Forestluv

My impression is that the construct is about spirituality, not the the singularity of ISness. In the context of spirituality, a self / ego is not needed. That is an add-in. In the spiritually gifted, very little ego / self would be operative. Self dissolution may be hard to imagine and access for normies, yet it is easy stuff for the spiritually gifted. In terms of genetics, this could mean that those genetically gifted for spirituality have a naturally disconnected neural Default Mode Network (which controls self / ego). This might occur in only 1% of people or so. Without a disconnected DMN, you've go no chance at trans-ego domains. The rest of us would need psychedelics or years of mediation / yoga to get glimpses of that. In Leo's analogy, the spiritual master (bird) has the genetics to form a disconnected DMN (wings). A normal person (donkey) would need psychedelics (jet pack) for trans-egoic consciousness (flying).

Wouldn't the 95% genetics allow for spiritual mastery, yet the 5% effort to master is still a lot of work? Consider Kobe Bryant. He is in the top 95% for genetics of athletic basketball. There is no way people with average genetics will reach the top echelon of basketball mastery. Yet for Kobe to reach the pinnacle, that 5% of technique and practice took a lot of work. How would Kobe appear to normies? To a normie, a tomahawk dunk is amazing. Very few people can do it, yet they could imagine doing it. Yet for Kobe this is easy stuff. However. . . very few people could access / imagine the "places" Kobe ventured in his practice. I'm sure he went to extremely nuanced, highly detailed "places" that he was only able to communicate with 0.01% of people. There were so few people at the pinnacle that truly that could relate. Would it be similar for a spiritual master? Their 95% genetics allows for them to reach the upper echelon of spirituality, yet the 5% technique / practice to reach the pinnacle is still a lot of work. The spiritual equivalent of a tomahawk dunk might be a continuous hour of "no mind". This may seem amazing to normies, yet is is easy stuff for the spiritually gifted. However. . . that 5% technique / practice is still alot of work to reach the upper echelon of spiritual mastery. Yet, the spiritual master would only be able to communicate this with 0.01% of people. It would be like a someone trying to communicate with a donkey.

I don't think we would be able to make a shift to Open Book in one generation. I can't see everyone alive come together and say "starting next year on January 1st, everyone agrees that all children will be born and raised Open Book". People are just too conditioned with filters. And it would be super messy having Filter parents trying to raise permanently Open Book kids. I see it taking 5+ generations. I agree that if beings are born permanent Open Book and that's the only thing they know, it would seem totally normal to them. The idea of filters would seem bizarre. It would be a very different experience, being totally mind open. Yet it's possible to imagine. . . Imagine everyone was blind. In a way, that is "Filter Book". Since the person cannot see you, you can filter what you reveal. For example, you could filter out facial expression and keep them secret - noone would. People could draw symbols on their shirts. Some symbols of love, other symbols of hate. Yet noone would know, unless a person reveals it, similar to thoughts no one can see unless we reveal. Being blind, creates a sense of more separation. That one is an individual we are more in separate worlds. The idea of Open vision would be shocking. People would think "Omigod, that means that other people could see what I'm wearing!! They could see my facial expressions!! That would be an invasion of my privacy!! My inner most self!!". Yet we are born with vision and don't give it a second thought. We can all see each other. This gives a greater sense that we are sharing One space together. I would predict the mind would adapt quickly. For example, in blind world people could walk around naked. Or spontaneously masturbate in a public park with noone knowing. With Open Book Neuralink, we might think "Omigosh, what if I had impure thoughts of masturbating!!". Yet the shared minds would work it out. The mind would simply stop having such thoughts in shared space, or people would be cool with it. New social norms would form. Similarly, someone in Blind World may say "Vision World would be crazy. What about when people spontaneously masturbate in public parks? Everyone could see them!!". Yet most people just don't do that within the social network. And on the occasion it does happen, people may turn a blind eye or someone may ask them stop". It worked itself out.

