DonkeyCigars

For whatever it is worth (especially coming from me), you sound like a great teacher.

And this is evident in the first 25 pages of this thread and I was as guilty as everyone else for not really knowing what it is. Outside of you, I don't know how many folks on this site went to fully funded Phd programs in the humanities or post on thegradcafe as that is a very narrow interest and career path (and narrowing as tenure/teaching positions in the humanities is all but a lottery ticket at this point), and as you even mentioned you weren't aware until well after your research and reading phase in your own program.

Awesome post. Thank you for the reply. That was great— and kinda got me fired up. I struggle with a deep rooted cynicism I think which can give me tunnel vision and I appreciate the Dutch uncle of a post here to get help me tilt my head a bit and try and look at it from a different angle.

I just finished this article, thanks for sharing it. I will admit something here-- I didn't know the full story of Emmett Till. I thought Emmett Till was dragged by a truck in Jasper, Texas and died that way and so reading this I was at first confused but quickly understood why. Again thanks for sharing and it's an interesting read for those who might not know a lot about this and how relatively recent it was. For example, the lady who was ogled that was the catalyst for this whole thing is still alive today and she went on record talking about it, but they won't release her story or comments until she's dead (which makes me think she gave a lot of details that might incriminate herself or family or others).

Not at all. I think it's interesting The New Yorker said what a lot of people were thinking, and in such a succinct and brilliant way. I mean if you look at this thread and we can all be honest, I think it looks like the following: 1) CRT is not just a modality differentiation of learning new material for the sake of learning the new material as some have suggested (e.g. "why are you afraid of just simply teaching the full context of everything, etc.") 2) The real aim of CRT is change-- change that is disruptive and/or in tension and conflict with the status quo 3) People denying that CRT is about aforementioned change are either ignorant or lying, which then leads to 4) It is actually quite smart for conservatives and people of privilege who stand to lose to get out in front of this and nip it in the bud (i.e. create a bogeyman out of it and kill it before it can mature and it's too unwieldy to control). Which is why, 5) Pro-CRT folks who are trying to characterize people as stupid and overreacting and just ignorant of what CRT are wrong. The faction of conservatives that has made a big deal of CRT and armed their constituents with political tools to neuter it and have mobilized to get the talking points out and poison the term in their communities have actually outmaneuvered the liberals on this political battle. 6) Denying CRT was always a Trojan Horse to expedite and implement political change was lying. It would have been an amazing political gambit that would have been studied for ages because it's a brilliant tactic-- it would have been studied like a revolution, the way that CRT could quietly destabilize the status quo if folks weren't more forward thinking about the consequences. Edit to add: Dahobbs, I don't say any of this as a pro or anti-CRT person these days. I've landed on CRT as a neutral topic and a curiosity-- will it be an anchor topic for years to come? Will it evolve or morph into something else? Is it a fleeting issue that we will look back upon as occupying 15 minutes of political fame? I'll be an interested observer.

This excerpt from The New Yorker encapsulates in a paragraph what I took a page trying to say, insomuch as why it’s dishonest and not smart to say “CRT is just about learning and getting the full story— why are people using it as a bogey man how politically stupid!” — Ultimately, the liberal defense of critical race theory ignores an aspect of the movement that many of its founders considered fundamental: the “desire not merely to understand the vexed bond between law and racial power but to changeit,” as the editors of “Critical Race Theory” wrote. Many scholars, myself included, might debate the attainability of this goal—the subtitle of Derrick Bell’s book “Faces at the Bottom of the Well,” from 1992, is, after all, “The Permanence of Racism.” But the transformative aims of critical race theory, inspired by the as-yet-unrealized dreams of Jim Crow’s children, have been awfully undersold in the current liberal punditsphere. Critical race theory is not merely about making a better historical document but about movement toward the way things could be. If there is anything valid about conservatives’ cooked-up attack, it’s their sense that a free accounting of race in society cannot help but imply an unmaking of the rule of law as we know it. And, in that case, the influential liberal class might have good reason to diminish the movement’s teachings. As Bell and as his peers knew well, reformers can be corrosive, too.

I agree; we don't even have our 4th or 5th most optimal team configuration in Tokyo. Who cares. If we can't care enough to get a team out there that wants to win, why should we care if they win or lose?

WASHINGTON, July 26 (Reuters) - Sales of new U.S. single-family homes tumbled to a 14-month low in June and sales in the prior month were weaker than initially estimated, the latest signs that expensive lumber and shortages of other building materials were hurting the housing market. The third straight monthly decline in sales reported by the Commerce Department on Monday followed news last week that permits for future homebuilding dropped to a nine-month low in June while home resales rebounded modestly. Higher production costs are forcing builders to scale back, keeping supply tight and boosting home prices to the detriment of first-time buyers. New home sales fell 6.6% to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 676,000 units last month, the lowest level since April 2020, the Commerce Department said on Monday. May's sales pace was revised down to 724,000 units from the previously reported 769,000 units.

