transplantbillsfan

If a student has too typos in an otherwise thoughtful and well-written paper, they're meaningless. You've read enough of my stuff over on the Wall to understand those too typos were the exception, not the norm.

Has anyone watched The Passage? I realize it's a network TV show, but I'm 4 episodes in and really diggin it so far.

The 2 "to"s were typos. I was messing with you the times I said "your a idiot" and I thought you understood. Yes. Tenured. Teaching for 15 years and AP Lit for the last 6. My students always score well above state and national averages on the AP Literature exam, which is a sophomore level exam in college. Appreciate the concern about my job security, though.

If the Cardinals are already shopping Rosen, no way in HELL do they get a 1 for him!

I don't have Facebook. Or Instagram. Or Twitter. And thank god for that. Just as I feared, this is apparently a place for mental circle-jerks rather than genuine discussion.

No. Ya know, I really do think Yeah, because according to you a teacher should be fired for saying "calm down" to a kid in class who's acting up iif he's black, but it's fine to say it if he's not. Because, according to you, a teacher should be fired for asking a black student "where are you from?" if you get a brand new student in class in the middle of the year (which I often do because there's a large military population that comes and goes), but it's fine asking that question if he/she's not black. Because, according to you, when students are delivering their formal oral presentations at the end of each semester and we are evaluating the student, if it's a black student I should not say "you articulated well," but I can say that to students if they aren't black. ... but then... holding those terms back from Black students while saying them to all other students would itself be racist, wouldn't it? I bet you have very little face to face interaction with actual people... you just live in a bubble hammering away on the Internet. Well thank you. So I guess we can't assume an Ivy League Graduate is articulate, at all.

Sooooo.... Amy Klobuchar and Mitt Romney are black because I called them well-spoken and articulate, too? All of my students and colleagues that are white, Asian, Pacific Islander, etc. that I label as well-spoken and articulate should identify themselves as Black instead because I used those words for them?

Man... you're predictable. This place isn't a place for genuine discussion. It's mental *****. Talk about being disingenuous. Except that's not what they show.

There were no connotations to the phrasing until DC Tom ascribed them to skin color. I stand tall and sturdy.

Bush graduated Yale and Harvard. Trump never did attend an Ivy League school, but now that he's President, using "well-spoken" and "articulate" as a standard in the conversation for the Presidency is logical.

This one's pretty funny

Except that even these articles themselves don't make these words concretely and universally racist and they're being cited as though they universally and completely categorize those as racist words. https://ideas.ted.com/why-we-need-to-call-out-casual-racism/ Microaggressions and instances of casual racism like this pepper our daily lives, leaving a terrible taste in our collective mouths. If you want to correct their “articulate” comments, you will often be met with, “Oh, I didn’t mean it like that!” Ma’am. Sir. How did you mean it? Have you ever given a white colleague a pat on the back for knowing how to speak in complete sentences? No? Okay. A literal pat on the back? Not necessarily. But I say/write it in evaluative forms to students and colleagues alike frequently. https://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/04/weekinreview/04clemetson.html What faint praise, indeed. Being articulate must surely be a baseline requirement for a former president of The Harvard Law Review. After all, Webster’s definitions of the word include “able to speak” and “expressing oneself easily and clearly.” It would be more incredible, more of a phenomenon, to borrow two more of the senator’s puzzling words, if Mr. Obama were inarticulate. That is the core of the issue. When whites use the word in reference to blacks, it often carries a subtext of amazement, even bewilderment. So, in reverse order, the core issue is that when whites use the word, it OFTEN carries a subtext of amazement and/or bewilderment. So, the word is OFTEN racist. Again, I use those words all the time for all my students and colleagues. Plus, considering this article was written 12 years ago and we currently have an inarticulate dumbass in office, I think talking about Presidential candidates as needing to be "articulate" or "well-spoken" is just fine considering that bar has been massively lowered in the last couple years. Considering Donald Trump and George W Bush went to Ivy League schools, I strongly disagree.

you haven't been for a couple years now, which is disappointing.

Wow. Well that's a stupid analogy. I get that you're just trolling, which is fine and fun for you, I'm sure, but clearly you're incredibly focused on calling out what you perceive to be racism in others... so much so that you are lost in this phrase. Read through all those damn articles you cite yourself. The words "well-spoken" and "articulate" are not themselves racist unless you exclusively use them with African Americans with feelings of amazement and bewilderment. I use those words all the time. The fact that you saw that word and it jumped out at you tells me there must be some amazement and bewilderment over a Black person being "articulate" and "well spoken" on your part.

