And to be a political tool to obstruct anything "inconvenient" to talk about. I know that the psychiatrist at Yale is talking about racial topics, and the OK bill (and others) is trying to control racial teaching, so these two things are related, but they are not the same issue. If we want to learn from history and not repeat it, we have to actually...teach history. White washing it (hah) isn't going to do anyone a service and longterm is going to perpetuate and strengthen the problems some are so intent on pretending don't exist. That doesn't mean we need to take on personal guilt, as much as personal responsibility to not let it happen again.

Ok: if it's presenting as the internal monologue and experience of someone oppressed, I get it. If it's given as a psychiatrist talking about possible feelings of a patient, I get it. But when it gets to the parts where she is talking about white people being useless on this topic -- and, incidentally, anyone that isn't pure minority, and I'm making an assumption that even some minorities aren't the right type -- then we are getting into a more difficult scenario. So either she went outside of her actual topic purpose or that wasn't the purpose. Given the title of the actual talk I am not so quick to think she was only asked or expected to be giving a talk on the oppressed person's state of mine. I'm afraid I can't find a full transcript of the talk to get a more accurate view, or any fliers/summaries given before the talk that would better outline the purpose. So I may not understand the full situation, that true, and thanks for giving me more context. But that there are at least things not explained away even if she was presenting how their patients might feel. much later eta: strike out above, the original link from OP had a flier advertising the event. Link again here for the scroll-avoidant. The purpose stated was to educate, so based on the quotes given plus the stated intent of the objectives on the flyer, I am not sympathetic to the intent of the speaker. I think the first objective is correct, and even maybe laudable. The rest I consider flawed "proofs" that are being actively taught, not just a sharing of experience, and so I don't think it can be excused as just "presenting...understanding how their patients might feel." Not that my opinion matters, lol.

I mean, the fact that she has experienced racism and has formed her opinions based on that is true. And awful in and of itself. To erase me and say that I am the problem because I'm not the right "type" of minority isn't going to fix it. What she's experienced is inexcusable and needs to be called out. Feeling anger and having fantasies about anger can be cathartic. Being heard about your experiences is validating and needs to be done. Encouraging and calling for the less-than-human treatment of others is not a solution. And should not be presented as a reasonable way to solve things. eta: also, I'd expect this from us "regular folk", not a psychiatrist. I think that is what makes me a little more outspoken on this: as a psychiatrist giving a lecture on this topic in this manner, she isn't bringing light to the issue as much as she is advocating for a way to act, giving her expert medical opinion on what should be done. This doesn't seem like a psychologically healthy process; if I said this type of stuff in a therapy session, my counselor/psychologist would see it as something to work through, not as a sign I'm finished.

For those of you/us who can't use volume for whatever reason, here's articles. [I'm linking 3 because I don't know individual paper bias' and don't want others to assume I chose a source based on that. Here's the top 3 google search results.] Yale is choosing to distance themselves with a statement and make the lecture video available to Yale-only people with a trigger warning. While I'd prefer a stronger condemnation but not restricting the access, this is better than trying to erase from the internet. https://news.yahoo.com/yale-restricts-access-lecture-psychiatrist-160557742.html https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/yale-says-lecture-fantasy-about-shooting-white-people-antithetical-school-n1269884 https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation-world/ct-aud-nw-nyt-yale-psychiatrist-shooting-white-people-20210607-6bu54qqttze6bgn3wtgb6vncpq-story.html I think the internet culture of over-sharing is actually a positive thing in this regard: things said to small but influential audiences is no longer being hidden. Especially in the medical profession, this seems a big deal. I'm concerned about the culture at the school/s that would allow someone with these views to talk and not be immediately condemned or isolated in the first place: waiting only for a media storm. I mean, the title of the talk should have been red flags enough before hosting; talks DH has given in a less prestigious industry and to less prestigious groups went through a 3 step vetting process, so I don't see too much wiggle room. Sure you give experts their head, but I'd expect some touch points before speaking at a place like Yale. eta: It wasn't a "Yale psychiatrist" --> she was invited to speak at Yale but has no other affiliation there; I don't see Yale listed as a school she attended.

