A few thoughts on Fidel

        Fidel Castro was a dictator who used intimidation and other terror techniques to get his way. There is no doubt that he committed some heinous crimes as any dictator would. To be honest, we rarely find in history that someone who wields absolute power leaves the office untainted. Comparing him to any President would be unfair. The President has two political bodies that exists to keep him from doing anything too tyrannical (and yet we still find horrible instances of Presidential overreach). Castro had no such check, given the haphazard nature of his ascension.
         But make no mistake: Castro was a symptom of the problem, not the root cause of distress in Cuba. What many of the Cubans who were exiled tend to leave out was how they were essentially benefiting from an incredibly stratified society. Certainly some Cubans were removed out of political malice in a way that is unacceptable, but there were many who left because the vast wealth they accumulated on the backs of an abused working class was going to be confiscated. As these revolutions tend to go, the rich don't fare well. While such violence is morally reprehensible, so is starvation and constant exhaustion. What I mean to say is the middle class and rich folk, who like to condemn Castro have no right. The notion that Cubans in the states depict an accurate depiction of him is false. These are those who did not thrive in his regime. It would be like asking the Japanese in the United States after internment what their thoughts were on the U.S. as an agent of moral good.
       As for Castro's socialist rhetoric, one must wonder what would have happened if the the United States hadn't thoroughly crippled its economy? People who claim Cuba is a failed socialist project have very little proof. Citing instances of poverty in Cuba is meaningless given that the United States essentially spent the past 40 to 50 years maintaining that poverty. Cuba's medical advances have been well documented and the fact that college is completely free to Cubans is also to be congratulated. The quality of these institutions is dubious, but the mere sentiment cannot be scoffed at by people from a country that essentially enslaves their citizens in perpetual debt when it comes to these very institutions.
    Castro is a controversial figure. I find that the one sided American propaganda given about him is not an accurate depiction. Even more interesting, is the question of whether America's embargo and international influence actually strengthened his hold in Cuba. What if America had simply allowed him to be, while also taking every opportunity to let Cuban citizens into the United States? We've seen instances of people using the money and influence they gain abroad to help affect change in their home country. That could have easily been the case in Cuba. And instead focusing on  a half caricature of the United States as a capitalist beast that intended to put a puppet government in Cuba; the Cubans may have focused on the deficiencies of their own leader. My point is that people are acting mighty new about Castro and Cuba. I know some of my friends have deep and bitter histories concerning this subject, but I wonder if their families were on the right side of history.
      As I think of being on the right side of history, I realize how economic stratification is often the true cause for political strife. Socialism addresses some of these issues, but even in socialist government we find inequality. Capitalism in its purest form actually addresses these issues as well. This is a completely rudimentary assessment of these sort of issues, but I feel socialism works best in a small localized government. Cuba was the perfect place for socialism. For huge conglomerates like Russia, China and the U.S., capitalism works best. 

Luke Cage's ending ruins the entire show

                  The first episode of Luke Cage had little to no action and I liked it that way. The exposition was rich with Harlem history as if Luke and Pops were speaking against a pervasive gang culture that still holds true in Black and Hispanic NYC today. As the show progresses, Luke becomes a symbol of African American excellence. One scene in particular stands out. When Cage is staring out at the Crispus Attucks complex, he lectures the young African American boy about the history of the N-word and the pride that comes with being a black man. These are subject matters I know very little about and don't feel equipped to discuss, but damn it's powerful. And just like that, in episode two,  I was committed to watching the show. I expected it to follow in the steps of Fruitvale Station by talking about inner city culture and conflict, while also appeasing a white voyeuristic audience. But it seems the latter part (and I believe to its detriment) of that demographic won out because the ending of the show exists merely to remind you its a marvel comic. The flurry of deaths and deep rooted corruption with an oversaturation of backstory and potential love interests muddle the amazing race/inner city work Luke Cage does/could do.
             

 On top of that, all that extra shit is god awful. Wildcard characters like Diamondback, who would have been served better by a slow drawn out reveal, are arbitrarily thrust into the action, completely making all former adversaries sort of meaningless. Luke's relationship with the wise Latina doctor, whose existence serves as a connecting thread for the extended Marvel universe, actually takes away from the Luke Cage universe. She could have been introduced at the end with all the other nonsense. We didn't need alien guns or any of that stuff in the middle of season 1. All we needed was The Wire-esque gang banging operations that are thwarted through a combination of the efforts of Luke and Misty. The symbolic power of an African American vigilante character, finally being able to put his differences aside when approached by a cop who is actually germane to the neighborhood she serves would provide an alternate template and narrative for the current hostilities we see today. Instead we get some weird ass vendetta that I didn't completely understand or bother to care about. There's still nuggets of a good show in the second and third act of Luke Cage. The back story concerning Cottonmouth and the blind rage over sexual assault were incredibly powerful (I felt the sexual assault mention was completely mishandled). Yet the moment the random lackey comes in and begins to steer Cottonmouth's cousin as if she had not been an established politician for years seemed unbelievable and frankly a bit unsettling. The house of cards built in the first act is destroyed far too quickly with little to no mourning period. The message is "all that stuff about race and culture that was just to cover our bases cause we're touching a minority super hero," now it's time to get to the real stuff. And I mean let's face it, the original source material, while progressive for its time, was still created by three white comic geeks who were far more wrapped up in universe building, than any facet of minority issues. 

How Teach for America perpetuates huge problems in education that no one actually talks about

                      The same thing seems to be said in education policy. We need to listen to teachers more. We need to work with schools to get better results. The paradigm has shifted from nationwide mandates to a more grassroots approach. And on paper Teach For America seems to engender this sort of thinking. In fact, the only way Teach for America comes anywhere near their mission statement is through this unspoken belief that if we send smart and successful kids into the education system, they will come out of it as potential stakeholders who will have a stronger grasp on the pulse of education later in life.
                    Too bad the reality is that these students go in as ignorant outsiders and leave as slightly less ignorant outsiders. Now to be fair, there are plenty of stellar recruits. For example, Teach For America has pushed to send people back to their old stomping grounds and the results are excellent. I've met amazing corp members (typically minorities), who go back to teach and were able to formulate sustainable solutions to problems that their schools faced. I also met clueless well intending corp members from big name West Coast schools, who hung out in NYC for two years and immediately jumped ship to Law school/Public Policy/ etc. with the belief that they were now qualified to fix the problems they saw.
            What I hate more than the grad schoolers are the friends I see creating start ups. It's amazing to me that many of them feel they've experienced enough teaching in two years to adequately give expertise to other schools. They create consulting firms, websites, technology, bullshit programs they have no proof of impact for and take advantage of the poorest school districts or at the very least siphon funds from the ultra wealthy. And if any of them can create a big enough following, Teach for America will parade them on their Facebook page. It's hard to be critical of a program who's attempting to help kids, but when they're doing it poorly and receiving funding from schools, then the highest level of scrutiny is warranted.
          Teach for America has always churned out a sea of ignorant reformers, they just usually took the road most traveled. Assistant Principals and Principals are saturated with Teach for America Alum who happened to be in the right place at the right time. News flash, failing schools have tons of overturn and while traditional teachers work hard to become good at teaching, the overachiever attitude that is so heavily recruited by TFA makes for the perfect candidate on paper to take administrative roles. The issue is a good administrator one does not make from looking like a good administrator. Yes, it's excellent to say you have a Harvard grad as your assistant principal, but I'd much rather have an incredibly experienced teacher who could actually provide solutions to the staff they'll have to oversee. Michelle Rhee is kind of the poster child for this. Her ineptitude has been chronicled extensively in Washington D.C. Fortunately, the media and I have no doubt, Teach For America, were on her side the entire way, creating a false image of success. However, data doesn't lie and the nature of her reform was not widely accepted at all. Yet we praise her as a fellow sister in the struggle for the Teach for America mission.
     I just don't buy it anymore. Every friend I see make a new company or become an assistant principal/department head in their school makes me cringe. I am not even able to hold a candle to the amazing teachers and administrators at my school. The thought that I could go to another school and implement their incredibly high standards is arrogant and foolish. It doesn't surprise me that the narrative we see with Teach for America people in education is often one short lived. "Reformers" rush in with lofty goals and inexperience to create a false illusion of strong culture and results. Then they hastily ditch the project before the house of cards begins tumbling down on the communities who desperately believed in their shelter. Are there exceptions to the rule? Of course, many. But we don't need Teach for America to facilitate exceptions.
       I've noticed that my blogs end in this negative fashion and people have often accused me of not providing solutions. But the truth is I have no desire to provide a solution to Teach for America. I find the corp to be part of the problem. I think the people working in the corp should consider leaving. I've met so many amazing minority educators working to support Teach for America. Why? Coalesce and try to get funding. Then hire me. I'll give you my solutions to the problem then.

