God, it just. Feels so nice. To talk to someone who believes me when I tell them how hard it is for me to do things.
I can’t cry at funerals or anything but I’m biting back tears now. I literally only cry for myself, and I hate it. I was tearing up during the meeting, and I think the only thing that separates this time from all the times I’ve just started bawling in front of teachers is that he took me seriously.
1) Why does no-one who has ever had power to make my life easier or harder ever believed me when I told them about my own limitations?
2) Why haven’t I been on anti-depressants since at least junior year of high school?
I don’t mean like, some kind of “moment of silence” thing in honor of white people. I mean a day of silence. For white people. A whole day in which white people cannot blog or tweet or text or talk. A day in which white news anchors cannot report the news, and no white people get to share their opinions on television or the internet.
Our parents will flip through the TV channels, trying to find something to watch, but their options will be severely limited because the TV stations will have had to edit out all of the white people from their shows and stop airing anything written by white people.
We’ll just sit here at our computers, refreshing our dashboards constantly, waiting for an insightful post from someone whose opinion we care about until we realize that it’s not going to update because for the most part, the people whose opinions we give a shit about are also white. So then we’ll have nothing to do but to find new people to follow who are still allowed to post because they’re not white. We’ll have to start actually thinking about what they say and the significance it holds because there will be no white noise to distract us, and there will be no white knights to come to our defense if what they say hurts our white feelings. All we can do is sit there, shut up, and listen.
And then, as the night draws to a close, we can lie down and reflect on all of the embarrassingly Caucasian things we’ve said and done, taking comfort only in the fact that at least for that one day, we didn’t get a chance to embarrass ourselves.
So there are groups that do this, they stay in highly policed areas on shifts and bring cameras and such, and record to make sure police brutality doesn’t escalate, and when it happens there’s evidence against it.
But that’s not the only way it can happen.
Every single person is entitled to watch an arrest go down as long as they are not obstructing or interfering. That means, if you see cops bumrush someone, even if that person is waving a gun, you are allowed, even legally permitted and encouraged to watch the events occur.
This is important white folks, because the cops work inyourservice. Oh sure, they’re supposedly in the service of “the common good” but we all know that means protecting white people.
And now a story, when I was in high school, and my mom was working under a horrific principal, she was late to work one day because there was something going on in our neighborhood. Cops were gathered near our pharmacy and a guy was on the roof (it’s a little over one story, so he wasn’t a jumper or anything) and she stayed as long as she could and watched the scenario go down for a while. Not because she’s trifling. not because she’s nosy. But because she saw a POC and cops gathered and said to herself “I want to make sure this goes by the book.”
And that’s all it takes to be a cop watcher.
You acknowledge that you, as a white person, are in a relative position of safety and you watch. You bear witness, because your voice, unfortunately, carries more weight than ours in the criminal justice system.
Justice is not blind, nor should you be.
If there are cops, and they outnumber an individual, shit, even if it’s 1:1, it is your responsibility to keep an eye on the scenario and take down whatever information you can. And if it looks like something shady is going on, you areobligatedto call in to your local precinct and say “Listen, I saw X happen on Y, and it looked questionable.” And if you get a negative response, well, y’know what? You find out if there’s a civilian oversight committee. In NYC we have one, but they’re underfunded and continually being legislated against (currently there’s a statute of 18 months from the time of the event within which you have to file charges).
If the prospect of keeping vigilant about cops scares you, imagine being a POC, and knowing that no matter what you do, you could be railroaded by a system that wants to not only disenfranchise you, but has no intentions of treating you as a human being.
Take your fears and shove ‘em down, because they’ll never be anything when compared to what we face on a daily basis.
What what what are you doing where is the phonemic tone.
For future reference, this is “Wŏ zĕnme dă diànhuà dă Mĕiguó?” If you need to write that, it’s “我怎么打电话打美国?” which, haha, you will never remember in an emergency situation unless you actually learn to speak the language, so I don’t know why I mentioned it.
even if the wings of Nike herself had sprung from his back he never could have outrun a bullet aimed at his heart the trigger pulled before he was even born Black in this world
He learned the lessons we teach our young in sofla so well don’t run m’ijo no sudden moves always walk calm -you ain’t did nothing wrong show that and stand up straight cuidado con la policia, los blancos y los arrepentidos if walking while Black is suspicious running while non-white is a death sentence
reasonable suspicion and probable cause the ritual intonations of state sponsored death
Click the link to listen in. I’m putting this here, in a separate post, because I really need to focus on it. I need you all to know, not just white people, but non-black PoC to know, what happens to Black people out here.
This is what has been deemed self-defense on the part of George Zimmerman. This is what “self-defense” cases sound like to police. This is grounds for letting a murderer go.
A black child begging for his life.
This is “suspicious”. This is “criminal”. This is what “scary black people” sound like to white people.
George Zimmerman was 100 pounds heavier than this CHILD. I insist on calling him a child because while many white people would argue in favor of 17 year old white people being children, they do not give the same courtesy to 17 year old black CHILDREN. Trayvon was a BABY. An INFANT. A MURDERED CHILD.
George Zimmerman murdered this baby boy, a mother’s son, that was begging for his life.
This is your “self-defense” case. This is “self-defense” to these police, where a black child is concerned.
And you want us to trust these people for anything?