This brings up all sorts of new social issues. . . Imagine the technology offers two modes "Open book" or "Filtered book". The "filtered book" option would be similar to a regular talking conversation in which each person can filter what they transmit through the neuralink. Yet it's fast and some people aren't good at filtering. Just like some people say certain stupid things they wish they didn't say, people could transmit neuralink communication they whish they hadn't sent. Similar to a text, yet much faster. There would be no button to press and no popup message asking "Are you sure you want to transmit this?". What would be socially acceptable situations for "Open book" or "Filtered Book"? What about being at a meeting at work? A date? Is it OK to Open Book on the first date? Imagine a guy on a first date saying "I usually Open Book, yet I've had a really rough week, lots of stuff going on in my life. I don't want there to be a lot of background noise in our Neuralink session. Is it ok if we do Filter Book?" How would it come across? Would the woman be skeptical of why he wants Filter Book? Perhaps he is actually married and has kids. . . Or, imagine a a couple watching some Netflix and the guy is like "I wanna do Filter Book tonight". . . The girlfriend may respond "Filter book gain? We haven't done Open Book for a week?" Might suspect he's having an affair?. . . What about marriage counseling? Would the therapist say "Ok Mark and Stacey, this may get uncomfortable, yet we need to discuss your Book sessions. How frequently have you Open-Booked the last three months and how long is your average Open Book session?" A somewhat similar of new social norms has a arisen with zoom. When is it socially acceptable to turn ones camera off? Sometimes it's obvious your camera should be on. Yet not other times. I do Zoom breath sessions about about 50% of people turn their cameras off. Sometimes the facilitator pleads with the group to turn their camera on - that it is important for group connectivity. Sometimes someone will briefly turn their camera on and tell some excuse why they are turning it off.

I also think there are initial "preferences" in which surface appearance is the main factor. I often teach a freshman level science lab that has six tables, with 4 charis per table (24 total). It is their first semester so they don't know each other. If I let them naturally choose chairs, there is a very strong correlation between gender and race at each table. Females aggregate together, males aggregate, white students and minority students. On the first day of class, I would say outward appearance (gender and race) are the primary factors. I would predict that class is a secondary factor because class is more subtle. I suppose their might be a few signs of class in their clothing. I also observe the behavior of "stragglers" that come late, which is fascinating. A student may come two minutes late and there are only two chairs left. It could be a female white student and the only two chairs left - both chairs at tables mostly male minority. She often goes to a table with female and/or white students and then realizes that there are only 4 chairs. At times, they look for another chair that they can pull up. Often, there is an awkward pause when deciding which empty seat at minority student tables to take. And there are also some students that roll with it and seem to be like "whatever". Occasionally, a student will actually get a chair from a minority student table and drag it to a table that already has 4 students so they can be with similar. (I used an example of a white female student, yet I've observed it in all directions. For example, if a minority student came late and only two chairs were open at tables with white students, there is often a similar period of awkwardness). My impression is that this is nearly 100% subconscious and none of the students are consciously thinking "I don't want to be with those students". If I asked them why they chose the chair they did, I predict the vast majority would say "I don't know. It was open and I just sat here". I don't think class plays a big factor on the initial day, since class distinctions are more subtle than gender / race distinctions. Yet I would be curious how much class plays a factor as students get to know each other. Let's say a first generation white student from a poor rural area chooses a table with white students. Yet then it becomes clear that the white students are from an affluent suburb and are pretentious and talking down to him. I would predict he wouldn't feel like he fits in and may later choose a table with minority students that he can relate better to / speak their language etc. I also think another secondary factor would be being on the same sports team together, or band or a sorority etc. I'm curious if students that have grown up in an inner city are more comfortable being around various races since their community has had various races. I'm also curious if diversity of social media would have an influence in in-person choice preferences. Would a student that interacts with a diverse racial mixture on social media have reduced racial preference in-person on the first day of class?

