@Rudie#27396 That‘s now three times you have deliberately refused to address the substance of what I’ve been saying to you.
@Gaagaagiins#27400 Asking in good faith, and with genuine curiosity: What exactly do you want from Rudie at this point? And why can't it be handled in a private message?
@whatsarobot#27402 What I want is for them to address the racism in what they said, which was if not directed at me was absolutely spoken in my vicinity without concern for how it might be racist towards me.
Potentially, I've done so out of concern for a peer who is ignorant. For a peer that doesn't want to say racist things in the future and wants to unlearn racism, I am happy to facilitate that learning. If they don't wish to unlearn racism, I don't feel an obligation to share a forum with racists. So, if the mods won't remove them, I'll know the right thing to do for me is to leave. Maybe I'm alone in that but maybe I'm not, so, I feel an obligation to investigate for the good of the people in this community.
I also believe bringing this to a private form of communication will be counterproductive for several reasons. One, for the simple reason that I don't want to discuss this in private, but if they did prefer to discuss this with me in private, they haven't expressed a desire to do so or just gone ahead and initiated it. So, I feel I'm justified in assuming that attempting to initiate it myself would be a waste of my time and effort, especially considering I have already made what I think are very reasonable calls for them to co-operate and discuss this with me. I won't get more amenable in private. Two, I reject the premise that these things should be hidden away in private, because having these discussions openly creates an environment that is more hostile to racism, which I can only see as a net gain. Three, I am already feeling singled out and unsupported in this, and that, as is often the case, my confrontation of racism is being treated like a transgression more than the initial racism was. I would love to have the support of other people in this and that doesn't happen if this conversation is private. Four, I haven't received any concrete assurance that they aren't racist, and I don't speak to racists, or even people who might not be racist but act in contempt of the idea that they might be, which kind of makes them racist in the long run. Five, this thread can always be split into a new one after the fact so it can return to its initial topic once this is addressed.
@Gaagaagiins#27406 Thank you. I understand better where you're coming from now.
Let it be known that I, for one, support you in your effort to address racism directly, despite the fact that doing so might make people uncomfortable. I don't want to single you or anyone else out.
However, I do find this to be a fascinating discussion. You're essentially giving Rudie an ultimatum here, and being intentionally confrontational. In your experience, has this approach ever led to anyone taking you up on your offer to educate them?
>
@whatsarobot#27408 You’re essentially giving Rudie an ultimatum here, and being intentionally confrontational. In your experience, has this approach ever led to anyone taking you up on your offer to educate them?
That's quite an interesting question and something I do think about. I think about it from the opposite direction, though.
It's not a method I am employing in order to maximize the chance of it being persuasive. I think at some point I have given up at being persuasive, because, I think, very few people are ever actually persuaded to try to become less racist or more racist out of one conversation. I think people make that decision somewhere deep within while intaking lots of evidence being presented to them in the world around them. One does not turn on FOX and in one day become racist, one does not see one BLM protest and decide to become antiracist, but being inundated with a protracted stream of events informed by race (and that's a lot because of how obsessed with race our society is) and shaped by ideologically motivated propaganda from either side will eventually form someone's worldview wrt race, and a person's worldview is what really pushes them to adopt a purposeful attitude of racism or antiracism. On top of that, it's also the case that racism or antiracism, once embedded into one's worldview and taken on as an ideological aim, can end up altering one's worldview even further. A racist worldview becomes twisted and warped further by racism, an antiracist worldview becomes clearer and more objective by testing the assumptions of the world around you against what you learn when learning about antiracist practices. This might sound biased towards my own worldview, and it is, but without shame, really, because so much of modern society depends on the denial of the history of racism, so, really, you kind of need to be antiracist to have a shot at viewing the world objectively.
So, my confrontation style is predicated on the idea that someone is either racist or antiracist already and that I won't be able to do much about that. So, it's not to much that I'm trying to deliver an ultimatum, so much that I am attempting to get someone to speak more so that I can narrow down where they're really aligned. As Maya Angelou said, "when someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time." The tricky thing there is that most people are skilled at avoiding showing you who they are without some encouragement, or ideally, social pressure. So most of what I try to do first is get people to show who they are, and how I respond to that varies a lot. Only thing worth saying to a committed racist is to fuck off and die for instance.
So, for instance, if someone repeatedly refuses to discuss the topic of racism with an antiracist in a generally antiracist environment, even when it would be a simple and convenient way to defuse an escalating conflict about racism, without a reasonable explanation for their reluctance to do so that might be someone starting to show you who they are. No guarantee, but, you know. For someone who is antiracist it is an awfully low bar to clear.