Note: The real reason so many minorities work for places we don't full believe in is cause we're broke. It's hard out there for us. I feel that, so please don't take the ending of my blogpost as me getting at you.
          

You can't be an "intellectual" professional and be woke

         At my Alma Mater, a political organization decided to ask the incredibly biased question of whether the Black Live's Matter movement was good for race relations. The question itself sounds eerily similar to the criticisms levied by a tacit white population against the civil rights movement of the 1960s. However, the fact that neo-liberals are incredibly dense isn't news to me. What shocked me is when a well known social justice activist from my campus, who happened to be the co-founder of the organization, gave a defense of the organization's query. He argues that the mere act of questioning is not in itself harmful to the cause, but instead allows for frank discussion to be had. And part of me wanted to agree with him. As a former collegiate debater, I felt that the sparring matches of logic and evidence often provided a hidden truth talked about afterwards. Debaters, surprisingly enough, agree on quite a bit and the discussions that happened outside of the debate round were often the most illuminating discussions I had ever had the pleasure to listen/take part in. But even I knew that this was wrong.
          The decision for the Michigan Political Union to have a panel without a single representative from the movement was ignorant and disingenuous. Hearty debate occurs when both sides can be aptly represented. Furthermore, the question invites the sort of skepticism bred in the media concerning the movement. The general opinion of America is the movement essentially amounts to a bunch of pissed off black people who need to get over it. And that's putting American opinion mildly. Minority issues, by their very nature, are often misrepresented by organizations that cater to a "general audience." General often can be coded as white, wealthy, and male. The Michigan Political Union should have anticipated that the movement would take their query as a personal attack and instead of attempting to shut the movement out of the discussion, allow them to play an integral part. But it didn't. And in its mind it kept its puritanical approach to debate, when in actuality it reinforced institutional bias that often discredits minority voices simply because they are unpopular and grossly under researched.
        After looking at what I considered to be a gross injustice occurring at the political union, I was even more shocked to see this former activist defend them. As I said before, the debater in me believed in the therapeutic process of debate, but the minority in me knew too well that certain topics needed to be handled with care. The fact that this former activist had little to no criticism for his organization confirmed something I always secretly felt while living in the bubble of elite academia. I am a poser. He is a poser too. If you're living in a posh apartment in Bushwick, occasionally ordering chop cheeses, while also patronizing a wine and cheese bar right next to the bodega, then you're a poser too. Even as minorities, when we become disconnected from the struggles the majority of minorities face, then we begin to value bourgeois principles such as "intellectualism" over our own people. We don't realize that the intellectualism we have been fed subtly subverts our very existence, becoming in a way a new chain by which we are bound.
       I am guilty of this. My writing is often pretentious. I am blessed to work five days a week in a low income neighborhood so all my students and their families humble me and educate me. To all my friends working in Washington, Microsoft or what ever shining corporate tower on a hill, remember you are ignorant. So please save your deification of intellectualism for people like you because the poor do not have time for it. They know truths you are very much ignorant about. 

If you think the election is a situation of Lesser of Two evils, you're an idiot

                    I feel like this has been said a million times, so I won't belabor it.

1. If you think Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are both awful choices, you're probably a complete idiot.
         One is at worst, a mediocre choice. The other is completely awful.

2. If you think this because you supported Bernie Sanders, then you're just full of bullshit.

        Stop pretending you know or care about politics. You're probably as committed as the fools who supported Kony 2012.


That is all 

When Savage meets the alt-right

                    This was supposed to be a long rant about how much I hate privileged people. But I'll just make it simple:
I hate privileged people who think they are better because they are privileged. I fill up with schadenfreude when tragedy strikes these sort of individuals. If you think you're an alpha who can pull through anything, I truly hope you get a bat to the knee caps. That's all :D


Note: Tragedy can be awful sad. I'm putting up a hateful front in order to cope with the grossness these people exude. The reality is that if tragedy truly humbled one of these people and I were to deal with them directly, I would probably empathize. Of course if they go right back to their asshole ways, I'll be the one with the bat. 

The difference between Triggering and Toxic

                Trigger warnings are becoming the new thing to hate in the Social Justice community. So much so that even liberals are rising up against them as if they were actually the scourge of the first amendment the right loves to caricature them as. Apparently people who have an instructive knowledge surrounding psychology are also not fans of trigger warnings, seeing that some of them are willing to write heavily charged articles that pass off a series of presuppositions and errant psychology concepts as actual research. I am an adherent defender of trigger warnings, however even I see some cracks in the logic social justice community uses for trigger warnings and how differentiation could easily clear up a lot of misuse that trigger warnings have seen lately.
              First let's ask ourselves what is a trigger warning and why do we have them? Trigger warnings believe it or not have always existed. It's merely the precautionary dealing with a specific topic that allows someone who may have had experiences with the topic to either remove themselves from a potentially harmful situation or brace themselves for a period of vulnerability. Stripping away all the verbiage, it's a friendly heads up that you're going to be talking about something that might be painful for others to hear about. Many have considered it to be an unnecessary barrier to learning, but the reality is that someone who isn't ready to deal with a difficult topic really isn't going to receive the information well if forced to hear it in a compromised position. Furthermore, Trigger warnings do not bar people from receiving difficult information. In fact, one could argue they help people better receive difficult information. In the same way that it's not considered good practice to plunge someone back into their phobia for therapy, forcing someone to discuss rape/abuse/war without any warning is also unhelpful. Remember when there's a death in the family and you made sure not to bring up the person who died to the person that was closest to them? That's you employing the logic of a trigger warning. Eventually you will discuss that person with them, but instead of an awkward mention of their name followed by a fleeting look of despair, hoping that the other person doesn't respond in a volatile manner, you encroach the topic with care. That's what a trigger warning is. It's encroaching a topic with care.
           Hopefully you generally agree with my definition of a Trigger Warning. Now let's talk about what isn't triggering. Racist and sexist comments, especially microaggressions, tend not to be triggering. Now I say this with particular focus on magnitude. Someone discussing with me the overall trend of Puerto Ricans in poverty and ignorantly ascribing blame on Puerto Rico itself, while also absolving the United States of all responsibility is not triggering for me. It's obnoxious. And after minute 1, I get flustered. Minute 2 goes by and I begin to clench my fist. Finally, the person is on the floor with a bewildered look on their face as I begin to shout angrily about how they are ignorant and foolish and yada yada (probably, not, I fight with words and arguments, physical violence is reserved for a select few). The point is that trigger warnings are intended to protect us from a traumatic experience. Someone dropping ignorant bullshit on me is not traumatic. It's annoying. As these annoyances build up, it becomes an experience with a magnitude that could possibly be compared to that of a traumatic experience (honestly at that point the experiences are inextricably different, but let's roll with it). The point is that I don't need a trigger warning for your dumbass vote for Trump post.
        Now you might think that I basically gave carte blanche to all racists out there to post their ignorant shit online. I haven't. You see people who do shit like that are toxic. Toxicity is something we put up with all the time. We can't avoid it. People just like spewing their toxic shit because they're inconsiderate. Toxicity and trigger warnings are similar in that they become an issue when people are inconsiderate. Toxicity is a reality we have to live with. However, that doesn't mean we always need to put up with toxicity. We can always choose to walk away. No trigger warning prevents toxicity, it's just a build up of all the negative things in your life. From a friend who jokingly implies that you're not smart enough to achieve something because you're fat to a waiter who assumes you will tip poorly because you're black, toxic behavior is everywhere. Microaggressions are specific examples of toxic behavior, but an environment itself can be toxic. This is why safe spaces become necessary. If I have to live in an unhealthy environment because people refuse to change, I at least deserve a refuge. The notion that I'm trapping myself in an echo chamber is ridiculous. As I've said in previous posts, you cannot mute oppression, it's the dull hum that permeates through our lives.
       But the trend in the social justice community has been to conflate topics that are triggering and topics that are toxic. I find this to be inappropriate. Trigger warnings exist because they talk about incredibly intense and powerful experiences that could have an adverse affect on someone. Talk of microaggressions and toxicity, while not peaches and cream, do not have the same magnitude. The response someone might have to toxicity might be just as volatile as someone who is triggered, but that's usually due to an unhealthy build up and not a particular painful vein of memory that had been unexpectedly activated. It's important that when we tell someone to fuck off, we're giving them genuine reasons as to why (if you're bothering to explain at all, you don't have to).  When we mischaracterize "toxic" material as triggering, then the perception of trigger warnings being unreasonable becomes affirmed.