@BadHippie You seem to be talking about observing conspiracy theories from a detached view. For example, a grad student doing an analysis of conspiracy theories for a phd thesis. Or Leo doing a video deconstructing the mind dynamics of conspiracy theories. As well, there are great documentaries about conspiracy theories. I don't think that issue . I think the issue is more about people becoming so immersed into conspiracy theories that they believe they are true. For example, I find the mindset of Qanon conspiracists to be interesting. What type of people are attracted to Qanon? How did they first get sucked in? What forms of truth was needed to provide them grounding? How were they locked in as the conspiracy got more bizarre. Yet that is very different than someone who believes Qanon is actual reality. It is a very different mindset to believe that governmental employees and media journalists are satan-worshipping pedophiles that rape and eat children. And they are coming after you and your children. . . This causes harm to both the individual and society. Regarding "closed-mindedness" to conspiracy theories, it depends on how you define "conspiracy theory". In it's loosest definition as conspiracy is "a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful." By this loose definition, of course there are conspiracies happening everyday. Yet the issue becomes the creation of the "theory" part. People can make up all sorts of wild stories and then they get immersed into the stories and start interpreting everything in life to align with that story. And quite often, there is some truth to the story to keep the person grounded and some drama and/or fear to keep them engaged. Conspiracy theories are like crack cocaine for some people, so there are tons of creative, whacky conspiracy theories. Just like there are tons of creative stories about books and movies. Asking "why be closed-minded to conspiracy theories" would be similar to asking "why don't you immerse yourself into this story?". Because some people don't want to spend their time engaging in that. The thing that keeps conspiracy theories prominent is that they contain aspects of truth and involve real-life situations. For example, a conspiracy theory that Bill Gates and his secret agents are creating a "vaccine" for the coronavirus. The coronavirus is harmless, yet Gates is using is as an excuse to create a "vaccine" for mind control. . . This involves a real life story that involves us all (the covid pandemic). And it involves some truth: there is a man called Bill Gates that has spent years involved in vaccines and has shown interest in supporting a coronavirus vaccine. As well, there is a virus called the coronavirus. So there is some truth, yet then lots of bullshit gets created. If anyone challenges any part of the theory, then the person can refer to true aspects of the theory for grounding and defend their theory form challenge. One thing I've noticed about conspiracists is that they are absolute. The entire story must be 100% and everything is equally true. They are not willing to look at aspects that may have truth and aspects that may be untrue. This is a reason many people are closed-minded to conspiracists. I would be willing to discuss Bill Gate's role in vaccine development. Perhaps he has done some good things and some shady things. Yet that is not the conspiracits mindset. To them, it is 100% Bill Gates is evil, he is100% creating vaccines for mind control and the coronavirus is 100% harmless. One cannot have a reasonable discussion about Gates and the virus with that mindset. Then when the reasonable person says "I don't believe in those conspiracy aspects", the conspiracist labels them as "closed-minded" to the conspiracy theory (since there must be 100% adherence to the theory). The reasonable person is not closed-minded to 100% of the theory, yet the conspiracist has a binary mindset of100% true and they will defend every aspect of the theory. To them, you are either "all in" or "all out".

Brain to brain communication via neuralinks (and a bluetooth equivalent) is theoretically possible. People could have a conversation through thoughts alone, which could get tricky. Would people get access to all your thoughts? Imagine being a date with someone and you decide to activate neuralink. Could you each control what thoughts get sent? Could you each control which feelings you transmit? Would it be easy to differentiate between my thoughts/feelings and her thoughts/feelings? The neuralink could break down distinctions between "me" and "her". It's hard to imagine merging with all minds at once. I think it might be more like a psychedelic experience of One Omniscience. Rather than knowing a gazillion independent thoughts.

A great interview with a woman that has a relatively moderate, narrow form of psychopathy. It's good to see people in this area not being stigmatized and given assistance for how to participate within social systems. I've seen documentaries on much more severe / broader forms of psychopathy. It can get quite disturbing.

