ImTheCaptain
I disagree with you
why are so many people afraid to take a little test that says whether or not you may have a preference for something?
weird
weird
why are so many people afraid to take a little test that says whether or not you may have a preference for something?
weird
So...if you burn at the stake and succumb to either smoke inhalation or incineration, then your death is proof that you weren't a racist-by-implicit bias and you're exonerated posthumously.
If you do not burn at the stake, then you are a racist, and should be put to death.
If you admit your biases, you're biased.
If you don't, you're in denial.
Am I doing this right?
Those tests are dumb, just another look into the world of pseudo science that is sociology and psychology.
why are so many people afraid to take a little test that says whether or not you may have a preference for something?
weird
you don't want to find out your a republican do you? then what would everyone do. Trump would win in a landslide
Having implicit biases =/= being racist IMO. Some on the left probably disagree. I think everyone has these biases and it's just a matter of acknowledging they exist and having them in mind when you interact with others.
Having implicit biases =/= being racist IMO. Some on the left probably disagree. I think everyone has these biases and it's just a matter of acknowledging they exist and having them in mind when you interact with others.
Why? If it isn't even big enough to be conscious, what is wrong with having your life experiences impact your interactions? I thought we were supposed to embrace diversity.
You're*
Why? If it isn't even big enough to be conscious, what is wrong with having your life experiences impact your interactions? I thought we were supposed to embrace diversity.
Where I believe that JHMD and I do part ways is not on the existence of two-parent households, but in what I believe is the false comfort we take in resigning people's outcomes to them. I wish it were that simple.
I don't mean to speak for others, but what I hear many people saying lately is what I have long-felt, which is there comes a point in time when you are not helping with the "Yeah, but two-parent households" perma-rejoinder.
I don't expect the fragile OGB right (no, not all of you, and I suspect you know who you are (in each camp)) to be able to see this comparison, but it's a little like the "Yeah, but murders are going to happen anyway..." when it comes to gun violence. Yeah, we get it. Murders are bad, and they're going to stay bad. They're not likely to get better with age, but here's the thing: shooting up a school is also bad. Can we ever talk about that, or are we back to the start on the violence and murder in general?
Same story with two-parent households We get it, it's just not a policy plan, and it's not most* of the problem today and pragmatically, it's only some of the solution.
* Please, please, please read this word. Please.
I believe the issue arises when you have negative life experiences interacting with someone or something in the past and then allow that to color your choices in future interactions with someone or something in the same group, even if they're completely exclusive from one another.
Seems like these, while not perfect analogies, closely mirror one another on disagreements the right and left have on here.
Again, what is wrong with that? That is life experience. If I burn my hand on an electric range, is it wrong that I am hesitant to touch a propane grill?