@Gaagaagiins#27409 Your ideology here makes sense, but you're also setting up an objectively questionable dichotomy by forcing any interlocutor into either the “racist” or “antiracist” category. That makes it difficult for anyone to potentially engage, even if they are interested, for example, in learning how to rid themselves of racist terminology or ways of thinking and presenting.
Suppose, for example, someone agrees with your views, but simply does not have the mental bandwidth or inclination to engage with you on these terms? I sense a lot of anger in your approach, and since I don't know you or your background, I can only assume it's justified based on past experience.
Why force someone into a position of admitting to racist behaviour, regardless of the intention behind their original statement? What is to be gained from this approach, other than confirming the assumed superiority of your own (constructed) worldview?
This seems like a missed opportunity to reduce the amount of racism in the world, which is something I think we'd all be in favour of doing.
>
@whatsarobot#27411 Your ideology here makes sense, but you’re also setting up an objectively questionable dichotomy by forcing any interlocutor into either the “racist” or “antiracist” category.
Yes, I should clarify, there is a bit of a dichotomy here, but it's more about trajectory than category. If racism/antiracism is how one understands the world it's something that is always responding to new information. So in a sense the way one develops and adds to a worldview is constantly growing and changing. Kind of also speaks to how big of a bombshell it really takes to reverse one's trajectory. You're more or less going at the speed of your own life experiences and how much new information you can meaningfully encounter.
Also, I think some form of dichotomy here is kind of unavoidable in the sense that there is no real neutral ground when it comes to racism. To give a dumb example it's not like you can like pizza, or you can dislike pizza, or you can opt out of the dichotomy altogether because you simply don't eat pizza and don't feel the need to have an opinion on it. Race and racism due to the global impact of colonialism has permeated and corrupted almost every aspect of our society at every level. The question of how one feels about racism being fundamental with how one acts and views the world is a consequence of that societal level obsession with it.
>
@whatsarobot#27411 That makes it difficult for anyone to potentially engage, even if they are interested, for example, in learning how to rid themselves of racist terminology or ways of thinking and presenting.
Approaching people with an abundance of good faith on the onset tends to helps to draw in good actors ready for discussion pretty reliably.
>
@whatsarobot#27411 Suppose, for example, someone agrees with your views, but simply does not have the mental bandwidth or inclination to engage with you on these terms?
I really honestly question the honesty and intentions of someone's commitment to antiracism if a bad mood or a long day at work can make them willing to put it aside. The people who are victimized by racism never get a day off from racism so the idea that antiracism is something that one should only expect from people when they're at their best just doesn't seem fair. It's like, oh, you're in a bad mood, okay, it's okay to be racist?? Like, nah. I don't get racist when I'm in a bad mood.
>
@whatsarobot#27411 Why force someone into a position of admitting to racist behaviour, regardless of the intention behind their original statement?
'Cause I truly believe that social attitudes towards racism are shifting and that more people are capable of engaging in the forms of social control that are needed to undo systemic racism. With how racism is often perpetuated by majorities upon minorities, the perpetuators of racism need the complicity of the group to perpetuate racism. One person taking issue with being targeted with a form of violence approved by the status quo rarely has any protection. Taboo does not work on an individual level, it requires a broader social agreement on what that taboo is.
In other words, it's not so me as an individual can prove to an individual person that I'm right and they're wrong. It's so that in exposing the backwards tendencies of individuals the public can engages in the process of the most meaningful form of consequence for being racist, the shaming of a taboo action. That's what I mean when I say I expect this forum to be a hostile environment for racism. I think everyone willing needs to co-operate to further this aim.
Also I gotta go to bed, I am always open to discussion though and can continue tomorrow
Dang, I can't believe I had to read a whole parenting article in order to figure out what all is going on here!
So here's what I think happened - I think Rudie got annoyed at a non-parent coming advising about how to parent, which is a common thing I have seen, and then while likely typing on his phone threw out "returning to a state of nature" without thinking about it too hard. My reading of the situation is that if he had in fact used quotes to surround "returning to a state of nature" his intent would've been more clear, as he clarifies later that he meant (but maybe didn't satisfactorily articulate):
1) mythologizing Inuit people as a group with one ethos rather than complex humans is reductive (that would've been clearer if that were in quotes - I personally get pretty skeptical when a white person embeds themselves with "a culture" and then writes a book about it, but it seems in this case her writing has been at least somewhat accepted by the folks she was talking about, at least those who knew her)
2) using lessons from a social structure that is centered around different tentpoles than ours doesn't really make sense. Other societal pressures of living in a city and with the kinds of jobs we have keeps us from dedicating as much time to our children as the folks in the article were able to.