Hmm. Not to get too into the weeds here, but: 1. "Jut pointing out the obvious that leaky roofs fixed early require less repair than leaky roofs left unrepaired." <-- agree, not blame shifting. But that's not really all you said, so the "just pointing out" is not entirely accurate. 2. "If she really wanted G'ma back in her home she could have scraped together the cash" <--- uh oh, getting a little close to blame shifting with that "she could have". Some people would say square in Blame Shift Territorial Bounds, but I think there's wiggle room on interpretation. 3. "AOC had the option to make those repairs... at least G'ma would not have a leaky roof and the further damage that has likely been done by now." <-- Now, this IS blame shifting because you are putting the onus for the repairs on a party not responsible for it, then saying their not doing the thing [that they are not required to do] caused more damage. [And you could fill in the ... I made with the rest of your post, I did it for brevity, but the point will still stand.] And again, you are focusing on the AOC's role in her Grandma's housing issue, when it is her not responsibility to fix, not her PLACE to fix since it isn't her house, and she may not have permission to fix. Also assumptions of how much it will cost to fix, other issues that may be blocking her/the family from being able to take action themselves, and again, ignoring that it is Not Her Responsibility. Also, you are downplaying the damage to just "a leaky roof" when we don't know the actual extent of damage (or maybe you guys do, but I don't) in an effort to make it seem like it would be easily done if they "really wanted to". This is, I regretfully inform you, blame shifting. Instead of focusing on the fact that others who ARE responsible for fixing it "the last 4 years to make the needed repairs" as you so rightly said, and still have not. So, I have to ask if you think FEMA has done the best possible job here, and that's why you don't want to address that? Do you think that the government action (or inaction) in this case is justifiable? Or if not the best possible, at least understandable, or adequate? I think, if you want to absolve the government of any blame here, the better take would be "It's really HARD to make these repairs to so many houses in only 4 years with the amount and type of damage done". But that would mean that individual citizens would be running into the same problems, without the backing, funds, coordination, experience, ability to whole-scale changes, and gravitas of The United States Government Department of FEMA to swing around and get things done faster. Again: AOC's particular Grandma's house is not the issue, it's a red herring. Her point was about the government's role and job so far in handling the disaster relief and repair efforts.

At this age, you are truly the hero in your story, and many (most?) kids/young adults still don't see the larger picture of how their actions are going to come across, or the poise to explain themselves/smooth the situation. [Speaking generally, not about these 2 examples] I would have been very uncomfortable if our valedictorian got up and spoke for us and gave the speech the young woman gave, because as the valedictorian she is speaking for the class. At least, that was my understanding: the valedictorian is there as a representative of the graduating class, not as an individual speaking only on behalf of themselves. I would have probably felt compelled to leave, or felt guilty later that I didn't. On the other hand, any subject she spoke about that wasn't just "rah rah go us" was going to tick off someone or another. I think she gave a heartfelt speech on a topic that meant a lot to her, and I understand that she felt so attacked and robbed of rights that it was worth the rule breaking. At times we're called on to act courageously in the face of adversity: I think she felt this was her moment and her way to do so. So I won't condemn her for doing it, as much as I'm glad she was not speaking on my behalf. If any classmate could get up and give their own speech, regardless of grades or parent donor or sports record, it would feel different. But, it's a graduation, not open mic night. So, my solution is to end all of the speeches and add in an ice cream bar instead! (And wait for the anit-icecream pro-cookies crowd to get out their pitchforks, lol)