That is a very good question. I've only done a little research on Neuralink. I've only seen them read. Reading vs writing is very different. My impression is that they are focusing on reading (decoding) because that's what is necessary to help paralyzed patients (which will get a lot of public support). People will be much more comfortable with reading technology than writing because the ego wants the control of writing the narrative. However, there will be dramatic opportunities to write that will be to irresistible to resist. Imagine have a foreign language writer. After 1 hour a day for a week, they can write Spanish, French and Chinese into your brain. That is too irresistible to turn down. It's coming. Perhaps 50 years from now, the elderly Gen Zers will be telling their grandchildren "Back when I was your age, we had to learn languages by studying, memorizing and practicing for years!!" @integralYes, that would be like a recorded "replay". Theoretically, one could record any experience and replay it and the person would experience it exactly the same. For example, an advanced neuralink could record my brain activity while I was observing Matchu Picchu. The neuralink could replicate that exact same brain activity and I would be re-experiencing Macthu Picchu. The sights, smells etc. . . As well, one could record sexual experiences and relieve them. This will create social problems. There was a Black Mirror episode on this.

I find the different situations interesting. If someone says "I prefer to date white people", most people wouldn't think much of it. That's just their preference. Yet what if someone says "I prefer to have white friends". I think most people would see that very differently and rank that as more extreme. Is it ok to say "I prefer to date white people" yet not ok to say "I prefer to have white friends"? Both dating someone and friendships can be very intimate. To extend it one step further, if someone says "I prefer to work with white people", is that wrong? Is that just their preference?

Yes, the doctor needs to acknowledge they are ill. I keep making this point over and over and over again. . . It's not pointing at acknowledging the illness. I'm talking about acknowledging the illness and then moving toward figuring out the etiology of the illness. The point is that the doctor acknowledges the illness and then talks about how these patients give him angst and drive him crazy. That is not moving toward figuring out etiology and helping the patients. As well, the patients are not "mysteriously ill". They are "mysteriously ill" to the doctor because the doctor lacks awareness and the desire to learn about their illness, understand them and help them. Yes, thanks for the clarity. Her colleague "resigned", yet I'm skeptical if it was fully voluntary. I suspect there was a lot of pressure on him to resign. Racism is against forum guidelines, yet there will be grey areas of what counts as "racism" (for all races). It may appear that there is heavier moderation in some areas due to asymmetry of racism. If 90% of people speak Spanish and 10% of people speak English, there is an asymmetry of language speakers. If an English speaker believes there should be 50% Spanish and 50% English, he will perceive things as being biased. Your simple binary constructs. Black vs. White, Racist vs. Non-racist etc. I agree that simply firing her does not address the underlying issues that the faculty member raised about black students performing poorly. Acknowledging a problem is important to addressing it. The administration plays a role in this. If they are recruiting low income, underprepared black students, it is irresponsible not to give them the resources they need. It's also irresponsible if Georgetown is virtue signaling by firing the faculty member. However, the faculty member also has some responsibility. She is untrained in DEI awareness and skills. I don't know how much of that is her responsibility. Both the faculty member and the administration are responsible for those resources. If my college wanted me to teach R coding in my courses and I don't even know what R is, it's not fair of them to expect me to have the skills to teach it. It is a shared responsibility: I have to be personally responsibility to acknowledge I lack skills and have the willingness to learn R, yet the college would also need to provide the resources for R training. They can't expect faculty members to spend their own time and money on it. I don't see the problem as having one cause with one person responsible. There are multiple inputs of causation and shared responsibility of many people, There is nothing "anti white" I am proposing. I am advocating for addressing why certain students are failing and providing them the resources and help to be successful. There is nothing "anti white" about that. However, in this case the failing students are disproportionately black and a white faculty member may be unqualified to address the problem - and she may even be exasperating the problem. Again, that is not "anti-white", that is observing data and dynamics from a diagnostic perspective. You have mentioned the idea of "anti white" many times. Overuse of that lens will create distortions. We will not be able to evaluate a complex system objectively and design solutions with that lens being pre-dominate. That is what I was referring to as a simple binary construct (anti-white vs anti-black). That lens is far to simple to solve a complex problem with various inputs of causation, perspectives and degrees.

