How does a person grow up to be an adult without ever having the 2 minute conversation required to learn how to do laundry?

What’s the fun in that?

Even from a purely self-interested perspective it seems like the agent goofed up here. Society is responding to stories like this very differently than it used to.

Just don’t talk that way.

That’s not the problem people had with Benoit. No one has a problem with people thinking the WNBA just isn’t as much fun to watch. It’s the wholesale dismissal of women’s sports that people take issue over.

I think the author doesn’t know the first thing about the mayor or the churches, so he’s making assumptions about the nature of their relationship with one another and assuming that those churches have no agency in that relationship.

Black people get to decide who their allies are, and I don’t they’re crazy for saying as much

I realize that was the idea of this piece, I just think that sort of pretends that black churches have no agency in their choice to work with the mayor.

I wouldn’t even say that everything went right between MLK and LBJ, but that doesn’t mean that the relationship wasn’t able to be mutually beneficial.

Working with the power structure is kind of important to changing the power structure.

Which I think is okay. Ultimately though, X found a way to reconcile himself to the existence of those groups, and when I read stuff like this, or hear the Angry Black Woman yelling at people who choose to pray, I sort of wonder if some of the real, more meta lessons from Malcolm X’s life are lost on modern day…

Haven’t black churches always participated in the civil rights movement with a distinctly different approach?

It’s both funny and not funny at the same time. Only once the comment is actually posted can you know whether it will be funny or not.

If you really didn’t think it was going to affect your thinking, wouldn’t you have pointed it out, even if you weren’t sure it was applicable? I wish that a part of the jury education process would basically say “if you lie to get on a jury, it might be found out, and then the case could be deemed a mistrial”.

Well, the article itself was much less about “forcing” you to think about anything than was implied by Jezebel’s recap of it.

I dunno, I think you cherry picked the article. Reading the whole thing, it sounds more like a “People forget these things about older parenthood when waxing rhapsodic about it, so think about them”, type of article.

In an overwhelming majority of the cases, the subjects never even noticed.

This only works as long as you are working with people who have a good grasp on how much they really know compared to you about a topic.

I think the idea is that you try this if you think you are an authority on the subject at hand and are listening very closely for anything that is incorrect or should be expounded upon further.

I thought we were discussing potentially wasteful (or not optimal) financial decisions over a long term