An afterword for the assholes. There may be some who read this and take from it that all topics dealing with racism and sexism are not triggering. This is incorrect. For example, and this is a particularly painful history for African Americans (notice how I trigger warned without the TW), discussions surrounding lynching can be triggering for those who have suffered violence due to hate crimes (or violence in general). One experience that I will never forget is when I went to a competition for Model UN and how I was accused of stealing stuff in a room where 4 guys were sleeping. As the only non- white/asian there it became completely clear what the selection criteria for the person's suspicion was. I asked him why he wasn't checking anyone else's area to which he replied " people like you tend to do this sort of thing." I spent the rest of the night on the phone with my father crying. What was even worse was how the higher ups in the organization brushed it off as a "boys will be boys" altercation. The point is that stories that reflect that particular experience might draw a strong and negative response from me. Cautioning me that it might be discussed actually gives me time to gain composure.

Why voting for a third party does not make sense (and when it will)

                       I don't believe people intending to vote for 3rd party candidates are wrong in their desire to do so. Hillary Clinton has proven to be a lackluster candidate, while Donald Trump is well... himself. But the rationale given by 3rd party supporters, especially those who were politically activated by Bernie mania is what frustrates me the most. First, we need to stop romanticizing the vote. There's this false sense of patriotic duty ascribed to voting. While voting in the very first election after years of authoritarian oppression is truly a touching moment, America has been doing this song and dance for over a century now. At this point voting should be second nature to us. In fact the only reason it isn't is because so many people don't do it. So many people don't really care to vote. And there's plenty of research out there that defends the apathetic voter, so I won't get into it. The point is that when you're voting, you're not making some grand statement about your worldviews. In fact, the anonymity of voting exists so people cannot crucify you for what may well be a whimsical decision.
                     So if voting doesn't exist for me to give myself a reach around, then what is the purpose of voting? Well, it's actually quite simple. It's to be a selfish fuck. Ok, maybe that's a bit pessimistic, but the inherent self serving nature of voting is often what is obfuscated by these people claiming to vote based on principles. You don't only vote because you have a set of principles, you vote because someone is going to materialize those principles into actions when they're in office. So to vote effectively one has to ask themselves two questions, the second of which hinges on the answer to the first one. The first question that needs to be asked is: how likely is it that this candidate is going to be elected? While nobody expects you to be a world class statistician, it doesn't require a PHD in political science to realize that America has a 2 party system. Does this bar a 3rd party candidate from winning the presidency? Yes it does. Simply put, the notion that your third party presidential candidate is going to win the election is highly unlikely, making a vote for them purely symbolic. Often this symbolic gesture comes at little to no cost, given that two party systems typically coalesce around the center during general elections. This move to the center makes democrat candidate blah and republican candidate bleh two scoops from the same American themed rainbow sherbet pint. But this election is different. Given the rapid polarization that has occurred in our country, the democrats and republicans are offering vastly different flavors, with the republican flavor not even to be found in a conventional republican icebox (ok this ice cream metaphor is going too far). The point is that a third party voter now might have a critical role to play in determining the political changes that occurs in this country. The two questions I mentioned earlier become critical because what might come as a purely symbolic gesture for you could be the entire repudiation of a portion of the country. Also, if 3rd party voters built a coalition, then in elections like these, candidates would specifically pander to them. Again voting is about achieving results, not grandstanding on a set of values.
                 One might read this and say that I'm basically giving no hope for 3rd party candidates. Often people claim this pessimistic talk of "it's always been this way" only serves to deter the eventual rise of a political movement for a 3rd party candidate. They'll claim that I'm spouting broken logic, which makes it impossible for a 3rd party candidate to win. Well, they're idiots. It shouldn't come as a shock that perhaps the best way to win the highest office in the country is by taking considerable control over smaller offices. Senatorial races and House of Representative seats are far more valuable, practical and essential for the long term success of a political party. If these same fools who are going to go out and vote for Jill Stein made sure to vote and advocate heavily in local, state and congressional elections, then Jill Stein would be a viable candidate. But until then they'll call everyone else sheep, selfishly vote for their third party candidate and then wipe their hands clean when the negative repercussions of which ever candidate they enabled to win finally comes to fruition.

A small defense of the 3rd party folk that they themselves won't admit to. The rampant spending in political elections have made any true grab for power that does not in some way compromise on 3rd party beliefs difficult. However, this line of argument makes it even more pertinent not to vote for 3rd party candidates, but to vote for primary candidates who have a shot of making the political environment more tenable for 3rd party candidates.

Who owns Steven Universe?

           Steven's Universe is my new summer discovery of a show. The show is bold, producing a fantastical plot that is able to explore a variety of identities ranging from body size, race, and sexual orientation. Most importantly, these identities don't feel forced or political, instead they function within the universe to allow the main character to explore the world with a normal that unfortunately isn't normal for most of the people who share the identities of these characters. I love this show and think it should be considered the benchmark for how to produce socially conscious material that's compelling. You would think that a fandom that spawns from this show would be as accepting and open minded as the characters in the show. Unfortunately they aren't. Instead they ridicule anyone who creates art that doesn't remain faithful to their interpretation of the source material. The argument is that the LGBTQ and the non-conforming community and women  have a unique claim to the artistic material. First, thanks white people :D. And also thanks to SU for hardly exploring the racial dimension that exists in the show. But even if we found a person of color who identified with the aforementioned communities, would that person have a pure claim to Steven's Universe? I don't think so. There is only one group that Steven's Universe is for. Kids.
       The thing about Steven's Universe that so many people from so many backgrounds don't get is that it's not about them. It's about the children. These shows are teaching children to have a much broader mind concerning gender, race and sexual orientation. It teaches kids that love cannot be caricatured as gay or straight, but instead is made up of actual interactions. As a bigger guy, it would've been nice seeing a chubby Steven be good enough for his friend Connie. A beautiful mother who also shared his grandiose stature caps off my love of this show. These characters reminded me of my childhood, but provided me with an alternative way to interact with the people in my life. If only I grew up watching this show, but I didn't. And neither did any of you producing all this ridiculous vitriol over a skinny Rose or a white cosplayer dressing as Amethyst.
      In a world connected by the internet, we nerds need to be aware of when we hastily take material intended for kids and make it our own. We have a responsibility to either keep kids from seeing our mature takes of the show or producing material that will not poison the innocence of children with our bickering. I don't think the community is acting irrational, but how far is too far with this behavior? The fact that a girl attempted suicide because of the backlash from a drawing is ridiculous. Perhaps if people took the time out to critique her drawing in a level headed manner, the community would be represented as passionate and thoughtful gatekeepers of the content, not crude bullies. Fortunately for me, my blog is hardly read, so I doubt any of these over zealous fools will shower me with their discontent. But if they do, that's fine. I'm not a young girl. I'm a grown cis-gendered Puerto Rican man and I'm telling you that you don't own Steven's Universe. The children do. 

