AMA (YYW)

Sort of adds to my question about him bring irrelevant.

YYW has historically undervalued his contributions. That's not unusual with people of high IQ.

True. Self expectations can be seemingly boundless for those who can release their own value in the first place.

I doubt that he thinks that, though, or at least not here.

I haven't read anything by Bell Hooks, or even heard of him/her.  However, I'll be happy to weigh in on some articles if you want. 

>How exactly are you irrelevant? 

I would be shocked if this was the most visited thread.  

Bell Hooks is a postmodernist oppressionist writer vested heavily in identity theory. It was required reading for me when I took a college course in feminism.

I taught a course on political theory, and never heard of her... odd. 

She is a famous feminist writer.

Be that as it may, I didn't teach what I didn't think was worth being taught, and I spent all of 30 minutes in a 13 week lecture series on feminism. 

How do you feel about Critical Race Theory being taught in schools?

Do you mean colleges, or high schools, or both?

I purposely did not say college, so yes all schooling.

I forgot about this.  Will respond soon.

Meanwhile, more people should ask me stuff. 

You have the opportunity to live the life of any character in any book.  What character?

Hollywood calls, asks you to pitch a film in two minutes- what would you pitch?

why YYW? why coal? why the change?

cut & paste lyrics to a well-loved song.

If and when Donald Trump is removed from office, do you suspect that we can also remove Mike Pence?  In my humble research, he has been anticipating his only shot at the presidency (replacing Trump) since the beginning.  

There is no question that Pence could be impeached and should be impeached along with Trump, but Washington politics are funny in that way.  Impeaching Trump would likely (60%) result in a president Pence, and only plausibly could result in a president Pelosi (40%).  Those are not good odds, given that Pence is worse than Trump in nearly every way that matters.      

>You have the opportunity to live the life of any character in any book.  What character?

I have been thinking about this since I first saw your post, and many characters have crossed my mind.  The host of characters from Dostoevsky crossed my mind as the most realistic, and perhaps the most meaningful; and there certainly could have been some glamor and intrigue in any one of the lives of Tolstoy's characters, both real and imagined.  But I would never want to love as Raskolnikov any more than I would have wanted to live as Dimity, and I surely couldn't place myself on the level of Father Zosima or Alyosha (though I have a friend whose personality reminds me of Alyosha in nearly every way that matters.  These are the characters that came to mind because they are among the ones I am most well acquainted with, from the works of fiction I've read of late.

But if there is any epic literary work whose life I would want of my own, it would be the post-release life of Edmund Dantes, in the Count of Monte Cristo for reasons that may not be obvious.  Dantes, who reinvents himself as the Count after his release, fashions himself the agent of providence.  Though not unlike V in V for Vendetta he destroys himself in the process, his life is among the most satisfying to me in the history of the human literary cannon.

Of course there are other contenders as well; perhaps Dr. Manhattan, from Watchmen.  Perhaps Ozzymandis (the character, not the fiction invented by Percy Shelly).  Perhaps Harry Potter, or any one of the characters from Lord of the Rings.  But, absent from this list would be any character whose life was well established, or whose activities were essentially meaningless.  So, you'll be hard pressed to see anything from, say, Faulkner on my list. 

As an educator, what are the best approaches for a meaningful reduction of violence against members of the gay community?

I'm a very big straight guy that works out with heavy weights, and sometimes I fantasize catching a gay basher in the act so I could justifiably beat the shit out of him in a very bloody way.

>How do you feel about Critical Race Theory being taught in schools?

It would depend on the school, and how it was taught.  The only conceivably legitimate purpose for which I can see critical theory being taught in high school would be as an elective or in the context of an elective's curriculum, such as the curriculum of a speech and debate class.

While I don't think that the state has any business in prohibiting courses from being taught for any reason, your question seeks a more subjective answer.  I don't "feel" good about it at all; it's "mildly nauseating" (to appropriate a phrase from James Comey) to simply know that critical race theory *is* taught.

What is much worse, though, is when professors teach core classes from the perspective of, say, critical race theory to the exclusion of everything else.  That's what I'm noticing in the humanities and arts, and have been noticing in the social sciences at the university and high school level for some time.  

For example, rather than teach US history from a general perspective, increasing emphasis is placed now on the "stories and experiences" of "oppressed minorities".  That whole dynamic is disgusting, for the obvious reasons.  History is not a struggle between oppressors and the oppressed, and teaching a course as if it should be viewed through that lens is unconscionable.  It's academic malpractice, if I've ever seen it. 

