Lurker > joe40001

And yet you're an antivax who believes the shit Joe Rogan says... Proof tests aren't everything

lmao you have to fucking stop joe

I suppose the idea behind this new idea that the problem isnt just using the N-word as an insult, but uttering it in any context, including quoting someone else is that the old approach was insufficiently antiracist. But it is a strange kind of antiracism that requires all of us to make believe that Black people cannot understand the simple distinction between an epithet and a citation of one. Missing that distinction, or pretending to, is at best coarse. And we are being instructed to carry on as if this coarse approach is a kind of sophistication.

Plus, the assumption that Black people are necessarily as insulted by the mention as by the use implies a considerable fragility on our part. An implication that I reject and resent. If all someone has to do to ruin your day is say a word even in the process of decrying it your claim on being a strong person becomes shaky. I made the same point last week in a somewhat different context, and I realize that some are affronted by my calling their fortitude into question, but I am mystified by how comfortable so many of us are in giving white people this power over us.

But then I may be missing the point. Maybe its that if a white person just mentioning the N-word is adjudged as lexical violence, subject to pitiless prosecution in the court of public opinion, then we have a kind of power ourselves. The tables seem turned. But there are other ways to exert power or effectuate Black uplift. Why include, alongside the power of exerting genuine achievement and brilliance from Susan Collins being named as the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston to the literary genius of Colson Whitehead a pretense of not understanding the difference between using an epithet and mentioning it?

Because a pretense it is. We only exert this power by performing delicacy. I simply cannot believe that so many bright, confident people are meaningfully injured by hearing someone refer to a slur. Obviously, its never been OK to direct the N-word at someone to demean them, but Black observers just 20 years ago were often fine with someone not Black uttering the word in discourse; the response among their equivalents today would seem to be an add-on, a new look.
If all this falling to pieces served some larger purpose, perhaps there would be room for classifying it as a useful new standard. If people thought, for example, that it would help make Congress pass a reparations bill or force the Supreme Courts right-leaning majority to rethink the Voting Rights Act, then theyd be making some kind of sense.

But none of that will happen, and this real life is all we have. Hypersensitivity for its own sake is self-destructive. It exerts a drag on the momentum of engaging in actual political activism, and even in our imbibing the wonders of this existence that we are all granted a spell of.
Yet an opinion like this one often attracts the tart critique that it is, in essence, a blanket condonation for use of the N-word. But that critique itself ignores the use/mention distinction, daring someone to call it out. If Im condoning anything, it is, specifically, the mention, within bounds of civility, of the N-word: in college classrooms, when reading material from different eras; in reporting, giving news accounts of people saying it; and in private discussions between Planned Parenthood staff members recounting what donors say to them in private.

Im open to the idea that some people genuinely dont quite see the difference between using and mentioning the N-word. But we have to have this debate and return some nuance to our collective view not pretend the difference doesnt exist. I look at this differently than India Arie, but Ill note that she acknowledges that Rogans mentions of the N-word werent racist, just, in her view, insensitive.

To those who would object and say they just dont want to hear the word, no matter what, the constructive response would be to point out that not so long ago, far fewer people felt that way about mention versus use of this word, and to await, engage and evaluate their response to that. Maybe one might even decide that their subsequent response is one we agree with. But acquaintance with the straightforward use/mention difference is, or should be, a badge of membership in a modern society. Anyone whos willing to process Black people referring to one another with the N-word, as a term of endearment or a form of word empowerment (and many, including me, are, even if we dont use it this way ourselves) understands that a spoken or written instance of the N-word can mean more than one thing. As such, they should be able to appreciate, if not embrace, that quoting a savory rap lyric or comedians routine that includes the word or just referring to the word to note its prior application is not the same thing as deploying it as an insult.
Our current nervous social contract on this word requires us to act as if there is no such difference. But all of us, Black, white and otherwise, can see past this. The sky wont fall if we admit it. Its time to stop putting people in the stocks for mentioning the N-word when theyve done nothing history will judge as wrong.