Meanwhile Gaagaagiins reacted to the "state of nature" thing as a slur against native peoples, and I can see thinking that, especially since the tone of the short statement there was itself somewhat combative because as we all know, parents do not like being told about parenting by non-parents!
My conclusion here is that this is a misunderstanding and that this was not an intentional or unintentional slur, it was trying (with, let's admit, limited success) to actually communicate the opposite. I think this issue is exacerbated by Rudie responding with short quips to Gaagaagiins' long posts, which pretty much caused both of them to get more annoyed.
I don't think Rudie was intentionally using white supremacist language (thank you to jaws for weighing in), and I do think Gaagaagiins was acting in good faith calling out what they saw as offensive or reductive language.
I really do think this is a mutual misunderstanding followed by explanations that both parties found unsatisfactory. If the clarifications I laid out above are correct then I think we need to kiss and make up on this one and move forward from it.
Now as to what to do with the thread, I am not sure - I will unlock it so people can weigh in on my thoughts here, but I think it might be tough to extract the conflict from the thread going forward? Should we create a new thread, or erase/split some portion of this discussion, or do something else?
I would like there to be a parenting discussion thread that is a mutual support place for folks who are working through the difficulty of parenting during the pandemic, losing their sense of self, etc etc. We've got to work out a way to do that, so I'll put a poll in here after Rudie and Gaagaagiins are satisfied with my conclusion, or not, in which case I'll take it up with those two specifically, unless anyone thinks I should do otherwise (and please feel free to message me in any regard!!)
As always, DM or email me with concerns privately, too!
{“locked”:false}
I can't help but feel partially responsible for this, since I brought up Nussbaum.
I think the thread is recent enough that it might make the most sense to just start a new parenting thread. I totally understand why Gaagaagiins reacted the way they did to that comment, and personally the whole situation made me take some time to think critically about the type of language people (consciously or unconsciously) use when talking about indigenous cultures, so in that respect I think it was a valuable discussion to be had, although not really related to the actual topic of the thread. I still think it might be best to just lock the thread and start over fresh?
@wickedcestus#27570 Agreed. I definitely would like to see a parent support group type thread here on IC, and if a fresh new thread makes sense, let's go for it.
I don't have anything super insightful to say regarding the topic or the argument other than I really like how @exodus has handled things here with his post and the reopening of the thread. Definitely happy to be part of this community because of things like these.
Other than that, I personally think it would be cool being willing to trust in everyone being able to move on and resume the conversation with a positive attitude, specially since the thread has already been reopened. On the other hand, it doesn't really matter that much if you guys decide to create another one. I'm basically thinking along the lines of reciprocating Brandon's gesture by showing that we can behave and be cool-headed here. That would be nice I think!
So anyway what do you all feed your kids for breakfast? We just try to feed them what we eat so that’s pretty much egg whites every morning (+ 1 yolk for dad), then a rotation of oatmeal, cereal or bread. Daddy makes a big smoothie but no one else partakes 
you might like kasha (buckwheat groats), cooks like rice and you can mix in egg, onion, mushroom, bacon or sausage if you want. Good for complex carbs. Plenty of polish or jewish recipes around
@tapevulture#27614 Pretty similar for my kids! They love toast (sometimes with peanut butter), scrambled eggs, and mini tomatoes. I also make a komatsuna (kind of like spinach) and banana smoothie every morning, which my son loves but my daughter does not. I try to include fruit whenever possible as well.
The biggest challenge is portion size. We try to get the kids up and ready to go for the day at the same time every day, which means me waking up early to make their breakfast, often before they're fully awake. Sometimes they're ravenously hungry, and other days they barely want to eat at all, with no discernible pattern to follow!
farina is a crowd pleaser but don’t like leaning too much on empty carbs and half a box of brown sugar
I missed this thread until now and frankly I think I’ll just not go back and read and pretend like it started here!
I have two kids, 8 and 4 (almost 5). They’re awesome. The 8 year old will likely be a lawyer, doctor, bureaucrat, or possibly the treasury secretary.
The 4 year old 100% definitely will be a stand up comic. The extremely raunchy kind.
The 8 year old eats anything and then writes a treatise on its virtues. The four year old last ate in 2018.