All this does is make me want to avoid having children. I already don’t want to have a son at all because I seen what goes on to these black boys.
I’ve put this off too long. I’m gonna listen to it.
My ‘rhetorical style’ is sentences that are slightly too long and have slightly too many clauses strung together in such a way that it’s plausible to not put a comma anywhere but never so segmented or breathless that you ever get the solid impression that my sentences are run-on but you also don’t really remember anything I said properly because there were simply too many words.
What? Are people often asked to clarify that there’s universal quantification? Do you have evidence of that claim? I don’t know about you, but those bare noun constructions aren’t in any sense ambiguous to me, and I consider myself a perfectly competent listener.
No evidence but my own experience, which is why this was a couple of bleary-eyed ponderings on my personal blog and not an academic paper. I have, fairly often, come into confusion upon encountering a statement of the form ‘X is Y’ and not being able to deduce, from context, whether the intended reading was ‘some X is Y’, ‘all X is Y’, ‘this X is Y’, ‘my X is Y’, et cetera. I’ve also witnessed other people asking for such a clarification in the calmer sort of Internet argument.
So, those noun constructions are ambiguous to me (although ‘all X is Y’ is usually my preferred reading), and I am a competent listener as well… in the speech communit(y)/(ies) I inhabit.
Also, in my experience, people occasionally do use ‘X is Y’ with non- ‘all X is Y’ meanings, the specific quantifier left to context, and among other people for whom that is a normal thing the intended meaning is understood, making your and my reading- ‘all X is Y’- incorrect for their dialect.
So, again, this is not based on the soundest of evidence, but in the absence of harder evidence my experience leads me to intuit the things I’ve said.
“‘Sex is spiritual’ as a natural-language utterance is not equivalent to the logical propositions ‘all sex is spiritual’” How so?
Because that’s not always what people mean when they say ‘sex is spiritual’, or anything else in that form, as evidenced by the fact that people are sometimes asked or compelled to clarify that they meant ‘all sex is spiritual’. Without clear context, the listener is unsure. Also, take the sentence “Sex is spiritual and sex is not spiritual”; the word ‘and’ is a close-if-not-perfect equivalent of the logical operator AND, but despite this the conjunction of ‘sex is spiritual’ and ‘sex is not spiritual’ does not seem to be a contradiction.
It may be true that ‘all [noun] is [modifier]’ is sometimes the preferred reading of ‘[noun] is [modifier]’, but I have a pretty strong intuition that this preference is not universal. In race theory they talk about ‘dichromatism’ as a fundamental aspect of whiteness and white thought. Dichromatism, as far as my limited understanding of the concept goes, is a pattern of conflating semantic opposition with logical negation, and a related pattern of separating nuanced discussions into mutually exclusive extremes. One frequently-stated formulation is the belief that a thing and its opposite (not its negation) cannot both be true or cannot coexist. In this case, the statements ‘Sex is spiritual’ and ‘sex is non-spiritual’, while opposites, are both true and are not contradictory because they are not equivalent to ‘all sex is spiritual’ and ‘no sex is spiritual’. Again, see the sentence used above.
I figured out what was bugging me about that 'sex is not spiritual post'.
I’m still a ways from being able to actually verbalize it, though.
It has something to do with supernatural thought being a means to express the psychological state of ecstasy? And ecstasy as a state is characterized by supernatural thought, a completely irrational mode of being- its original meaning has something to do with possession by a deity. One interacts with and fervently believes in entities and powers that do not exist outside of the ephemeral world of the ecstatic. And there’s nothing inherently wrong with that? So some people’s understanding of sex, and other situations involving extreme states of mind, may indeed be inherently spiritual. And, contrary to widespread belief, “Sex is spiritual” as a natural-language utterance is not equivalent to the logical propositions “all sex is spiritual” or “no sex is non-spiritual”.
You kind of can’t just dismiss the ecstatic state, and other psychological phenomena associated with and often explained within religion. I don’t mean you have to say that the things people believe in an altered state, or in any state, of consciousness aren’t subject to criticisms, but you do have to accept that these phenomena are a real part of the human condition, and I would ask you to consider the possibility that many irrational modes of thought have value, if in nothing else, in their beauty.
This has been an incoherent commentary on anti-theism, and I guess also sex and religion and culture-bound modes of communication.
That is sleazebag for ‘getting a kiss’. The ‘close’ part is to make it sound like you’re a businessman and successfully made a sale instead of it being the romantic/sexual/intimate emotionally satisfying exchange of affection it is. Because sex/romance/and stuff aren’t about FUN, they’re about MANIPULATING WOMEN INTO DOING THINGS YOU WANT!
If you ever have a free day to seethe with rage, you should look up PUAs.
Imagine, if you will, a boy and a girl going on a date. Boy arrives in his car to his date’s door. He greets her parents, sits and talks with them for a while, then leaves after promising not to bring her home too late. They go to the pharmacy to get some milkshakes, then go to the diner and buy some songs on the jukebox for dancing.
Then they go to a movie. When the exciting part starts, the boy shyly places his arm on the back of her seat. She shyly lays her head on his shoulder.
When the movie’s over, he drives her home and escorts her to her door. There, under the porchlight, they exchange their ‘I had a good time’ -s and she places a single kiss on his cheek. After she goes inside, he blushes fervently and touches the spot on his cheek left by her lipstick, and whispers to himself,