Real Social Justice: How a sexist man chooses to interact with the world

                 This blogpost was supposed to be a generalized discussion about how sexism makes dating shitty for both men and women. But as I wrote it, I realized that the conclusion from that blogpost would be incredibly boring. Most of us understand how the environment of sexual assault and misogyny could make many women skeptical of advances made by men. And if you don't agree with that reaction, I probably won't convince you otherwise with the post I was intending to write, so go over to this website. I'm sure you'll feel at home there.
               Now that the children have left, let's have some real talk. I messaged a girl on ok cupid (yep, I've been sucked in too, honestly in a city as a working professional it's just really convenient, but wait I don't have to justify my decisions to all of you!). I read her entire profile, as I typically do (some people actually care about that shit), and realize she made a comment about laughing about space hamsters. " Well I'm  a pretty big weirdo and the thought of laughing about space hamsters intrigued me so I messaged her first writing, "What type of space hamsters do you laugh about?" To be completely honest I didn't really expect a message back. While I'm not doing horribly in the reply category, I'm also not being offered free A list status. I expected a no response (which for every bitter asshole out there to hear, is fine, sometimes people don't like you, haven't checked their account, don't like you, were too busy, or perhaps they don't fucking like you). I don't care as there are plenty of fish in the sea, they're just all really hard to catch (seriously if you go fishing, you'll see what I mean).
             So color me surprised when she responded to me accusing me of searching up her twitter name and casually referencing it before even knowing her. Now let's stop for a second. There are definitely guys who do shit like this. Hell even I will facebook stalk/internet check someone out after talking to them for a few hours just to make sure the ole catfish detector ain't ringing off. Her disgust about the assumed lengths I went to message her would definitely be warranted, if it actually happened. Instead turns out I was just mindlessly asking about something she talked about in the profile she wrote for everyone to read to know about her... (confusing right).
           Now let's be clear, I'm an asshole. So immediately I thought she was a fucking idiot. This really has nothing to do with gender. Anyone who knows me, knows that when someone does something stupid, regardless of the setting, I'm quick to call them an idiot. And of course I immediately responded by pointing out where the inspiration for my message came from. But after establishing that I wasn't a weirdo creep, something hit me. Why the fuck do I have to deal with this overreaction? If someone else would do this kind of shit to me, I would rip them a new asshole. And it's not like I know her. The inter webs allows us to be morally reprehensible with the protection of the glass screen. So I began writing this long tirade about how tired I am of being accused of shit I didn't do and how it's typical white girl bullshit to claim this kind of shit. And then I stopped because I realized if I said any of that shit, I'd be acting like a sexist asshole. That girl was not in the right to be a jerk over something that she clearly made public but that reaction isn't because she's an irrational stuck up jerk. It's because so many women get harassed on these kinds of sites and so when ever a guy, especially one that labels himself as a gamer and nerd like I do, messages her with something that just seems too familiar, she immediately becomes suspicious. That reaction, while definitely not deserved, is a product of the environment. To blame her would just add onto the fucked up nature of the system.
         She hasn't messaged back, but maybe she will. Regardless, I'm happier with my decision. Often when we're placed into situations concerning racism or sexism, we find that the inability to empathize with the target identity makes it so that the reaction you give is highly inappropriate and often reaffirms the systems of oppression that person lives in. However, the opposite expectation of immediately checking your privilege is an unrealistic one. The system skews the way we view each other. By acknowledging our frustrations, we become aware of the distortion and are then able to fix it or at least, check ourselves. 

What if Wendy Kopp was black?

                         I have to admit to some bias before writing this blogpost. I have always made it known that I am a 2014 NYC corp member (about to finish my 2 year commitment). As a corp member I've seen the good, the bad and the ugly of the NYC corp. However, this blogpost is not really going to discuss those topics. Instead it's going to ask the question of whether Teach for America is the best form of support for high need schools? Or perhaps there was an alternative path that could have achieved similar, if not better results than Teach for America, while not carrying the white savior complex people often ascribe to the corp.
                     One might wonder what race has to do with it, but in many ways the approach of TFA is what I would imagine a well intentioned outsider would do if they were confronted with the horrors of educational equity. You see Wendy Kopp, founder of the corp, birthed the idea when she realized that investment banks and wall street were aggressively recruiting top talent from great schools and wondered why those students weren't going into education? Thus TFA was formed, the financially feasible way of going into teaching, while also keeping every other career option open. The idea that more intelligent teaching candidates would lead to more effective teachers isn't necessarily an awful one. The only issue is that teachers are kind of like fruit, it takes a few years for them to ripen and the best ones are often shipped to private and charter restaurants. Teach for America has certainly inspired people to remain in education or affect some sort of policy change in education, but the mantra of "one day" constantly posed to corp members as if it were a Utopian dream we were working towards, rings hollow as you realize how static the education system is. When I say static I mean static in its educational discrepancies. Schools  seem to be playing a game of firefighter, where the low performance is the constantly raving wildfire and the myriad of curricula are the ineffective tools used to put out these low performing outcomes.
                  And yet one day always seems to be several years away. Outcomes may change for individual teachers and classrooms, but your illustrious students of 7th grade easily slip back into their under performing ways when they reach another corp member who wasn't quite up to the task in 8th grade. I was that corp member my first year. Ineffective at classroom management and lackluster when delivering material, Teach for America had placed me in a position where I was largely unsuccessful. But I bit my tongue, took my lumps and finished what one education school professor described to me as the "tunnel of shit" that is one's first year of teaching. Now at the end of my second year, I am able to see actual growth in my students. I have grown into my own and find myself exponentially getting better at the job. Each day I become more aware of what good instruction looks like and with the impending completion of my master's of education, I will now be certified as a professional and not the hastily put together corp member people like to caricature us as.
             The main ingredient for my success? Veteran teachers who have consistently shown me how to run a classroom. Often it's not only the quality, but the variety that helped me as a new teacher (I still am a new teacher). Every teacher had something different to give me in terms of my own identity as a teacher. From Mr. Singleton's emphasis on teaching kids respect to Ms. Spencer's ingenious use of social pressure to govern the classroom, each teacher made up a piece of my identity as a teacher. I learned to love my kids from Ms. Roman and was taught to stand my ground by Ms. Cabarcas. Even veteran teacher who I had little contact with were incredibly influential. For example, Mr. McKenna's tenacity was infectious and Ms. Dwyer's organization, admirable. I didn't need a class to teach me what a teacher was, I had examples of it all around me.
             On the contrary, my fellow corp members in other schools who had opposite experiences (basically their second year was a continuation of their first year) found themselves in schools with mostly new teachers. Never having any true veteran presence, many of them had to try to figure out for themselves how a teacher was supposed to function. Some of them were successful and some of them failed. I have no doubt that if many of them had veteran teachers who were willing to provide insight into their craft, they would have been successful.
            It is estimated that a teacher reaches peak performance after 4 to 5 years of experience. Effective schools have grade leaders and content leaders, who help create a uniformed approach to how content is developed. Their presence in schools makes it so that students in the classrooms of new teachers get a normalized teaching experience. Gone are the days where new teachers learn to fend for themselves and instead new teachers are explicitly taught what is proper pedagogy by seeing it in action.
         A 2013 study from the American Educational Research Journal found that turnover rates in high needs schools are much higher than their affluent peers. The reality is high need schools struggle to keep their excellent teachers. When I came back for my second year, I was shocked to see the mass exodus of teachers that had occurred. 5 veteran teachers of a staff of around 40 changed schools. While that might seem insignificant, the caliber of teacher we lost was tremendous. Those 5 teachers were among grade leaders and some of the most active co-workers in our staff. Many of them ran several clubs and did special events that they were only privy to. When they left, unique experiences our school could offer were taken with them.
        Which leads me back to my question. What if Wendy Kopp were black? Would she look to the ivy covered halls to find our new teacher force or would she realize that it was the life force of a few critical teachers that kept a staff running excellently. I believe instead of jettisoning recent college grads into difficult situations, the corp would serve better if it made the decision to leave a school you love much harder. It would provide money and prestige to those who stay at their schools. In all honesty, veteran teachers deserve every bit of that money and prestige, at least far more than I do. In a year I hope to be preparing for law school. I am not the solution to my school. But the veteran teachers struggling to stay another year are. What if one day good teachers stood in struggling schools? What if those teachers gradually made those schools great? It's a risk either way, but I'd rather put my bets on them then on myself.

Self Policing doesn't work when you're an invisible man

                         I thought the topic of Yale would be over. For those of you who don't know, Yale had a bit of controversy this past Halloween. A multicultural committee at Yale sent an email out to students asking them to be mindful of the costume choices they make this year. In response, the wife of one of the headmasters of a residential college at Yale, upheld a belief in being culturally conscious, but ultimately felt that self policing and honest discussion is the right way to go about achieving that goal. Students of color did not particularly like those comments and therefore demanded her resignation. If you want to know who I think was right and wrong (not like it matters) you can read my other blogpost about the matter. Instead I want to explain why Self-policing simply does not work for minorities.
                      Self-policing is a new entryway for racism to be disguised as pure disagreement. When self-policing becomes the defacto way to handle disagreements around hate crimes and other such transgressions, then anything short of blood (and even then some administrations look the other way) becomes ultimately ignored. One might argue that minorities can protest. But even we understand the concept of trade offs. Why protest that asshole frat boy Blake and his Cinco de Mayo outfit when we're still in arguments with the University over whether a black fraternity can get a house on Frat Row (cough University of Michigan cough). The point is that while these acts of racial insensitivity are damaging, we may not be willing to disrupt our everyday lives to exert the energy to get it to stop.
                 And when we do exert that sort of energy, due to the accumulation of abuse, we are typically met with the same response.
                   "Ok. Ok. Ok. Calm down, we didn't know you were that upset about it," says the unsuspecting public. But here's the thing, we probably have expressed our displeasure with the matter and were written off as either being overly sensitive (i.e. you need to let me have fun at your expense) or given some bullshit apology (e.g. I'm sorry, it's just so funny!). Then you wonder why we erupt randomly over what seems to be trivial but is actually important to us. The issue with self-policing is it puts the entire burden on minority students to create a new movement in order to solve problems that are non-existent in a non-minority student's life. Otherwise the non-,minority student will continue treating you like an invisible man, ignoring for as long as they can the subtle abuses they dish out through their everyday actions.
                When that headmaster's wife implied that self policing should occur, she essentially took away the only form of lifeline minority students had in terms of addressing grievances in a low energy manner. She sided, unknowingly with the students who were willing and ready to be culturally insensitive and instead of discovering through self reflection her mistakes, she remained adamant about not being at fault. Well she's wrong. She was at fault. Administrators are there to maintain peace and equality. They are not supposed to pick sides. Administrators only pick sides where there is a huge power differential (e.g. minority students constantly having to deal with culturally insensitive costumes) and even then they serve as equalizers. By having equal footing throughout the community, true intellectual dialogue can occur. But if you expect minority students to engage in discussion with our wings clipped and legs chained, then you are creating an intellectual dialogue for white men.