While I'm not the person you quoted, The man didn't start the account to pay for the repairs as much as to shame a political opponent; I do not believe his intentions were pure. the money for repairs was a byproduct of a political stunt. We don't know if AOC had the option to make the repairs. However, AOC affirmed that the family did take care of the needs of their grandmother in other ways. Any extra damage done because of the length of time is not on them, that is shifting blame. I have no idea if FEMA would approve of said receipts, or say it cost too much, reject it for not being a whatever vendor, etc. Maybe they would, even after a long time, but I wouldn't make the assumption it would just "work out eventually". Again, your assertion of what AOC/family could have done or should have done does not excuse the government ineptitude/neglect/corruption that has led to this situation in the first place. THAT was what AOC was addressing. Even if AOC fixed her grandmother's house, this would STILL be an issue. I couldn't care less if AOC or Walsh or the tooth fairy started the GFM or didn/n't make repairs to a family home, or if the "tables were turned." My reactions would be the same and the fact you think that someone's reactions must be based on their political bias is telling in itself. I'm a conservative without a home since 2015/2016, I don't ned to carry water for any of these people. Or I was what was known as a conservative, anyway, IDK if I generally want to be labeled that anymore, even though most of my views haven't changed all that much.

Fixing it for just one person doesn't address the larger systemic issue. I don't really know the details of whose "fault" the larger systemic issue is (seeing as this seems to be a partisan spat), but by saying "your family should just take care of you" is just deflecting from government ineptitude and/or corruption, and does nothing to actually solve what's really the problem. So no, I wouldn't accept the money, or if I did it would immediately be donated to a different charity/organization that could help the entire neighborhood/community. At that level of helplessness/disaster/poverty, every man for himself doesn't go very far; we're all in it together. Money can't fix everything. It seems a lot of times to break it more.

I have mixed feelings on this. I was 20 when I married DH, who was 24. We have had some really bad times together, but it wasn't the age that was the problem, it was undiagnosed mental health issues. But I was ok and ready to be married at 20, that's just who I was. And marrying earlier (after being together for almost 3 years beforehand) we grew together: the neurological changes we went through pre-25, we were able to grow similarly and I think that's helped us overall. Also, my parents tried to stop the marriage, including trying to stop the priest from agreeing, which did nothing to convince me otherwise and really just disregard any advice on the topic. They did shoot themselves in the foot; and since it's been a successful marriage, the shot foot is still bleeding 17 years later. On the other hand, I'd be concerned if daughter got engaged at the age I did. Not necessarily because it can't work out, but because the mental health issues that may not be known at that age and won't show until more adulthood has been experienced, and there is a chance to address issues away from a family of origin who may be masking/denying it. But on the original hand, these plans aren't for next month, which would be alarm bells, but for in a couple years. I mean, so much can change, but also it shows they aren't being immature in their outlook, which is a good sign overall.

Just as a thought, I'd make sure your desk is close to one of the units. Not just for you but for your computer. We went 2 years without any AC in this house and it completely fried up a desktop system, to the point it had to be replaced. It's the main reason we got a portable AC for this summer (and just for one room). I know AZ is different than your area, where the humidity is a factor and not just straightforward heat, so idk how the factors into computer life, but don't want you to have to find out the hard way like we did, lol.

Just adding to the masked-in-store post-change anecdata: DH went to the store today, this is the largest grocery store (aside from Walmart) for ~75 miles in a county with 44% vaccination rate. He said maybe 1 in 10 customers were wearing masks, and it was busy. He is vaccinated and wore his, and included himself for the 1 in 10.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B087CQVC9G/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o08_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 This is what we just bought, we have no other AC in the house. does well for 1 large room. Does roll around, but you'd have to change the window attachment part for each room -or- get a bunch of the hoses and set it up in the rooms you're using (and close off the unused hoses). Depending on layout, I probably would just leave in one room and point in the general direction of the others, or get it as close to the door as possible.

The thing I hate the most about this thread is that on December 20th I won't be able to be *shocked!* that Christmas is in 5 days. With this monthly tick-tick-tick down, all of my normal holiday ignorance has no excuse and I'll have to have a tree up in the normal fashion instead of on the 24th while the kids are sleeping and I still haven't found any wrapping paper. Sigh, another holiday tradition ruined! So I'm going to need you to write a blog article with photos on this, so I can print and show to my DH as a totally acceptable and "all the cool kids" are doing it plan, because if I now have to have my tree up on time I can't also be expected to take it down, LOL.

