Berkeley, BS Business Administration) do some legal work for him.
https://twitter.com/andycompton_/status/1612844003342295042
ELSEWHERE IN COLLEGE
How it started:
https://twitter.com/heckyessica/status/1609429221578874880
How it's going now:
https://twitter.com/heckyessica/status/1612715780310704130
Pac-12 moving from SF to SRV
https://twitter.com/andycompton_/status/1612844003342295042
Here is a summary of the TCU / Georgia game
https://twitter.com/TheSumoSoul/status/1613424319304183813
CU vs. ASU in Week 0 nixed
https://247sports.com/Article/Deion-Sanders-Week-0-game-Colorado-Buffaloes-Arizona-State-Sun-Devils-canceled-202680498/
Coach 30 does his thing for TCU vs. UGA
https://twitter.com/MrGo30/status/1613353306054881280
"Trying to get real juice from a man named Sonny D" LOL
Charles White - Heisman Trophy winner from USC - has died at the age of 64 from cancer
https://twitter.com/antoniocmorales/status/1613367738524897283
PRO
David Shaw hoping to bring his brand of punting from your opponent's 40 yard line to Denver
https://twitter.com/AdamSchefter/status/1613374655309709313
I feel like this was more of a check the box for the Rooney rule interview than a serious interview.
Carries more credibility than just interviewing Lovie would.
That'll do great in the NFL...
And it would put Shaw, Condi Rice, and John Elway all in one place
Maybe someone can nuke that place.
Small nuke please.
Heh.
A trifecta of Furd evilness.
Leaving Las Vegas
https://twitter.com/derekcarrqb/status/1613560895011184641
Who throws a massage gun, honestly?
https://twitter.com/HoopyHoops/status/1612987944188661766
Smush Parker looking to return to the NBA soon
https://twitter.com/SmushParker21/status/1613137239290138626
CAL
Go Bears!!!
Cindric confirms his return for 2023
https://twitter.com/matthew_cindric/status/1613321932161847296?
Including Vatikani, the way we lose guys to injury, we probably need 9 more just like him.