The reasons courses taught from the perspective of, say, critical race theory (or any other postmodern, post-structuralist, feminist, etc.) perspective is so offensive is because of the fact that they teach young and impressionable minds to view the world ONLY through lenses of power struggles between classes of persons fractionated between being oppressors and oppressed.  It's a monolithic, unidimensional, oversimplification at best; and it's laying the foundation for ideological indoctrination at worst.

I could say some more about this, but I think you get the idea...

We should be clear from the offset that I am not an educator of any kind, any more.  When I taught freshmen in college, I didn't see my role as one of advocacy for any political initiative.  If the topic of anti-gay violence came up, I made my thoughts clear and my reasons for them, but that was well outside the scope of most subject matters I confronted.  

That said, if I ever saw a kid being beaten up or bullied because he was gay in any academic context I was working in, I'd respond appropriately for the context.  Like if a kid is beating up another kid because the latter is gay, what's that the result of?  Is it because the former is inherently a bigot deplorable, or is it because he's taken some ideas he's gotten from his family (most likely) and taken them too far?  Even if the kid was a straight up bigot, my response isn't going to be to respond with physical violence (as a teacher, though if I was a student... different situation).  I'd rather have a conversation with him about the difference between right and wrong and why that difference matters, to unfuck the stupid ideas he likely got from his parents. 

Out in the world, though... and not in an educational context, if someone attacked me or someone I care about because of the fact that I'm gay or, say, my boyfriend is also obviously gay... let's just say that the lesson that the attacker learned would be one he'd never forget.  There was a time I would have beaten someone within an inch of their life for doing something like that.   Now, I'm a bit older and I've got more to lose.  Given that, honestly, I'd probably just stop with a sharp blow to the liver... that's usually enough to put someone on the ground in pain for the rest of an evening.  

As Americans, we look back on Lincoln, JFK, FDR etc as great/historic presidents. From Clinton on, do you imagine we might also in 100 years think Trump or Obama as historic or would they just be another page in a history book?

I think that it's highly unlikely that Trump will be remembered positively, especially given the near certainty with which that he will be impeached and removed from office.  Trump is likely to replace Nixon as the most infamously corrupt president in US History, and will be widely regarded by all no matter their political proclivities as the worst president in history.  

Obama, almost without question, will be regarded as among the best in history; likely on par with JFK.  That is not to say that JFK was without controversy or that his presidency was without mistake or error, but he is nevertheless held in the highest esteem by most.  Obama will as well, for similar reasons. 

Not really asking if Trump will be treated fondly, just that he would be 'interesting'. Like Nixon, for example. 

If Trump is impeached, could Pence pick Trump as his Veep?

How do you feel about Detroit's new congresswoman dropping f bombs at her acceptance speech. A step forward or a step back? Does the future of the Democratic party lie with people like her and Bezos unafraid to drop the f bomb?

You are gifted with the capacity to pronounce one curse and see that curse fulfilled.  What do you do?

Recommend three excellent ideas for my first debate on this site, pls.

If Trump is impeached, and pence takes over, it is possible that Trump could be the VP.  However, it is nearly certainly improbable. 

> How do you feel about Detroit's new congresswoman dropping f bombs at her acceptance speech. A step forward or a step back? Does the future of the Democratic party lie with people like her and Bezos unafraid to drop the f bomb?

There are a couple levels of analysis that I've got to consider that question on.  Personally, profanity doesn't bother me.  I swear profusely in my job and in life, so for me to criticize someone else for doing that would be really hypocritical of me.  Outside of my personal views, though, there is this weird tendency among some in the DNC to think that if they use profanity or speak in other "common" ways -- which comes across as transparent or fake -- that they will come across as more "authentic".  This is both not the case and a profound miscalculation.  Everyone who tries that comes across as being fake, and the colorful language seems either unprofessional or forced.  Tom Perez is a great example of this.   As to whether it's a good idea for members of the DNC to start using profanity, I mean... if someone like Ojeda (my personal favorite Democrat) did it, it would work because that's true to who he is and his background.  But, for most, it's not advisable.

>You are gifted with the capacity to pronounce one curse and see that curse fulfilled.  What do you do?

I would curse Jeff Bezos to give me 50k per week for the rest of my life.