Over roughly the past two decades, American mores have been settling into an idea that when it comes to the N-word, theres no difference between use (lobbing the word as a slur in reference to a Black person or Black people) and mention (referring to the word itself). Particularly if the speaker is white.

Some seem to think enforcement of this bright-line standard is progress: At the end of a recent cable-news soliloquy, Bakari Sellers, a former South Carolina state legislator, said: You can never and white folk need to hear this during Black History Month. It is never OK to say the word. Then he said the actual word, then, Period. If that approach is progress, then its a peculiar kind of progress not worth what it requires from us as thinking people.

That TV segment was about the ubiquitous podcaster, stand-up comedian, ultimate-fighting commentator and former Fear Factor host Joe Rogan, who has come under fire for saying the N-word on his show a number of times, compiled in a video thats been shared widely on social media. Many might find it hard to imagine that in the 21st century, a sensible media host would sound off with that word. And indeed, without the benefit of more context, what we see in the compilation is Rogan referring to the word casually, sometimes seemingly in dismissal or mockery, or briefly imitating someone elses use of the word. Rogan has since posted an apology video on Instagram.

Last year, I wrote about how the N-word became unsayable. In a recent installment of this newsletter, I said that the N-word, among the most, if not the most, acrid slurs should certainly be condemned when hurled as a bigoted oath. But theres a difference between that and what Sellers is talking about that we need to unpack.

Not too long ago, it was considered OK for people who arent Black to refer to the N-word in conversation. Not to use it, but to mention it. Within the limits of decorum, of course: Someone who, even if only mentioning the word, did so repeatedly within one conversation came off as noxious. However, under normal circumstances, white people could passingly refer to the word without the now-predictable pushback. Im old enough to have done a couple of radio interviews in the mid-90s where this was the case.

But today, the Rogan reel has become fuel on the fire Rogan ignited by hosting people with controversial views on everything from race relations to, in particular, Covid and vaccination, in the wake of which singers and podcasters, from Neil Young and India Arie to Bren Brown and Roxane Gay, have announced that theyre pulling or suspending their work from Spotify, the streaming service that hosts Rogans podcast. Yes, Rogan is also responsible for an inexcusably gross comparison of a movie theater in a Black neighborhood to Planet of the Apes, which he addresses in his Instagram video. That said, I hear Rogans mentions of the N-word as just that mentions. And the idea that mentioning as opposed to using the N-word is a cardinal sin is questionable regardless.

The case for making this distinction is perhaps clearer with what happened to the journalist Mike Pesca, who hosted his podcast, The Gist, at Slate until last year. Pesca was investigated and then, The Washington Post reported, mutually agreed to part ways with Slate. First, for two incidences of mentioning rather than using the N-word, once in an interview and once on a podcast, neither of which, apparently, ever made it to publication. And then for a discussion on Slack about whether non-Black people are forbidden to speak the N-word in any context. Pesca seems to have been judged as rendering the workplace unsafe in the parlance of our times and his podcast is now on another platform.

But its fair to surmise that 20 years ago, an outlet like Slate wouldnt have cut ties with Pesca over something like this, and its not clear that mores on race then were especially backward compared with today. On the Slate podcast I hosted at the same time Pesca was hosting his, I myself ventured that we all need to observe the difference between use and mention with the N-word including that I said the word out loud and the full word was included in the written subtitle of the episode. Apparently, this left the workplace safe because Im Black. But Pesca, in effect, got canned for doing more or less the same thing.