Wait...you're supposed to look GOOD in tie dye?! I thought it was the type of thing where you are embracing the brightness and fun and sacrificing your dignity. Source: looks ridiculous in tie dye but wears it anyway 😛

Us! Every sickness that comes in the house stays in the house until we have all caught it. Sometimes with the exception of DH, but he will hermit himself, take all the vitamins, treat us like lepers, lol. But if one kid shows symptoms more than just a tummy ache for longer than 12 hours, I do a heavy grocery trip, get 6 boxes of tissues and prepare for it. If we're "lucky", everyone gets it at the same time and not daisy-chaining out for a month. (And we do have high nutrient standards and hygiene, my kids are just expert sharers I guess, lol. Also, close quarters.) I think that's why I get so irritated when I see other families out and about with a sick kid saying "oh it's just a runny nose" or whatever, because I know it's going to wipe us out if we get it.

Yes, there's a definite mindset difference, or approach difference. And just a knowledge difference. Looking back on my own upbringing compared to my friends, my parents simply didn't know what advantages I could be given, while friends whose parents were born and raised with better circumstances took those advantages as just a given. Also, people tend to attribute their successes to their hard work and smarts, and their failures to bad luck. Luck's role in our successes is usually undervalued. --- Also with generational trauma, I think what we consider "rising above" or overcoming it is not always what it looks like. DH is working really, really hard not to pass on his trauma to the kids. I mean, there's some passed down that he can't help, but what he is in control of he is adamant won't be given to them. But it is taking a tremendous toll on him to do so, not just mental or emotional but physically as well. And frankly, financially/career-wise. So on the outside it may not look like he's successfully moved past it, but really, he's not passing the buck on and doing what's best *for him*, which would be deny the problem exists and act as his parents modeled. Behave by Sapolsky and The Body Keeps the Score have been really helpful for him to come to terms with what the fallout may look like for him and why it's happening. When you're doing the right thing and seemingly getting punished for it, it can be a hard pill to swallow. [Not to say that anyone with bad childhood histories/generational trauma and also outwardly successful is hiding the problem or in denial or taking it out on their kids, just offering a different perspective]

Yeah, that's true. I put "worst case of not getting the vaccine" but only "worse case of Covid", not worst-case for this reason. For me, weighing the vaccine against 2 weeks sick with Covid -- certainly not an easy infection but far from the crazy stuff -- would probably be where I would set my thing. the 50% mark of worse-ness, as it were 🙂. I should have explained myself better though, thanks for pointing out.

I've said something similar to this. I was saying in a lot of anti-vaccine media they are looking solely at the vaccine's cons list in order to make a decision whether or not to take the vaccine. However, I was stating that a proper risk-benefit of the vaccine should include Covid's risks as well: you can't come to a good decision on the vaccine without looking at the risks of Covid. (I said it much better in the original post I think, lol). It was pointed out that it is not an either/or scenario [because you won't 100% get Covid if you don't get the vaccine], which is technically true, but I was discussing risk analysis, and in terms of risk/benefit the worst-case scenarios need to be taken into account, and the worst-case scenario of not getting the vaccine is getting Covid, and so Covid's likely worse case scenarios are valid to weigh in the decision. (It may not be my comment you were remembering, but in case it helps trigger for you where you did see it...I've spent days before looking for a random post and it drives me nuts, lol)

[this thread is moving too fast for long replies, lol, but I simply can't do these pithy things y'all are!] I'm sorry, but I do think my parents are a good representation of a substantial part of the society who simply were not and are not concerned about precautions. They are more informed than I am, or you are, because they know it is a hoax and blown out of proportion (ah, the sweet smell of "did their own research"). You're right that they aren't being intentionally malicious but they are being obstinately obtuse and when it comes to others' lives I don't feel like there is a fig leaf to hide behind anymore on this subject. You don't need to read 40 research abstracts and follow daily news to know that masks help, social distancing helps, and we were asked to stop large gatherings because it helps. The messaging may not be clear on some details (new CDC recs a good example), but these broad strokes were definitely clear well before fall and holidays and are still clear today, so yeah, the fig leaf is too small. "I just want to see my family" is an understandable emotion. It is not a reasonable excuse to ignore reasonable precautions and prolong a worldwide pandemic that led (and continues to lead) to the death of millions of people. A lot of people did NOT "just see their family and do all the right things", so many people did NONE of the right things and not because they didn't KNOW about them, but because they didn't WANT to. I think a lot of people on the board think there aren't really people like this, or they are a vanishingly small amount, and so are feeling the need to defend vilified-others with the cry of #notallpeople (or #notallpeoplewhoarenthermits). And I do agree with you, it's really not everyone; I know a lot of people just want to live their lives and take reasonable precautions to not pass along Covid to others. Wanting to live and see loved ones is not a crime. But the point is #toomanypeople. This is a large number of people, no, they are not trying to do anything and sometimes actively try to sabotage measures, and no, they are not just ignorant or too tired at the end of the day to keep up with the news, they have actively decided to be this way even knowing that information. These are the people being called out, and rightfully so. By continuously giving this section of the population excuses and leniency, we aren't helping anyone and are making the situation worse for the actual people that are "trying to do all the right things" even if imperfectly.