The thing about Ep 1 of Season 2 that seemed weird to me, Where was Rupert? It's been what? 6 months since Season 1 ended? Didn't he get married and now owns 3% of the club? You telling me the guy who was meddling before wouldn't be doubly meddling now that he owns a stake? I feel like Rupert vs Ted/Rebecca/Richmond is the main conflict as he's such an obvious baddie and they set it up as the substantial risk (well monied, influential, etc.) that is always around the corner from striking and upending the whole Ted charade but he's been mysteriously absent, okay. That felt like a big miss to me.

Binged Ted Lasso and saw the trailers and have been watching this and also enjoy it-- surprisingly!

These are my thoughts too and begat from brilliant writers is a character that will only work if the actor expertly executes them, which is why Jason S. is nails for me and one of the rare moments where I think the actor is doing a lot of the heavy lifting-- a lesser actor or character here means little as all the best writing won't land regularly and seem consistent, but too try-hard in between the obvious scenes that would work with anyone (e.g. darts scene). I binged this series prior to season 2 and think this might be the best television I've seen in many, many years. It's refreshing, as others have noted, but it brings to mind what David Foster Wallace was trying to usher in before his death, the ideas behind the "New Sincerity" movement. It strikes me that Ted Lasso is the television offering of this and it could not be more appropriate to both the times we've been living through (and continue to) and as something I think DFW would be proud to to call a lighthouse of the movement. New Sincerity is such a counterintuitive punk rock idea because it's challenging you to be nice. To risk being sappy and kind in a world where edge and cynicism is fulfilling and comforting. I'll let DFW say it best: And ultimately this is what Ted Lasso has done:

Makes sense why we are doing a terrible job of NIL, I guess. It's our culture.

Just watched Nobody. I thought it was awesome. If you are comparing it to John Wick, then yea, it's gonna be disappointing, but if you view it as it's own thing it's great.

I read a book for the first time on an eReader last month; not as bad as I expected once I got used to it.

Can you sell without being current? Anyways, that's a good point on foreclosures-- maybe it's more about the evictions of renters and how that might impact supply outside of just the rental market.

I do NOT think Biden is any more or less suffering from dementia than Trump the Elder. I do, however, think that a lot of folks misunderstand or misdiagnose or simply overlook Trump's very obvious nervous system/developmental disorders. I think it is easy to do so because his personality disorders are so robust and pervasive that they overshadow the root cause and make him present as demented. The bottom line is Trump is a very sick man, on a number of levels, but I do think his deeper issue is not accounted for. I also think he gets no sympathy for having the disabilities he has because his actions and life is so nasty.

I think that makes sense, but I also think out of this will arise a cottage industry of authorized/tier1/platinum organizations who are credentialed and certified to work on certain products and probably be acquired by the parent company or a product portfolio company. It's just services business, no different than consulting and advisory services just with a mechanical flavor versus ethereal knowledge work.

Serious question. what is the counter-argument from the anti-right to repair (e.g. the OEM's)? I am trying to think through the logic; outside of the money and profit centers for warranty/repair and planned obsolescence and upsells what is the thinking? For example, is John Deere saying that we don't want unlicensed and scammy people ripping off our customers by pretending they know anything about the trade secret/state of the art awesomeness that makes John Deere the trusted and loved brand that farmers think of when they think awesome farming? Is it essentially a branding and VOC issue with how they will be associated?

no different than foreclosures, which drive up supply and help the overall market as well. Most evictions repairs, especially at valuations today, won't be but a blip on the radar

Following up on this idea I read this, this AM: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/22/sales-of-existing-homes-rise-slightly-as-more-listings-finally-hit-the-market.html I know this thread has an Austin-centric point of view so let me clarify my question about supply opening up with the eviction moratorium lifting and prices having peaked is for the macro housing market in America, I think Austin is unique in it's rowdy real estate market that will continue to go to the moon.

I got a Galaxy Opal Isaiah Thomas and Dark Matter Dame Lillard. oh wait, wrong thread...

I love his equating the radical left who want to defund police with the alt-right q losers who believe in insane conspiracy theories. That’s a strong centrist flex and Joe is feeling emboldened and I’m here for all of it!

This review seems opposite and good: https://gizmodo.com/m-night-shyamalans-old-is-one-of-the-movie-visceral-i-1847283013 Seems like this movie is going to be very polarizing in a love it or hate it kind of way and won't be much middle ground.

On literally 4 or 5 occasions in my life I've seen people pass out and fall asleep in front of me in the drive-thru line at a 24 hour Whataburger or JITB, between hours 2-4am. The good thing is that if you are eating JITB or Whataburger between the hours of 2-5am and not drunk, you are probably drunk adjacent (i.e. stoned or could easily be a drunk person but things didn't go to plan for that night) and so you are likely to help by honking the horn and banging on the window and getting them to move up rather than call the cops.

So someone pressure test this for me on what I'm hearing. It essentially goes like this: Housing market will actually come down to earth (at least supply side) based off of two things. 1 is a minor thing; the incremental gains in supply chain issues that have been a bottleneck will get marginally better. The other is a bigger deal, which is that once the eviction/repossessing moratorium is over (which I understand is in a matter of weeks), folks who are currently occupying a home but would otherwise have been forced to leave/sell/evacuate, will bring more supply back into the equation. Right now there are a bunch of homes occupied that won't be occupied in the increasingly near-term, is the thesis at least. Thoughts?