When mob justice doesn't work

                  People have an issue with mob justice, but I think the irony behind the criticism is that mob justice often represents the purest form of free speech that exists. In an anarchist society or one with little government intervention, mob justice would be the de facto social check for most behavior. If people don't like your shit, you got to go, or that's at least how many of these situations have been playing out. But one might be surprised to hear that even I have seen a few instances of mob justice where I had to raise my eyebrow. Often my issue is not with the mob (mobs are gonna mob, it's kinda what they do), but the actors responding to the mob. Simply put, when mob justice initially started, corporations were probably taken aback. Scandals have happened before the age of the internet, but now it's so much easier to expose the rampant racist remarks made in the upper echelons of corporate America. Since corporate America had lost its personality several decades ago, these businesses responded to this outrage as if it were a textbook scandal. What corporate America failed to realize was that the internet and all its awesome power can be angry about Africa tweets one minute and bickering about a dress color the next. I mean just ask Kony 2012 how the global movement of young people helped usher in a new change in the child soldier situation in Uganda (update: he still hasn't been caught). And that's ok, it's kinda how the internet has functioned. So why aren't corporations privy to the fickle nature of the internet? There are a few things that would probably help corporations and other domains deal with mob justice in an appropriate manner.


1. Verify before crucify:
          How many times have we seen someone's public image be crucified because they've been accused of a crime that they actually didn't commit?  Mob justice is what would happen if we did not have a legal system and decided to punish without verifying any of the facts. If corporations made it a standard to verify accusations and transgressions before reacting, we would see lynch mobs fizzle out quite quickly. But in order to do that, corporations need to be willing too...

2. Test the resolve of the mob:
       Remember I have no qualms with mob justice because mobs function like dust tornadoes (I hear people call em dust devils elsewhere, well fuck you) they look incredibly terrifying and can definitely be irritating if you're caught in it, but most of them will fizzle out in a few seconds, leaving you pretty much unscathed (except you'll have some dirt all over ya). So many forms of mob justice would fizzle out if a corporation claimed to take the mob seriously, but stood by their own, thorough investigative process. This process would test the mobs resolve and if the mob finds themselves easily distracted by the next bit of juicy internet drama, the corporation can then deal with the issue without the integrity of the penalization process being called into question.
If the mob continues their adherent disgust with the company, letting that disgust materialize in lost customers, etc., well the customer is always right and honestly such pressure is not and should not be illegal. People are allowed to choose with their wallets and if you can't make them happy, then you need to change your business model. But as I said before, this actually rarely happens. Sure the zealots, who scream from the mountaintops might call for a boycott, but these actions are just as effective as the so called boycotts the transphobic community has been launching against Target. Target don't give a fuck.

3. Have a consistent behavior scheme in your company
     Shout out to the Youtuber Destiny who made this awesome video about why the ban of Gross Gore from Twitch, while potentially justified, was ultimately unsettling. He argues that the fact that GrossGore escalated from several warnings to a full permanent ban when there were other intermediary steps that could have been taken, makes it seem like the process is unfair and can be easily manipulated. When there is a clear behavior protocol, then it's hard for mob justice to continue going, unless of course your system is inadequate for the particular instance that occurs. But you still don't cede to mob justice, just change your system to make it responsive. Furthermore, protocols ensure that people within your company or community know exactly what they can and cannot do, actually encouraging more freedom since people aren't afraid of randomly getting in trouble. 


           In short, mobs good, corporations dumb. Mobs can do their mob thing as long as the rest of the world responds to them appropriately. 

Test Prep and Prestige: How I learned to stop worrying and love teaching

                           I wake up at 5:30 in the morning every single day to begin my commute to my school. As a guy I'm blessed with the ability to do a 15 minute turn around and find myself on my way to the train station at 5:50. On a good day the trains run smoothly and I find myself a seat. On a bad day I spit out onto the tracks, my saliva representative of the fatigue of another work day, quietly dreading the eventual behavior disruption that will come on my triple period block with one of my classes. And then when I arrive they're perfect. I mean perfect in the sense that you could make a freedom writers movie using them, of course for that production to be complete you would need a teacher. I remember when I became a teacher, I tried to be a teacher. And it didn't work. So then I tried to be myself. From that point on my kids saw me as their teacher. Often the nerdiness comes through at times where I'm nervous or insecure. I find that your kids will strip you down and let you know when something is wrong. Your insecurities are keys on a piano for them to play. Better get used to hearing the tune. Eventually in your first year you'll find yourself drinking a little too much. Smoking a little too much. Curled up in a ball, crying in the shower with your clothes on, a little too much. And you'll hate it. At that moment no amount of mantra or motto will save you from the existential dread that can only be described as society induced disappointment. People can call you superman, but after a kid tells you to suck their dick, you begin to wonder why you even decided to become a teacher instead of taking that tech writer job in Wisconsin. I'm sure my manager there wouldn't have told me to suck his dick, well...probably. But you learn that forgiveness isn't a virtue, it's a paradigm that you're constantly stuck in. They're just kids isn't enough to forgive. Often times you have to murder pillows and bookcases in order to forgive yourself for taking it. Pictures taped up on your wall do little to comfort you after being berated. Your kids are not monsters, but the struggle will turn them into it. Test Prep means nothing when all you wanted was prestige. A flashy little badge to wear that says "I made it through Teach For America." Often times I find myself folding my students' notes a few times more when I snatch them from their hands. I want to bury their words in an infinitesimal dimension and each fold separates their words from me. Ahh you miserable fool. Why teach if you hate it. But I don't hate it. I love it. There are so many amazing moments where you get to see light bulbs and shattered fluorescent glass. I hope you have a hammer for glass ceilings male teacher because your female students will astound you. I spoke Spanish through my kids and through me they speak English. Our accents are embarrassing, but our rhetoric is eloquent. I can speak Vietnamese too. In fact every modicum of my voice has been crafted by their presence. To see me write is to see me teach. Performance or not, you choose the person you leave behind at the end of the mini-lesson. I used to think that teaching was about lecturing. I tried to lecture. It didn't work. I tried to talk to my kids. Now I am teaching.
         Being an adult is a farce taken to its extreme. No one is an adult until the title has been thrust upon them. Unfortunately teachers are forced to be adults. 22 and 23 year olds who were overgrown children in college attempt to be adults when they enter their classrooms for the first time. We can't afford rent or even a bed frame, but we'll still wear a button down with a tie and khakis to prove that we've moved on from our days of torn jeans and a University of Michigan hoodie. Four months in the hoodie will be donned weekly. You keep the khakis because you want to keep up the illusion of being professional. Your gelled hair will become dry and your pristine tie tossed aside. Such niceties are for show anyways. And teaching isn't a show. It's the show. You're the main attraction till the next body comes in.
       Sometimes I show my students my scars because they will judge me honestly. The irony of their honesty is that it's compassionate. I never understood how they could stand with me in solidarity against my plight. Then one day they showed me their scars and I cringed. My kids noticed my taken aback posture and begin to retreat. Often they'll nonchalantly talk about how they have no bed frame in their house. I guess we can bond over our own impoverished state, except for that fact that I've chosen this life. They are simply victims of fate. To err is to be human, but to be unjustly positioned in life is to be capitalist. I once had a student ask me what was he supposed to do at a funeral? His friend had died due to petty nonsense and he had to miss the long awaited school trip to attend the service. I had never been at a funeral, except for one. But it was for someone I hardly knew with feelings I could hardly understand. Adults are supposed to know the answers to these questions. At that moment I was the adult in his life. I failed. That night I went to a bar and pretended to drink myself into sorrow. Except I didn't go to a bar, I stood in and completed a grad school paper. And I didn't drink myself into sorrow, I stood up all night playing league of legends, raging at an unsuspecting player who did something that was not all too important.
       So why teach? Honestly there is no reason. Teachers are paid too little. The situations we are placed in are rigged. Success comes bundled in large portions of failure. This isn't a half empty- half full situation. It's a perhaps you could get one more drop from the cup situation. My kids are brimming with intelligence that has not been tapped till they got to me. I do not know why. I try to recount how I became intelligent and begin to wonder, am I even intelligent? Does the capacity to think and expound on one's thinking justify the label of intelligence. Meh, I could certainly beat my kids at my middle school self. And that's the issue. I don't remember a teacher specifically teaching me to be smart. I don't remember a teacher telling me I'm the best. I remember everyone around me expecting it. I sit in my chair one day, waiting for one of my kids to come up to me and say, "Mr. Arroyo how much smarter are the kids in Queens." I don't know what answer I'd give. Knowing myself I'd be honest. A lot smarter. They're harder workers. They truly engross themselves in the material and therefore by the time they get to high school and college they'll have developed the skills necessary to do higher level work. It's an uphill battle from here kid. At that point the kid would have ignored me and probably went back to what ever they were doing.
       I have a student who wants to be a lawyer. Dealing with her is night and day. When I saw her I incorrectly stereotyped her as the loud angry black girl. I now know that is a part of who she is. In my class, for the most part, she is a studious and inquisitive student, who is soft spoken when working through material. I understand her in ways she does not realize. I too, enjoy being quiet and studious, but often feel pressured to be loud and boisterous. Hell, I love being loud and boisterous. I do not need to choose. Both states are part of my personality repertoire. When she wrote in ebonics for her first persuasive essay, I did not cringe. I merely told her the truth. I completely understand your work, but the world outside of here will deem it unacceptable. You want to be a lawyer yes? She nods. Then you need to talk the way lawyers talk. And that has unfortunately been dictated by a predominantly white educated society. Talk ebonics to me. Talk however you'd like. But when we're doing academic writing, we both must hide our roots, cloaking them in clever diction and unnecessarily obtuse grammatical schemes. She still struggles with elements of reading comprehension. She will need to work harder to be a lawyer. I should push her harder.
      But that's the catch-22 of a teacher. If you go home feeling your job has been done, then you are incompetent. Of course, do not stress yourself out, but do not accept a 54% passing rate. Do not accept a 55% passing rate. Hell, do not accept a 99% passing rate. These percentages are nothing. Your kids are the ones at stake. I gladly give up my dreams to my kids, knowing that the minutia of my mind may very well be the only thing I have left to give. The rest of it is occupied by lesson plans, observations, grad school, parental expectations and being a 23 year old. I guess adulthood is the trick of losing yourself. That's how you wake up 50 and unhappy. Eventually your true self comes surging back, expecting a vacation and life achievements, when in fact you've been setting yourself up for the point that you could be happy.
     Do not read this as an indictment of teaching. I am just a writer who writes with the lines heavily shaded in. I have always been one to point out the disgustingly ugly, so that way when you get into the profession, the beauty is a nice surprise. I have finally stopped caring about grad school. I have finally stopped caring about dating. I have finally stopped caring about being an adult and test prep and prestige. Instead I care about my kids learning. And once I stopped worrying, I realized I love teaching. 