MAYBE the alien's intent is educational! They started really showing themselves off in 1940's right? Coincidentally (wink wink) during Einstein and our modern physics renaissance. Maybe they were watching our scientific progress and going, "Oh. Oh no, they're totally going the wrong way here. Ugh. We need to demonstrate to them so they can get back on the right path! Quick, send some hover-zip-zap-ships, that'll surely show them!" And as time goes on they're like, "Their eyesight must be worse than we thought. Let's do some big light shows over some cities to make sure they got the message."

DH did sleep study, did not have sleep apnea. I don't remember if anything was actually recommended, it was more, "Nope, not sleep apnea.✌️" I sleep on the couch now, lol.

Maybe he thought she just went to visit her cowsins and didn't get worried until she hadn't moo-sied her way on home after a cowple days.

I want to move to wherever you all are living where people just mask. Throughout the entire pandemic, I have never been into a regular-sized store without seeing at least 1 person without a mask. Usually more, not just 1 or 2, but 5 or 6 and one time I counted 12. I have seen at least 4 people aggressively arguing with an employee about wearing masks. I have been called a sheep in the store for wearing a mask. At Safeway and Ace in particular the employees/managers were trying to enforce it and refused to check people out if they weren't wearing masks but that doesn't stop people from walking the aisles without masks. Our [red, rural] county's vaccine rate is at 42.1%. (Full disclosure, Our Infection rate is currently .72%, yay for us!) The main vaccine site in my area has had drive-thru no appointment necessary for at least the last 3 weeks and when I pass there is no line at all, only a couple cars in the post-shot waiting area. Vaccination was open to everything 16+ the last week of March (maybe the week before?). So while there are some that can't get it for reasons like transportation, etc., most likely everyone who wants it has. Other than maybe getting an ice cream + vax truck combo and trawling the neighborhoods, I don't think many outreach things will push that number significantly. So, I'm happy that some people think that with the CDC rec about vaccinated people will not change overall masking behavior of the unvaccinated. I want to move to where you are. I really have no expectation of that here and so will continue to mask to a) make others more comfortable b.) stop any spread I could still contribute to, and c) encourage others who actually should mask that it is still a thing. Back to the original question: My kids (all 12 and under) will still remain mostly at home and not leave without masks.

This is exactly what I was looking for years ago: white, 96", machine washable. Found it at pottery barn. Don't remember the exact type anymore but similar to https://www.potterybarn.com/products/emery-linen-grommet-drape-white/?pkey=ccurtains. We did get blackout backs for them because it was necessary for us (south facing in AZ) but they were a nice thickness on their own if you don't want total light block. eta: rods we got at Home Depot and matched color to the kitchen cabinet handles since it was partially in the kitchen. They were high enough no one really noticed the detail, lol. But get after the curtains: the current place I live (where I did not choose the curtains) has silver grommet curtains with black rods and it is surprisingly annoying, lol.

DH has bad allergies, so yeah I can see this being an issue in public gatherings. I don't want him left out because plants are trying to kill him. On the other hand, I'm suspicious of anyone showing symptoms in church and other places, even if they are wearing a shirt saying "I swear it's just allergies". Mostly because my MIL always had "just allergies" a few days before we would all come down with something.