Actually, my feeling is not dissimilar to the way an atheist feels about theology. The whole enterprise is founded on some very dubious premises, but enough smart people have put serious effort into it that they’ve generated some good thinking along the way, more or less by accident.

Bounty hunters are polite even to the fugitives who, after all, are also their customers, and sadly, bounty hunters rely a lot on repeat business. One customer of a firm owned by the same family that runs the one Dennis works for told him proudly, “My family and I have been coming to Frank’s Bail Bonds for three generations.”

(via voxette-vk)

Yeah I stumbled over that paragraph too, that was not a joyful thing to read.

I was going to reference the quote, “Do not make monuments to the living, for they can still disgrace the stone,” but after trying to source it, I think – in a very “then perish”-sort of way – it’s actually originally from Achewood, and I am super not sure how I feel about that.

They read Marx, Lenin and Mao and formed student groups to discuss the progress of socialism. They investigated the treatment of the campus proletariat, including janitors, cooks and construction workers. They volunteered to help struggling rural families and dutifully recited the slogans of President Xi Jinping.

Then, after graduation, they attempted to put the party’s stated ideals into action, converging from across China last month on Huizhou, a city in the south, to organize labor unions at nearby factories and stage protests demanding greater protections for workers.

That’s when the party realized it had a problem.

In the era of #MeToo, when it finally feels OK to discuss sexism in academe with my male colleagues, I wasn’t sure how to handle this conversation with the journal editor. I had intentionally avoided referencing this particular professor’s work because he’s been fairly awful toward me and other women — although just a sexist jerk, not a sexual harasser.

Here’s a question we haven’t asked about structural sexism in academe: Do we still keep citing the scholarship of serial harassers and sexists? Within their institutions, they may finally get the fate due to them (or not). But their citational legacy will live on, sometimes even in the form of the pro-forma citations that reviewers expect to see in a manuscript, and ask for if they don’t.

Should We Still Cite the Scholarship of Serial Harassers and Sexists? – The Chronicle of Higher Education (via the-grey-tribe)

How to tell whether you’re in a hard or soft discipline: If the authors bad opinions make their paper unworthy of citation, you’re in a soft discipline.

While Karen sees herself as a unique individual, Joan sees Karen as a white individual.
[…]
The episode highlights Karen’s white fragility. She is unable to see herself in racial terms.

How White People Handle Diversity Training in the Workplace (via the-grey-tribe)

I feel like we *just* spent two generations desperately trying to teach white people not to think of themselves as white. It doesn’t go so well when the people in power consider themselves substantially different from the subaltern.