Why Bloomberg's own logic doesn't hold up about safe spaces

            I've had pretty good friends disagree with me on the function of safe spaces, but I often find myself shocked at how people evaluate these spaces. At the very core of it, people who disagree with safe spaces often do so not for any legitimate first amendment reasoning or intellectual progressiveness, but because they don't actually believe the people who need the safe spaces have a legitimate claim to them. In the process of explaining these safe spaces, I'm going to provide yet another reason for why Michael Bloomberg is an ass, which honestly is just a bonus for me as a New Yorker.
              Safe Spaces are a reaction to the normal vitriol minorities face from the outside world via microagressions.  Imagine if anywhere you go on campus you can come across beliefs that are antithetical to your own. More than that, these beliefs often make you feel less than. Beliefs such as: you just got into this school because of affirmative action. Or perhaps "black parties are shut down because black students are wilder than white students" My personal favorite is when someone who isn't black uses the N-word and justifies the use by claiming they hear black people use it all the time. Even past this petty shit, you'll have Donald Trump rallies that will openly call for the deportation of american citizens. You'll have history classes that constantly affirm white narratives, leaving you with specially designated minority classes (or if your white professor is progressive, he'll try really hard to choose one book from a woman or minority, but only one!). All of this reflects the normative experience for a minority. It's taxing. It's frustrating. If you do not believe that it's taxing and frustrating, then you now have your reason for why you think safe spaces should not exist: minorities are crybabies. Don't give me the nonsense about how they prevent learning other viewpoints. Minorities do not have a choice on whether they learn differing viewpoints. Differing viewpoints are shoved down our throats. Normative assumptions about us are shoved down our throats. Microaggressions are shoved down our throats. And unless I intend to just not be a student, I'm going to have to deal with them. So why can't I have a place where I know once in awhile I do not have to deal with them?
           People like Bloomberg argue that giving you this safe space prevents you from learning how to deal with these so called microagressions. I disagree. I believe giving you a safe space empowers you not to accept them. And that's the real issue. People like Bloomberg believe that it's a certain reality that minorities of all kind will have to deal with this shit in the workplace, so might as well get used to it now. But why? Why can't I instead say, ya know I can't keep you from acting like an ass in everyday interactions, but this space or time right here I'm going to ensure you can't plague me with your negative comments. Why must minorities be taught it is ok for people to insult their very person nonchalantly and more so accept those beliefs. The notion that Bloomberg is in favor of radical change is false because any attempt to do so (look at the Yale incident as a perfect example of this) is typically met with ardent backlash. Instead people want minorities to accept the jokes, accept the criticism and give a fake smile afterwards. But minorities have decided to say fuck that shit. So we have our safe spaces, where we don't need to hear about this nonsense and if we do want to discuss it. we are able to discuss it without feeling like our candid feelings will upset some sort of balance in the universe.
        So let's be honest. You don't actually believe safe spaces are holding back intellectual progress. You just think minorities need to stop being crybabies. Well I'm glad you're able to tell me and every other minority how to feel. Opinion duly noted. Good bye. 

