Jump to content

What's with the ads?

Pam in CT

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Pam in CT last won the day on November 15

Pam in CT had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

37,908 Excellent


About Pam in CT

  • Rank
    Qualified Bee Keeper

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Reading, writing, gardening, taking (not especially good) pictures, knitting. Not interested in: ironing

Recent Profile Visitors

479 profile views
  1. Pam in CT

    Is this 2018? Someone tell this woman

    re voter suppression of "liberals" vs voter suppression of black voters specifically Does it make a material difference? Her full words on the video are a little hard to hear particularly in the very beginning, but the text gleaned that I've seen in media accounts (WaPo here, Politico here) is and -- again, as with "public hanging" -- Hyde-Smith is not denying that she said those words. She is without ambiguity saying maybe making it harder for our opponents to vote is a good thing. Isn't that enough, to evaluate her on? If your worldview is Colorblind Doctrine, she's saying it's OK to suppress constitutional rights so long as it's our opponents. If your worldview is that racism is real, she's saying it's OK to suppress constitutional rights in a manner that disproportionally affects minorities. To my mind, either one is enough to go on, KWIM? I don't need to divine what's going on inside her heart. The plain sense of her words at face value is enough. Espy's response, FWIW, was Colorblind: it did not explicitly speak in racial terms either; rather it invoked Mississippi's long and bloody history of voter suppression. While anyone who knows anything at all about Mississippi history well knows that voter suppression in the state *was* explicitly racial, that's not where he chose to go; he focused on the length of that (still, obviously) ongoing struggle and its bloodiness. Evoking its pain and not-funniness, but not emphasizing its race. to which Hyde-Smith promptly dug in to the classic JK defense, whattsamatter can't take a joke? ... ... along with the equally classic out-of-state agitators trope. You really need to divine what's in her heart? At this point, Round 4? (1="public hanging," 2="ridiculous," 3="maybe we want to make voting a little more difficult, and I think that's a great thing") I do not. By Round 4, her ACTUAL UNCONTESTED WORDS DIRECT FROM HER MOUTH AND HER OWN TWEETIN' FINGERS are well and good enough.
  2. Pam in CT

    Is this 2018? Someone tell this woman

    Sorry! I don't know about a message. I find it strangely mesmerizing -- who's taking the video? Why would anyone possible aim a camera at a cat coming out the gate? Why doesn't the guy on the corner the rat & cat tussle on by seem the slightest bit fazed? What propels a rat to chase a cat, anyway -- what could the rat's PURPOSE possibly be? But I'm definitely also a sucker for the caption. Cuz I've lived in NYC, and I know from NYC rats, and, it's funny.
  3. Pam in CT

    Is this 2018? Someone tell this woman

    Agreed. It's a cat, not a kitten, but perhaps you'll enjoy...
  4. Pam in CT

    Is this 2018? Someone tell this woman

    re narrowed range of "acceptable" discourse Yes, you've discussed this in a couple of rounds on de-platforming dynamics, and I largely agree. Particularly on university campuses, where based on my kids' reports a narrowing of "acceptable" discourse does seem to be taking place, compared to my own tenure. When I was in college, folks like Milo or Bannon trooped through all the time. Some kids protested without actual disruption of the presenter's actual ability to speak (wearing black bands, or showing up and turning backs to the speaker, that sort of thing) but the more common approach was to simply not go, if you didn't want to hear what they had to say. I'm not sure in the wider context of the faux-anonymous inter webs it's an Overton issue, exactly -- it seems to me that every conceivable viewpoint can finds its audience in some corner of the web, and the very vast majority can find voice right on mainstream Twitter -- as it is one of self-sorting into echo chambers, every-man-is-a-viewpoint-island. And thereafter, in the relatively few, faux-anonymized points of contact across the chasm, yeah, this language that has just exploded, "FOR SHAME!!" "Disgusting!" "Disgraceful!!" etc. Which is new, this language of shame, ascribed to ideas, by strangers who are only encountering one another in imaginary space. I find that language not just counterproductive as you say (though it is certainly that, too) but also quite weird. I do agree with planks and eyes. The limitation with "y'all do you, and we'll do us" is that reconciliation does require interaction across the Us-Them chasm.
  5. re ubiquity of cell phones / cameras has effect as well There's actually something quite real to this. Back when my husband and I toted actual cameras around, we only had cameras for special events like birthdays / weddings, or on vacation. Our "handheld" videocamera was like 15 pounds, hauled in a padded bag that didn't fit in the undersea space on a plane. Now everyone has camera & video capacity right in their pocket. That has made an enormous difference, for better and for worse.
  6. Pam in CT

