even more quiddities and agonies of the ruling class - a new rolling new york times thread

yeah having had experiences in both g&t and non-tracked situations I def feel like there is a "special brain" syndrome that comes with it that sets you up for a lot of social, emotional and even professional struggle. I think it's better to just differentiate instruction if possible and maybe to track some subject areas. I don't think the kid who's already mastered all of algebra I should be stuck sitting through algebra I but I also don't think they need to live in special brain world apart from the mortals.

also that is fucking insane about the school play, jesus

acting obv exactly the kind of thing a kid struggling elsewhere is as likely as anyone else to discover they're good at

That George Packer article is so disappointing. Apparently the "public" school in question--Brooklyn Free School--is an independent school with a sliding scale. If I am interpreting this correctly--he didn't even send his kid to public school!

The best part of gifted childhood is coming out of it realizing you’re just above average and the career options are basically the same while your family expects you to enter the highest ranks of some learned profession

Oh never mind, he went to the Brooklyn New School, which is within the NYC school system. Still!

xp luckily my family already had that disappointment with my brother and expected nothing great from me

Tombot OTM. And that article's performative conservatism-as-wokeness is repellent.

This is related to why I’ve posted unsolicited ENLIST IN THE ARMED FORCES advice approximately 100 times over my ilx career. No better environment to cure an individual of their gifted child neuroses while also providing a chance to understand what practical utility those so-called gifts might actually provide

(that’s my version of conservatism as performative wokeness, I guess)

Eh college was sufficient to disabuse me of the idea that being a gifted child had resulted in me being anything other than an ordinary adult but I see where you’re coming from.

The creepiest thing I can remember from the article (the parts I could read before my brain exploded) was that "opting out of standardised tests was an expression of school community solidarity but I couldn't help but be concerned that now there was no standardised test of whether the school was educating [minority list] properly so we let little [child name] sit the testing despite 95% of parents refusing it and he wasn't bothered at all so I guess that's good?" AARGH also how sensitive his child was for not mentioning that he had a back yard because friendships [with poor people, implied] rest on not saying certain things. What the fuck.
Sorry - just needed to vent.

friendships [with poor people, implied] rest on not saying certain things.

well, I grew up around a shit load of poor kids and, yes, friendships with them did require not saying certain things -- basically just the sorts of things only a stupid asshole would ever say to a friend. but the relative sizes (or the existence) of our backyards never entered into it.

however, I think it is quite possible the kid is a lot more sensible than the dad about that stuff.

This is related to why I’ve posted unsolicited ENLIST IN THE ARMED FORCES advice approximately 100 times over my ilx career. No better environment to cure an individual of their gifted child neuroses while also providing a chance to understand what practical utility those so-called gifts might actually provide

Waiting tables for a couple of years also does this with no chance of getting blown up and an atmosphere permissive to all manner of recreational drugs that a growing person should experiment with.

xp apologies, Aimless, I was just outraged by the article and was gunning for the author

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/13/arts/artport-storage-new-york.html

Whatever is stored here, more is coming, Mr. Sapienza said.

“Every day more art is created, and sold and bought — and needs a place to be stored.”

h

As someone who lives with an artist, I can say Mr Sap is otm

Maybe not sold and bought though lol

I have a closet jammed full of art from high school. It's like nuclear waste, you can't just get rid of it.

as somebody who occasionally makes bad art, i can vouch for one of three methods to clear that out:
1) carry it around with you and give it randomly to new people when you meet them. they'll remember you!
2) trade it with other would be artists. they make bad art too and what looks bad to you may look good to them and vice versa; i've given away stuff that i couldn't bear to look at that people have been over the moon about.
3) if you're having a bad day or mental health lapse, take it outside and break it violently. it will clear your head, i promise!

I had a piece in the house that I had to break yesterday and it was a bummer but also kinda cathartic. Now i can try to make it again, only better this time.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/scaachikoul/lauren-duca-book-teen-vogue-how-to-start-a-revolution

“I always say if you're going to buy a pair of boots for the winter, buy winter boots. Don't go out buying a $2,000 pair of Chanel winter boots that look really cool because that's not something you want to be wearing in the snow,”

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/climate/sustainable-clothing.html

quiddities and agonies of people who are so rich they are confused about basic and obvious facts of life

that article........ is a lot

jesus christ

these underwears don't feel good to touch should i buy themmmmm

And while jeans tend to come in heavier fabric weights...

... than t-shirts?? This whole article is just bananas and amazing, i think it was written and edited by undercover Martians and is just a front for some kind of invasion

link stopped working. Maybe they realized "this is the stupidest shit ever" and took it down?

no it's live.

On average, each American produces about 75 pounds of textile waste per year.