The Social Justice Community and Minority Movements are not one in the same

                                   This has been a topic I've thought about a good deal. First,I feel I have a unique vantage point when it comes to these two distinct communities. Growing up I was very much a part of the "anti-political correctness crowd" to the point that I considered myself Republican, while conveniently ignoring how they stood in opposition to the morals I hold near and dear to my heart (to be fair to myself, I preferred moderate Republicans, Ted Cruz and his ilk always seemed outlandish to me). Then I went to college and they filled me with their liberal nonsense, turning me into a no good hippie. My hair was long. My sentences overly complicated. And I started using lingo like intersectionality and white people. Now that I am close to two years of separation from college, I've mellowed out to a more moderate position that still leans heavily towards my liberal roots. One thing remained constant during that entire period of ideological shift. I was Puerto Rican. More importantly I was aware of the larger struggle minorities had been facing for centuries and while college amplified my disgust with institutional biases, the gut wrenching feeling of playing a "fixed game" was always there. So one could say I was always part of the minority struggle and I don't mean to incorrectly coalesce all minority struggles, but for the sake of how they depart from the social justice community, I think there's some uniformity to be had. As someone entering a community with allegiance to another, the demarcation between one community and another becomes crystal clear. That being said, I think my main argument is that the social justice movement/community and the minority communities/movements are not one in the same nor are they never mutually exclusive. People often think the social justice community falls in file rank with minority communities, but that is sometimes not true. Furthermore, there are radical aspects to some minority movements that make them mutually exclusive with the social justice community. But for me to even begin to explain these points of tension, let me unpack some of my perceived notions of the social justice community.
                     The social justice community is born out of an overwhelming acknowledgement of the institutional biases minorities of all kinds face in society. Simply put, a bunch of academics decided to do research on typically ignored groups of people and realized, "wow these people are actually treated in a pretty negative manner in a whole host of ways." Once that realization was widely accepted, people took it to as an ideological lens, where one asked "how is the world I live in centered or favored on privileged identities." Unsurprisingly people realized quite a lot of what seemed to be "normal" actually subtly affirmed agent identities, while demeaning minorities. Once you come to the realization that you are in the wrong, then you must decide to what degree do you actually care? Some people shrugged their shoulders and said," tough luck," while others felt something needed to be done about it. While those who actually cared about their transgressions tried to find a way to "fix" the negative environment they were propagating, it became apparent that these issues were not simple, but complex. So academics, writers, and intelligent people alike came together to try to unpack these negative instances, how they occurred, and what would be a suitable substitute to them. It's from this ongoing inquiry that the heart of the social justice community can be found. The oft "complicated lingo" is portrayed as such simply because it requires someone to abandon what they are already comfortable with. The very pushback given to this vis-a-vis "political correctness" is the very qualifier for the language policing to begin with. Also, language policing is a bit extreme. Often the social justice community encourages dialogue and mutual understanding. When that's not possible, the response is not one of censorship, but instead of refusal to acknowledge. Why should I give credence to your awful language when I have a suitable alternative you refuse to use? I will reject your use of language and stand by the targeted identity.
             The irony in all of this is that the one party that seems to have very little say is the minority themselves. Of course the inquiry process theoretically should be rooted in minority thought and literature. But a scarcity of minority academics and thought leaders and a mutually exclusive element every true minority struggle has with the institution makes it difficult to take suggestions from the social justice community as gospel. When you have your gay friend shouting faggot or your hispanic friend using the word spic freely, you begin to wonder if all the effort put into precise language is actually a huge farce (it of course isn't for various reasons, the example is just used to serve as the distinction between social justice on a college campus versus how it can play outside the ideal environment). Even I cringe at my students calling the only white student in my class "whiteboy." I always admonish them, but I understand that the term is less of racial prejudice (they honestly love the kid) and more of a candid reaction to an identity they rarely see in person.
      We have a community whose mission is to promote a positive environment for minorities of all kind. The flaw with the community is that some minorities honestly don't give a shit. I guess that's not true. Oppression in some way, shape or form is cared about in the community, but talk about using the word latino versus hispanic falls on deaf ears when rent is due and all you have to eat is rice and eggs. I guess the point is that often what is important to the social justice community and what is important to the minority community is not always the same, nor should it be. There are somethings that can only be achieved amongst people within the particular minority group. These cultural shifts and changes within the identity should not be shaped by people outside the community and therefore excludes a chunk of the social justice community. Now one might say that this exclusion does not imply that the community is mutually exclusive. One can tacitly support minority self determination from afar. But what happens when minority self determination comes at another groups detriment? The assumption that women being paid more won't be at the detriment to men is nonsense (in a monetary sense). I guess what I'm displaying here is an inherent distrust of the social justice community's focus on what appears to be surface level (language, which honestly does matter, but when stacked up to the Benjamin, falls a little flat) versus the true factors that oppress minorities (money, power, etc.) What if instead of needing outside assistance, a minority group had the influence to change their own fate? Then would the need for a social justice community even be there?
       Another departure is the dubious assumption that minorities are all down with the cause. I may be for latino empowerment and still make black people jokes on my break at work. While, one can argue that repercussions similar to the ones faced by whites should await minorities when they engage in this kind of behavior, one cannot deny that they should be able to choose to engage in this behavior. Just as agent identities carelessly oppressed minorities, sometimes in explicit ways, but also sometimes accidentally (e.g. building brownfields in poor minority communities), minorities should not be expected to act in a manner that will be cognizant of the struggles of anyone else but their own. This bleeds into another discussion of capitalism and our government. Can we truly have a fair society, when the premise of our society is that coalitions should face off against each other. Of course cooperation might typically be the best course of action, but for when attrition is most acceptable, our very way of living affirms such behavior. You cannot expect minority movements to be selfless, their very existence is engulfed in the self. From this comes the often ignored or criticized aspects of minority movements. The formations that caused a stir in white america. Or perhaps the disruption of Bernie Sander's speech, which had many minorities calling for blood, willing to sacrifice one of their own for a white male candidate. Even in the struggle itself we see different factions vying for power. You can act latino, but not too latino, unless you got it that way, then you go Jenny from the block. On the other end you have Latinos who are proud, but want the entire community to be educated and well read, often passing the same racist judgement that had been placed on them when they first stepped into a predominantly white university.
       The social justice community serves a refuge for those in the minority community who haven't picked a side. It's either social justice or dungeons and dragons. Nerd communities have begrudgingly accepted minorities, often in an effort to create a more hierarchical structure for the pinnacle of nerd existence: the white male.  But inherent in the social justice community's reactionary nature is a disconnect from a minority movement. Some things only black people can deal with. Some things only Latinos can deal with. Some things only women can deal with. And so on. Of course intersectionality makes this all complicated, but that's the point. The entire process is too complicated for one to pinpoint a particular fission. It's more like there are hundreds of breaking points and within those breaking points are even more breaking points. To throw your hands in the air and give up navigating them is an unnecessarily defeatist attitude, but to imply navigating them is an easy process is equally foolish. Often when I try to wrap my head around it, I find myself wanting to listen to more people. My own social justice philosophy (a mentor of mine called it a "journey") is developed through the experiences of other people. Often listening to them and relating to them informs what I believe to matter. I find that to be a more candid representation of the community, then an uninformed adherence to a lexicon.  

Pretentious sayings that assholes always misuse or abuse

                    There is nothing I hate more than when I'm having a hearty debate about a topic and someone resorts to an old adage to back up their point. Often they hastily throw in the old adage in a desperate attempt to readjust the debate so that it seems they are holding an impenetrable bastion of intellectual high ground. These adages aren't bad per se. They are just often misused or abused to the point that any meaningful discussion comes to a halt once they rear their cliched heads.


1. There is no such thing as a free lunch:
         I just had to sit through an education lecture where the professor harped on about this principle over and over like an automatic telephone operator. "But Bernie will tax corporations to account for the..." There is no such thing as a free lunch. "Studies show that consumer tax could..." There is no such thing as a free lunch. "God is literally going to come down and give us the secret to cold fusion" There is no such thing as a free lunch. Of course there is always a drawback of some sort and the law of matter exists and yada yada, but if it doesn't directly or indirectly affect me in a meaningful way, then what does this matter. The same idiots harping about free lunches, neglect minimum wage studies that show raising the minimum wage often worked in favor of the economic health in many localities. Who's eating lunch now? The only time it's appropriate to talk about lunches and whether they are free is when someone invites you to a needless event that will most likely be boring and pointless or when someone is actually neglecting the negative externalities of a problem. Otherwise, no lunch for you!


2. Correlation does not mean Causation
       Sure. This is true. But often what many people mean when they use this is more along the lines of: "Since Correlation does not mean causation, I will completely ignore any statistical data you bring to this. There could not possibly be any predictive capability tied to your data. Your information is practically useless." This is the adage of choice for the uninformed, but incredibly willing to debate. Instead of encouraging more exploration, they like to dismiss information without examining what the information might actually bring to light. I once argued with a kid who claimed that a positive correlation between tuition prices and money given to universities overtime did not mean universities received more money over time. I looked at him quizzically because that's exactly what that means. The frustrating part is that the kid believed he was right because his 10th grade chemistry teacher stupidly taught him correlation does not mean causation, but apparently failed to teach him how to interpret graphs.



3. Survival of the fittest
       God these are some of the people I dislike the most. Often the most privileged and obtuse individuals are the ones spouting off this pseudo Darwinian nonsense. I often hope all the errant shrapnel from drive by shootings that are fated to hit someone, finds their way into the skulls of these fools. The ironic part is these are often the people who cry foul at every step and turn in life where things are not going their way. This is the guy who argues with his Professor about the grading policy because he felt his paper was graded "too harshly." These are the people who try to pressure Professors into dropping assignments of the syllabus in the first lecture. The kid in class who would whine and complain about sportsmanship whenever another team uses less than savory methods to get ahead, especially when the complainer himself had just unsuccessfully used those methods.



4. But it's just a theory
     Tagging along with our evolution theme is the ridiculous notion that because something is theoretical it should be completely discounted. The favorite use of this old adage is when someone insists that there is some sort of scientific debate surrounding the theory of evolution. This theory is widely accepted to be true in some way shape or form in the scientific community. You know what theory isn't widely accepted? Creationism.
(note: all "it's just a theory" users should test the theory of gravity, preferably at tall heights, using their own bodies for test subjects)

5. That's just the way the world works (the world isn't fair)
     We've all been guilty of saying this, but what's frustrating is when some smug asshole purses his lips for a sly smile and blurts this saying as if he placed a verbal royal flush into the conversation. Fuck you. The world doesn't have to work any particular way and being too lazy to change it isn't a good excuse for why the world is fucked up. Instead what should be insisted upon is the world being changed in such a manner that we don't accept stupid bullshit.

I'm sure there are more, but I'm just so angry thinking about these five I'll stop here. 

The issue with people who disagree with Bernie Sanders

           A lot of people have taken issue with Sanders for reasons I plainly view to be invalid and overall idiotic. I'm going to go through those reasons right now ( and at the end I'll talk about legitimate reasons for going against him).