    Is this 2018? Someone tell this woman

    Timely late-breaking addition to Dan Crenshaw's discussion of "outrage culture" and Bradley Cambells's of "honor culture" vs "dignity culture"... and how each of those can "raise the stakes" so as to make productive engagement across various chasms harder... ... here is David French today in the National Review (a longtime conservative in a conservative-leaning outlet), parsing a "trigger the libs" culture that he argues not merely "raises the stakes" so as to make difficult engagement more difficult, but also directly creates an "entry point" among conservatives for white supremacy to flourish: French goes on to draw a line between this hardened own-the-libs defiance to declining church affiliation and increased divorce rates among conservatives, which, I dunno, maybe. But he closes with this:
  7. re role of speed in exacerbating both dissemination of content and backlash to it That is an interesting insight. I am very aware how slowly I process certain things -- the difficult things -- compared to my husband and eldest in particular.
  8. re Bret Weinstein/ Evergreen State Gracious, that could absolutely be an episode of Dear White People (which, BTW, #Genius). Here's the NYT for another take on it -- very different orientation from the Washington Times, but both outlets come out in largely the same place on this one. Right, this raises the root cause reality that in the US nearly all employment (outside of union-contracted and a handful of other cases) is "at will." Employers can fire for virtually any reason (except reasons tied to protected class-status), or for no reason at all. So as both a practical matter and a legal one, employers CAN fire for "poor judgment" as could be exemplified in social media posts like the one gardenmom5 cited, or for content "not in keeping with the image we want to present to clients" or for content like this that came to the employer's attention, or for no stated reason at all.
  9. re full spectrum of consequences Well, I guess there's a mighty wide range, isn't there. TM33 first raised the subject in the context of university staff evoking strong feedback from students, and concomitant restriction on the range of viewpoints within the university setting; and over on the Poltics board we've hashed out similar "deplatforming" issues. Dopey stuff from long-ago juvenile eras seems to be a somewhat different issue; posted self-generated CONTENT on political / ideological views yet a third... and then self-aggrandizing "look what a tough guy I really am" judgment lapses like this yet a fourth. Hard to figure how to sort... yet as a practical IRL matter, all can have employment consequences...
  10. Multiple members of my extended family have fully open pages. My adult kids are semi-open. And my friends and fellow townspeople... heavens, they do whatever they want. I guess I see it differently -- they're grownups, they can set their settings however they see fit, as works for them. As a practical matter I'm not chasing down the social media presence of everyone I know, straining to find untagged pictures I'm in and asking them calmly to take them down. Who has time for that, and in any event I'm not even ON most social media platforms, just twitter, and, well, here. And I, uh, try to refrain from racist posts that could be screenshot. But dopey pictures? Super stupid expressions? Bathing suits? Sipping a beer? Of this there are plenty sloshing around out there. If sipping a beer is an employment deal-breaker to some, or vegetarianism or Judaism or gay pride or all sorts of other inferences that could gleaned from the social media of my family and friends, well, that's out there too. (BTW I've "liked" a lot of posts on this thread because the ideas expressed are INTERESTING or thought provoking; not meaning to indicate I "like" job loss or other consequences discussed.)
  11. Pam in CT

    Is this 2018? Someone tell this woman

    OK that deserves a gold medal for Digging In.
  12. re public v private social media There are limits, though. My friends and family members and fellow townspeople are free to publish my picture doing whatever Dopey Stuff they see me do. Perhaps the "tags" won't stick if my own settings are private, but the image itself is out there forever. A prospective employer is unlikely to look up my kids' and other family members' pages... but any journalist / investigator / nosy neighbor could google their names and do that, in a heartbeat, no hacking skills necessary. My husband has a prurient streak (no hacking skills whatsoever, just a solid google game) and REGULARLY delivers up hilariously embarrassing photos of all sorts of people, public and private, whatever the settings. There is no privacy. That ship has sailed.
  13. Pam in CT

    Is this 2018? Someone tell this woman

    I do think it makes a difference -- it's immensely CLEARER -- when the dynamic is individual-to-individual, like Davidson-Crenshaw, vs individual-to-group, like Hyde-Smith. I cannot imagine what universal public absolution could possibly look like, in the latter case, even if it were plausible. ______ That blanket denial / all-or-nothing dynamic, as if an admission of ANYTHING would amount to fodder for all time, is undoubtedly a real barrier to discussion and progress and healing around race.
  14. particular challenges, and pendulum swings, in educational environments The academic environment certainly is where the most pressure around "de-platforming" for expressions of political / ideological views seems to have built -- that's the argument made in the article you linked in the other thread; and Stella has spoken of this here and over on the Poltics board. I do see a difference in the legal issues and ethical responsibilities of educational institutions serving kids (where the students are minors; where the students are obliged to be there; where the schools are obliged to serve them; where bullying really does result in deaths), versus institutions at the university level, where the maturity level may only be a very few marginal degrees different (LOL, says she who's in the throes of waning-off-parenting of kids just that age) but the range of expression should to my mind be as unfettered as possible. If the full range of ideas isn't represented in universities I can't imagine where we actually expect it to flourish, KWIM?
10% OFF
We respect your privacy.You’ll hear about new products, special discounts & sales, and homeschooling tips. *Coupon only valid for first-time registrants. Coupon cannot be combined with any other offer. Entering your email address makes you eligible to receive future promotional emails.