I wouldn't want to live anyone else's life. There is something to be said for dancing one's dance. Many people waste time doing what they think they "should be doing in life". All the time. When I'm doing what I enjoy and get into "the zone", all sorts of insights and realizations arise. Yet not everything gets me into the zone. Things like video games and playing basketball doesn't do it for me. Things like running, yoga, integrating concepts and hiking in nature are a good spaces to enter the zone. I know it's "spiritual incorrect" to call these "spirituality", yet they are for me. At was at a Buddhist Sangha one time and a fellow talked about a spiritual experience he had during a 2hr meditation in a forest. I said "Omigosh!! I had a similar spiritual experience on a 2hr run in the forest!!". Yet he responded that running doesn't count as "spiritual training" and it wasn't a "spiritual experience". It was "runner's high". . . . Yea, whatever dude. . .

The male professor voluntarily resigned. Yet I don't know how "voluntary" it was. He could have been stigmatized and pressured to resign. I don't think forcing out the male professor sets a bad precedent. He pretty much went along with what she said with "yea, yea". Terminating someone for that would put extreme pressure on people to be able to interpret sentiment / intention of their peers and challenge them on anything that could be perceived as racist. I think it's fair to ask what level of "calling out / calling in" is required of faculty. For example, if a colleague of mine told me they sexually assaulted a student, I would be required to call him out by reporting him. Yet what if a colleague mentions he has some cute girls in his class this semester? Would I be required to challenge him on exactly what he meant by that? Would I be fired if I didn't report him? Requiring that type of "calling out / calling in" is very problematic. Here, I wouldn't even know exactly what to call out or report? The male professor seemed to be like "yea, yea whatever". He wasn't contributing or advancing the conversation. I think it becomes very problematic to require someone in that position to call her out/in. Consider that there aren't clear standards of what counts as "racist" or "inappropriate". Some stuff is obvious, yet other stuff isn't. For example, one of my colleagues mentioned that during her field trip all the white students went into one van and all the minority students went into another van. So on the trip home she intentionally mixed up the students so each van had a diverse mixture. I was like "oh, ok" and I moved on. Yet would something like that be "racist"? Would I be required to challenge her and ask if any students complied or resisted? Did she put any pressure on students? Did she penalize a student's grade for not complying? What if a student resisted? Is that student "racist"? Would I have to contact that student? Would I have to report them? That level of vague micromanagement is super problematic. Imo, part of the process is cultural evolution. I worked at a Uni in California that was naturally diverse - white people were majority minority. Everyone interacted with people of different races all the time. There were likely aspects of systemic racism at the Uni, yet the culture of people just naturally interacted well together. Independent diversity coaches weren't needed to tell people what is racially inappropriate. . . And then I worked at a college that was 90%+ affluent white. It was a homogenous community and simple. Diversity coaches weren't needed to coach white people about white people since it was 90%+ affluent. Yet when the demographics changed to only 50% affluent white, the dynamics changed and a lot of white faculty became awkward and didn't know what is appropriate. And often, they had good intentions - most of the white faculty wanted more diversity. So when a Hispanic woman was hired, white faculty might tell her "I'm so glad you are here, we really need minority faculty like you here. Welcome". The white prof. was intending to welcome the new prof and had no idea how what they said is inappropriate. When called out on it the white prof might say "Huh, how was what I said wrong?". Then things get tricky. . .

Whether viruses exist is a very different question than our understanding of viruses. Understanding things like viral life cycle and viral impact on cellular function becomes highly nuanced and context-dependent. Viruses are extremely diverse and have many different interactions at the cellular level. Some people spend their entire life studying viruses. There are some common features of viruses, yet they are so diverse it becomes nearly impossible to make general statements like "viruses kill cells". This isn't always true. It's very context-dependent. Regarding viral-cellular interactions, one would need to ask a question like "How does HIV impact the cellular activity of T cells?". It would be like saying "insects don't eat flowers". It depends on the insect, there are many types of insects - some of which eat flowers. The statement "viruses don't harm cells" is context-dependent. Some viruses don't harm some cells. Other viruses cause a little harm, other viruses cause extreme harm. Yet, the claim that viruses never cause harm is untrue. No one experiment elucidates an entire process. As well, no single experiment can have every control. Every experiment has caveats. That is why experimental data is looked at collectively when creating models of cellular biology. I don't know what you mean by "the sterilization process of the cell cultures killed the cells". Sterilized environments are standard procedure when working with cell culture, since the broth is extremely sensitive to microbial contamination. Enders had to work with cell culture in a sterilized environment, which obviously didn't kill the cells. If a sterilized environment kills cells there wouldn't be any cells to cultivate the polio virus.