I guess a few times a year we take a couple of garbage bags worth of clothing to salvation army, and that could easily add up to 75lbs or more, but that's a family of four with two growing kids.

i probably threw out four pairs of underwear and three pairs of socks last year

i'd like to see the median, but "on average"...

https://harmony1.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/textile-recycling-issues.png

I likely could go the rest of my life without having to buy any new clothes or shoes.

these underwears don't feel good to touch should i buy themmmmm

"sometimes things that are expensive... are worse"

Guys what the fuck is the Times doing publishing any information about the whistleblower, and what the fuck is the Times doing making articles about “swing voters” who they’ve interviewed before about being Trump voters

You’re wrong. NYT does pay attention to subscriber cancellations. It’s one of the metrics for “outrage” that they take to distinguish between “real” outrage and superficial outrage. What subscribers say can back up dissenting views inside the paper about what it should do and be.

— sarah jeong (@sarahjeong) September 27, 2019

cancel your subscription!

i regret that i have just one subscription to cancel (and did so six weeks ago)

I took the opposite perspective (on Twitter) and attempted to offer a positive spin:

Fire Dean Baquet, Maggie Haberman, Maureen Dowd, David Brooks, Ross Douthat, Bret Stephens, Bari Weiss, and Frank Bruni and I'll consider a subscription.

you forgot james bennet

Reasons for cancelling: "It will genuinely be a relief to read news other than 'incredibly wealthy people wear rat dresses/think they're middle-class/are confused by jeans.'"

counterpoint to cancelling via columbia journalism review

Yesterday evening, the picture shifted. The Times reported that the White House knew the whistleblower was a CIA officer before the paper published that fact. The idea that the paper had “outed” him to his bosses seemed suddenly to have been mistaken. As CNN’s Brian Stelter noted in his newsletter, the new information “takes some of the heat off the NYT, for sure.” The words “We also understand that the White House already knew he was a CIA officer” have been appended to Baquet’s quote in the Times’s story. (The timing seems murky, though, as that line is absent from the Reader Center version of his statement.) The case for publication looks stronger now than it did before that detail was shared. Other arguments against the paper’s decision—for example, that the whistleblower’s identity isn’t newsworthy—don’t add up.

The debate over what the Times published yesterday is nuanced and complicated—far more so than an outraged reaction on Twitter allows. By the end of the day, the hashtag #CancelNYT, now familiar, was trending. It seems likely that the uproar stemmed more from a general sense of rage at the Times, and less from genuine concern for the whistleblower’s wellbeing.

and an argument for subscribing to Dagens ETC instead
https://www.etc.se/ledare/swedish-newspaper-dagens-etc-now-we-will-reject-all-fossil-fuel-ads

I agreed with this in the Guardian though: Danielle Brian, the executive director of the not-for-profit watchdog Project On Government Oversight, argued that the move was unnecessary because the whistleblower’s credibility “was already stabilized by the Inspector General and the Department of National Intelligence”, which recognized the complaint as urgent and credible. “We didn’t need the New York Times to tell us what agency this person came from,” Brian said.

the White House being able to deduce the individual's identity and react isn't the only way harm can come to a person?

exactly! what a weird take

Other arguments against the paper’s decision—for example, that the whistleblower’s identity isn’t newsworthy—don’t add up.

i'll guess I'll take your word for it??

not nyt but you have to be fucking kidding me
https://pix11.com/2019/10/05/if-this-queens-woman-stays-off-her-phone-for-an-entire-year-shell-win-100000/

god this is bleak https://t.co/NazYIJ70pD pic.twitter.com/opFU9HGDu4

— b-boy bouiebaisse (@jbouie) October 17, 2019

Some hit their number and some went bust, but Silicon Valley is more than ever a showcase for the unfettered capitalism of 2019.

Yet no one seems to talk about their number anymore,

I have an acquaintance who's a CEO and is rich. He talks about his number plenty, and plans to sell and retire in his 50s. I feel like article is determined to evade the fundamental fact that the particular slice of rich people they're talking about actually care about and value the work they do, well beyond its at-this-point-minimal effect on their ability to consume. Why does Lady Gaga keep writing and recording songs? I guess it's... because she still has songs she wants to write? I have friends who are highly-paid doctors and they seem to truly see their skills as valuable and useful and want to keep operating on people. The hedge-fund dudes, they're just playing a game they like playing. Asking "why don't they quit?" is like asking why people don't quit playing Fortnite.

While for people like my friend, who work jobs that generate money but are not particularly meaningful to them, it's the same as always; you do the work to get the money, and when you have all the money you'll ever need, you quit.

I'll bet there are more rich people like my friend than like Lady Gaga.