No, actually I didn't.

I'm not saying anything about left or right. Yes, lots of racist liberals are out there. Lots of racist conservatives. Racism abounds in our country in many ways. What the hell does that have to do with the heart of his own racist accusation? It's like you guys know the material but then fail the test when you have to put it to use.

No. The fact that me using the term "well spoken" and believing that term was interconnected with the color of skin the person I was talking about was racist. I like Amy Klobuchar and liked Mitt Romney because they are well spoken and I don't like Donald Trump and didn't like W because they are well spoken. And if you claim that saying that term in any capacity is racist, just label everyone in the world, including yourself, racist and get it over with.

Why would I be trolling? I'm calling you out for what was an overtly racist call-out. What do you honestly think all these articles your posting prove? I've processed all those articles just fine. The fact is they're irrelevant. He's talking fruits and I'm talking vegetables. In part, I think it's because he lives in a bubble... this insane Internet/Social Media bubble I think many other posting here live in that makes you think you're more educated than everyone else when it really just closes the walls around you until you're in a narrow, concrete tunnel.

I'm just amazed that you don't get it and you're being enabled so much on here.

Yes, it was. You're really getting ridiculous. And I think you're stretching the ridiculousness here to distract from the simplicity of an obvious racist mistake on your part. Or maybe you're actually just a twitter bot that can't differentiate and seeks conflict instead

What I think is this... some of you guys spend so much time in PPP and alternatively on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram (none of which I have accounts for) that it's actually twisted your perceptions into something just right of reality. You point to articles that prove the words "well-spoken" and "articulate" are racist--although they don't actually prove the words are racist, they just point to how they could be perceived as racist when directed at certain people. I like Amy Klobuchar because, in part, she's well-spoken and articulate. I don't like Elizabeth Warren, in part, because I don't think she's very well-spoken or articulate. I'm sorry, am I being racist when I use those words in speaking about them? As someone who teaches a subject that focuses on reading, writing AND speaking... the speaking part matters to me. That is definitively NOT racist, even as I also acknowledge there are systemically racist issues with the education system itself. If people want to know why I keep coming back, it's purely for this subject alone. It was a ridiculous and disgusting accusation compounded by a couple other posters jumping on his back. Sure would be nice for @DC Tom to very simply admit to his mistake. But he seems like a small person who would never do that. No, it was racist on your part to twist something that wasn't racist into being racist by adding the word "Black" in quotations--as though I said, thought, or meant it--to a post that wasn't remotely about race.

Here, I'll explain how it started. I posted this in response to a question about what qualified Michelle Obama as a candidate to run: She worked in the Public sector as an Assistant to the Mayor of Chicago, Assistant Commissioner of Planning and Development, Executive Director for the Chicago office of Public Allies, Associate Dean of Student Services at the University of Chicago developing the University's Community Service Center, worked as executive director for community affairs and then as Vice President for Community and External Affairs for Chicago Hospitals. She's super smart, graduating from Princeton and then Harvard law school. She's very well-spoken, which would help in addressing not only the public, but also in foreign relations. She's a fantastic role-model. That more than checks any boxes she would need, especially now that so many boxes have been eliminated with our current president. If Michelle Obama ran for President, she would win. If she ran against Trump, it wouldn't surprise me if he would bow out knowing the inevitable outcome. But she's not running, so no point in discussing it, really. But I was challenged to answer a question, so I did. to which DC Tom replied: Ahh, yes. The "Well-Spoken Black." Not racist at all. Except, of course, I didn't say black, so I don't know why on earth he put that in quotes.... clearly that's what he's thinking about, though.

So shouldn't people be prepared to be called a racist when they are being racist? If DC Tom could simply admit he was being racist (I can say he might not be overtly racist, but he was absolutely being racist), your argument would make sense. But that's not what he's doing. He's calling an analysis of a candidate racist just because it contained a "buzzword" and he was attributing that buzzword to some generalized standard. He brought race into a conversation where it was literally irrelevant. So again, I ask, if your standards are that people should be prepared to be called an idiot when they are being idiots, why shouldn't he be held to that standard and admit to his own racist post?

And therein lies the problem right there. I bet you guys are just all over Facebook and Instagram and Twitter every single day. You've circled yourselves into toilet bowls that need plunging. Done. Off the Wall is enough non-football dialogue for me.

You missed the argument. Go over to the the other thread if you want to see it. I'm done now. I've explained myself well enough. You could argue me wrong on some other points I've made over here. I'm not wrong on DC Tom being a racist, at least in the context of that conversation. Buh-bye. You're dumb.