There was an immense amount of data points released in 2020. There was so much data that algorithms were designed to process and analyze it. Studies are an important component of developing breadth and depth of understanding on a topic. They are not the only component, yet an important component. I agree that maks wearing can have a negative impact on social interactions. I haven't seen any evidence that masks are unhealthy due to excessive levels of C02 or microbe recycling. This is the cost of dismissing studies. One may believe that "viruses" haven't been confirmed. Viruses have been confirmed with mountains of data for many decades. It's ludicrous to believe that virus don't exist because you can't see them with your naked eye.

There are distinctions between strawman arguments, metaphors and hyperbole. A strawman argument is using a weak, unrelated construct (a strawman) to refute an argument. I'm not trying to refute an argument. I'm trying to reveal underlying structure and myopia of arguments in order to broaden perspectives into integrated meta views. This is difficult for a mind immersed in an argumentative mindset of "my position vs your position". Metaphors and hyperbole can be useful to reveal structure and myopia of a construct via bypassing the person's immersion and attachment within that construct. However, metaphors use abstraction which can be difficult for minds that interpret literally. Hyperbole can use exaggeration on a specific point to reveal insight into that point. Yet it's easy for people to miss this point as unrelated and miss the point. As well, hyperbolic examples focus on a single point and filter out larger context. There are pros and cons to using them.

I'm not saying Newsbuster misinterpreted the statements. I'm saying Newsbusters made assumptions and contextualized her sentiment. I agree that CNN miscontextualized her message as calling for peace. Yet Newsbusters stated that Sherelle's message was for protestors to burn down the suburbs. I would consider this a possible distortion of her message. Newbusters is claims that Sherelle explicitly calls for protestors to burn down the suburbs. Yet it was implicit. Quite often in politics, everyone knows what a person means even if it's implicit. As well, dog whistles are commonly used to mask intention of meaning. However, I think it's important to consider sentiment. Yet it gets tricky. That is why I'm saying I need more information. I would need to talk with Sherelle. There are people in inner cities that are sick of protestors coming into their city and damaging their city. They don't see the protestors as people in their community. They see protestors coming in from the surrounding suburbs and damaging their city. It's reasonable to say "We are sick of you people coming in from the suburbs damaging our community. We want peace in our community. Take your shit to your suburban communities with your protests and damage". I think it's reasonable that this is Sherelle's message. Her main sentiment is clearly about getting violence out of her community. That is where the vast majority of her sentiment is. This is different than Newbusters contextualization. They claim that Sherelle is explicitly calling for people to violently attack suburbs. I consider that an assumption. It may be true. I would need to ask Sherelle "When you say 'Take that shit to the suburbs' are you specifically calling for protestors to burn down suburbs or is the sentiment to keep that shit out of our community and your shit in your own community?" CNN's response is irrelevant here because they didn't get clarity from Sherelle. I'm referring prior to the CNN and Newbusters contextualizations. Trading one contextualization for another doesn't address my question of underlying assumption.

I think you make a valid point about the influence of the fabricated story. That's not what I'm pointing to. Iraqi's were committing human atrocities in kuwait. It's not fair to isolate one fabricated story of an atrocity away from the actual sea of human atrocity occurring. It's not like someone made up a random story about human atrocities in an otherwise peaceful country and then other countries invaded an innocent situation.