And then theres the former C.E.O. of a Planned Parenthood regional affiliate based in Seattle, Chris Charbonneau described in December by The Seattle Timess Nina Shapiro as a formidable figure in reproductive rights who worked for Planned Parenthood for nearly 40 years who was removed from her position. Why? Because in a conversation with colleagues in which Charbonneau recounted a previous conversation with a Planned Parenthood donor, she quoted the donor, who had spoken the N-word (even, according to Charbonneau, bracketing her retelling with quote-unquote). Reportedly, among those who took umbrage at Charbonneaus mention of the N-word were two white Planned Parenthood staffers who later resigned, citing this episode, seemingly attempting to demonstrate to signal their commitment to what we now call antiracism. Charbonneau was faulted for her handling of the interaction with the donor, even though, according to The Seattle Timess reporting on her side of the story, the donor quickly said she shouldnt have said that and Charbonneau replied, No, you shouldnt have.

....

Same as any other person who is rapidly approaching middle age and still thinks theyre the same as they were in HS or college.

Like no you aren't still young, you aren't still a kid, and you do not have more in common with younger people than people your age just because you think you're still young.

Guys, I have a confession to make.

I also thought Tolkien's name was Token this whole time. v_v

I'm so sorry.

I think I watched about a handful of movies last year.

the older I get, the less I enjoy focusing on watching something for more than an hour.

with that said, I really enjoyed Midnight Mass.

the host of jeopardy, do you think she's pretty?

Tag

Ive been considering trying an open mic for the first time

Are you funny? You dont come across as especially humorous in your posts.

Good luck! What are some basic things from your set?

I think it's the other way around: it's a double jellyfish (or a pair of x-wings plus the knight's move and diagonal restraints) keeping the digit out of the forbidden zone in your puzzle. Under normal sudoku rules, there's nothing keeping any specific digit out of the ring.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/6/6/4/AAPWHiAAC59A.jpg
Edit because examples of a workable ring probably should be workable.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/1/7/7/AAPWHiAAC51Z.jpg
You could still solve with whatever method you want if you notice that, for example, purple has to reappear appear in the grid once in each colored verical line and once in each colored vertical line. That means that there are a total of 8 purples in the colored lines/columns, plus the initial appearance, and therefore no more purples anywhere in the grid.

I colored each middle cell differently and colored everywhere they could go like you said. After that it was just slowly narrowing down everything. Played around with the anti knight a lot to narrow down spots in boxes. Think there were a couple jellyfish in there. Used the cages to to narrow down some colors to only 2 cells in a column a couple times which let me clear some out. I forget everything but that was basically it.

I should say I really like how much the toroidal rule was used, and the inequalities at the end was cute.

And the puzzle colored in a way that actually works this time:

https://imgur.com/a/rRicHlD

And solved:

https://imgur.com/a/qCLmAL9

Break-in without first considering all options is this:

We know through earlier discussion that every value that is not in a center square is located in sets of 2x2 squares and are diagonally adjacent to one another. The cage shared by boxes 3 and 6 limit the positioning of where yellow and black can be placed in that configuration. Similarly, the cage shared by boxes 4 and 7 limit where purple and orange can be placed. The combination of those possibilities gives us this grid:

https://imgur.com/a/Nnbmn6t

The boxes connected in the green squares are three bi-value squares with an extra digit in a fourth square. Since we know that every non-center square is located diagonally adjacent to a square of the same value, we can eliminate not only the extra value from the square, but its matching value in its potential counterpart in the diagonal cell. That lets us place the orange in rows 2 and 3, the yellow in row 7 and 8, and in turn bumps out potential diagonals allowing us to place purple in rows 1 and 2, black in rows 8 and 9, and we're so far ahead of ourselves that we'll be able to place dark gray in rows 1 and 9 immediately.

And the whole puzzle whittles itself down with the same logic.

I like the Star Wars reference you have to use if you picked Star Trek as your answer.

After reading that, my apparently needlessly complicated set-making tells me that every number in the grid appears diagonally adjacent to itself everywhere it appears in the grid unless it's in the center of a block. Unless I'm mistaken.

1. I KNOW I'm going to fail so it's so much harder to start/finish somehthing (even though I still do)
2. I don't at all count my successes. I have a good job, some other stuff has gone well, I'm not the worst person ever, but I still think of myself kinda like that.