I haven’t thought about it like this before. If someone said “I’m more attracted to white/Asian/Hispanic etc people”, I don’t think anyone would think much of of it. Yet there is a question on OKcupid on “would you date someone from another race?” Some people say “no”, which has given me pause. Would not even considering the possibility of dating another race be racist? Perhaps it doesn’t seem so obvious because romantics relationships are so personal and intimate. If the question was “would you be friends with someone of another race?”. Saying “no” to that would seem racist. As well, I imagine many people spend most of their personal time with people of the same race. I suppose “preferences” can cause problems. In many ways, homogeneous populations can be simpler. My college went from 90%+ affluent white, down to about 60%. The increase in diversity made things more complex, like proper ways to interact, what is fair, how calls the shots etc. And students gravitate toward similar races. Whenever I have small group activities and allow students to choose their own groups, white students aggregate and minority students aggregate. If we have two buses for a field trip, one bus while be nearly all white and the other nearly all minority. They don’t naturally mix up. I think it’s subconscious. The only exception I’ve noticed is with sports. If students of different races are on the same sports team, they are more likely to aggregate. Yet I’ve never thought of this as racist. I thought it’s just human nature toward what is more familiar.

Yea, it gets tricky. If someone says they prefer to date white people, that seems harmless. Yet what if I say I prefer to have white friends? What if I say I prefer to have white co-workers? I could say that I have no negative feelings toward people of color. I simply have positive views of white scientists and I'm neutral toward black and brown scientists. My preference is to work with white scientists. . . To me, that has a sketchy vibe to it.

@Raptorsin7 I'm curious what the culture is like at Georgetown. She acted unprofessionally, yet I don't think it's that's bad. And an adjunct professor doesn't have that much power or influence. Sure, we can hold her to a high standard and perhaps she isn't fit to teach at Georgetown. Yet how much is Georgetown administration responsible? Are they recruiting poor inner city black students to help their demographic numbers, enrollment, grants and donation drives? Are they doing some virtue signaling? I'm curious if faculty/staff/students have stepped up and said "Wait a minute, the black students are performing poorly. Let's find out why. Are we providing enough resources for underprepared students?" In the bigger picture, firing this professor doesn't do much good if the majority of black students are doing poorly and dropping out of school.

I agree they are not mutually exclusive. This confounds the problem because the majority of Americans want to see the issue as binary. One side posting videos of police abuse and the other side posting videos of irrational criminals acting stupid. And there in mixtures. Sometimes there is irrational stupidity that justifies use of force, yet too much force is used ala George Floyd. It's got to be difficult for a police officer to judge threat and risk. Yet I think appearance can factor into their judgement. I've had police encounters in which I have no doubt my appearance factored into my benefit. I've always gotten benefit of the doubt. Perhaps sometimes it's fair to factor in appearance, other times it's unfair.

From what I've read, her firing is in a grey area based on Georgetown policies. https://www.thefire.org/one-georgetown-law-professor-fired-one-resigns-after-conversation-about-black-students-academic-performance-accidentally-recorded/#:~:text=Share-,One Georgetown Law professor fired%2C one resigns after conversation about,students' academic performance accidentally recorded&text=In the video%2C which was,performance in their negotiations class.

Really? That invasion was filled with human rights atrocities and suffering. And you focus on one fabricated story? Imagine someone being kidnapped and tortured for three weeks and it turns out one of her stories was untrue. Focusing on the one story that is untrue and turning a blind eye to true atrocities is a twisted mindset.

"Newsbusters" is doing a worse recontextualization than CNN!! Can you really not see how the author is filtering what Sherelle is saying and contextualizing her message. Having a particular lens is problematic because the person makes assumptions based on pre-conceived notions as well as various forms of communication. The author of that article is assuming their interpretation is correct. I don't even think the author even considered there is another way to interpret what Sherelle said. Yet the author is not interested in actually understanding Sherelle's sentiment and message. The author is interested in their agenda. And my guess is you are wearing a similar lens, accepted the Newsbusters framing without a second thought and didn't even consider that you might not be understanding Sherelle's sentiment clearly.