1. Sanders is almost the same as Hillary- This is just untrue. His socialist title is not only for show, but is reflected in his policy suggestions. He is suggesting reforms that have not been suggested in decades. Using anti-trust laws to bust big banks is something that hasn't been suggested in decades. This differs from what many democrats have said on the issue, which often can be reduced to "too big to fail is bad."

2. Sanders is unrealistic- This is a confusing and vacuous phrase, so let me explain all the facets of it
          A. Socialism can't be implemented- false, plenty of modern countries do it besides American just fine
          B. It could never pass Congress- Ok, that argument can easily be applied to most democratic aspirations. Compromises are made. Still doesn't change that the starting point of the negotiation will be closer to a desired outcome than if Clinton was setting it.
         C. Sanders isn't electable- How about you wait and see? If you're right, then your vote for Sanders will mean nothing and Hillary will win regardless. If you aren't right then your electability argument was wrong.
                 C1. Sanders isn't electable in a general election- I would consider this salient if it didn't seem that the Republican party is manning equally ridiculous candidates, making it uncertain if the American public will vote the way they typically do. Anyways if we're going by rules of thumb, after an eight year term, we typically see a switch in the white house anyways, so might as well send a candidate we actually believe in.

3. He hates black people- All candidates hate black people to some degree

 4. He hates minorities- Refer to point 3
Note: I know people are going to point out his tremendous record in civil rights, which I definitely believe in. In no way do I mean he actually harbors some some sort of hatred toward minorities. I just don't fully trust white political leaders in general. But that's not unique to him, so moving along.

5.  He's lying or I don't trust him- And you trust Clinton? I trust Clinton being consistent with her fiscal and international policy, but her domestic policy aside from the work she has done with women's rights has been incredibly inconsistent. The only inconsistency Sanders has is in Gun control. Other than that the dude seems to have been saying the same shit for a long time.

So now that I've gotten the nonsense out of the way, let's talk about why you're really voting the way you are.

1. You're a woman- I think it's perfectly valid for a woman to feel more comfortable in a woman. Solidarity is important and it'd be hypocritical of me to criticize women who have been supporting her under the banner of mutual womanhood.

2. You're wealthy but kind of care about the poor- Sanders isn't looking to treat wealthy people nicely. Clinton will be far more gentle. So if you're rich or you think you will be and the thought of a Republican sounds unpalatable, then Hillary is definitely the best option.

Why I don't like In the Heights and why I don't trust Hamilton

                 As a Puerto Rican who loves Broadway, one might expect me to love Lin-Manuel Miranda. I mean the dude is considered one of the creative geniuses of our time and to boot he is clearly in touch with his Puerto Rican roots. For the first time I got to see someone accept a major award with the Puerto Rican flag in his left pocket as if he were walking through the Puerto Rican Day parade. He's a symbol of Puerto Rican excellence and in that I do have some respect for him. But his art does very little for me.
            I saw In the heights before it hit Broadway. Naturally Lin-Manuel gave back to the community by giving free performances for high school students in NYC. I guess my school administration must have felt that the minority students in our school would appreciate the performance. And to be fair, In the Heights is electric. The music was reminiscent of walking through a Latino neighborhood (Dominican or Puerto Rican in this case) just to hear someone blaring Hector Lavoe out into the streets, the old viejitos briskly dancing salsa with invisible partners or lounging in the humid sun while playing dominoes. Or perhaps you could hear the urban side? Freestyle rap that punctuated an entire generation of young Latino teens who were having kids that they were trying to get out of the projects. The point is that In the Heights definitely came from a place of legitimacy. But the story felt torn between pandering to its mostly white audience and staying true to its roots. Leaving the performance I was left with one burning question: Is that really a representation of Puerto Rican culture (read this as Latino culture in NYC, though again mainly Dominican and Puerto Rican?). I'm a Nuyorican through and through, but I felt that instead of writing a Broadway for me, Lin-Manuel wrote a Broadway for people who know about me. He wrote a Broadway for that white friend I beg to go to the parade with me because I'm tired of going with my family. He wrote a Broadway for the girl that asks me to speak in Spanish just so she can be entertained for a brief second. He wrote a Broadway for the people gentrifying Harlem and Bushwick. Ironically enough Usnavi's bodega is being put out of business right now by the people he wrote his Broadway for.
       The story of In the Heights doesn't unearth deep complexities or hard truths of being a poor Latino in New York City. The tropes are all tropes we've heard before. The smart Latina who couldn't cut it when she made it to an elite University. Her isolation is hardly felt as she finds herself falling right back with her old flame for the sake of a love interest being preserved. The fixation on the lottery, while completely in line of what actually happens in the city, just serves hastily as a dues ex machina for the inevitable dilemma of what is home? The question of what is home is difficult for a Latino to answer not purely because of geography, but because of situations we are placed in where we are unable to be our complete selves. I'm talking about being called loud when we feel we're at normal volume or the difficulty of admitting you actually like some "white people music," as if its slow rhythms and campy lyrics somehow erase the conga drum beats and the scratch of the Guiro you grew up with. I'm talking saying the Hail Mary in Spanish at a whisper because you wanted to sleep in later and we all know the Spanish mass is always the earliest. The dilemma of the urban American Latino is not whether he can wear chanclas all year round, but instead whether he should call them chanclas or flip-flops.
       And that's missing from "In The Heights." Instead everything seems to tie together so nicely. And while I have heard of amazing stories coming from the projects, most of them have been demarcated by tragedy. Tragedy that many of the people from the projects are completely numb to. Sure people grieve, but when you have an 8 to 9 the next day, your grief has a schedule. In the Heights has its bright moments. The song blackout, which serves as a metaphor for the powerlessness of minorities really musters up a unique New York urban aesthetic that can't quite be matched. But then it squanders it. The antithesis of that message is one of getting by in your own way. I just feel like there is more to that. The grit people gain from powerlessness makes them powerful. By making his ending picture perfect, Lin Manuel denies his show that grit. Instead it feels soft.
    Hamilton at first sounded horrible to me. I thought Lin-Manuel had finally decided to sell out by taking urban hip-hop aesthetic and hastily pasting it onto a familiar white face, making it palatable for white viewers (and frankly the educated). What seems to be suggested by many critics is Alexander Hamilton is actually a reappropriation of history, reclaiming Hamilton who did not have 100% white ancestry as a founding father that represented the immigrant spirit. And part of me wants to go along with it, until I stop and say why does it have be a white man though? Why? Why not do a Broadway on Toussaint Louverture, the founder of Haiti who led a slave rebellion to free Haiti? Or perhaps a famous person of color in American history. I just don't understand why we need to again draw from a history that is not germane to us? Yet again I find myself thinking Hamilton wasn't made for me. It sounds like my culture. It looks like my culture. But underneath it all, it isn't.
    Minorities should criticize other minorities' work. The lens through which this is done I've dubbed as "street aesthetic" or "urban aesthetic", which speaks to a particular intersection of socio-economic status, geography and ethnicity. I feel that Lin-Manuel Miranda is making his mark the only way a minority easily can. By pandering just enough to a normative white liberal audience, while holding onto shreds of his identity through aesthetic choices. I can't criticize him heavily for that, but I also have the right to not sing its praises. We deserve deep and profound art created by people within our community. But we all know what happens when people do that. Just ask Beyonce about how white people felt about art that spoke to themes and notions only important to blacks. Let's just say I doubt Beyonce is going to be earning any genius awards for Formation. 

Sorry my dude nobody cares about your thirst. (unedited written super late, so I apologize)

       Yea I might hurt some dudes feelings with this, but I honestly don't care.
              Let me make it clear. Your attitude towards a girl when she rejects you is not justified. I don't care if it's been years since you've had sex. I don't care if you really thought she liked you. I don't care if you thought you were better. If any of those things were true, you wouldn't care about her. I know this for fact. I get rejected all the time. Shit, with the advent of online dating I get a rejection at least once a week. That's a total of about 4 to 5 rejections a month. I'm becoming a pro at handling rejection. From the outright I don't like you to the perpetual stalling technique where the girl constantly implies that they don't like you, but refuses to outright say it. I've deal with it all. And at first I was an ass. Yep, you heard me. I was that guy who was bitter and salty as fuck. A bonafide fuckboy, who constantly made excuses and was quick to talk about the girl in a negative fashion. "She's just into ghetto guys." "She's a shallow rich white girl." If any of these things sound like things you've said before, then you too are a salty ass who couldn't accept that the girl didn't like you. But there's this backlash from men (and sometimes women) about how we need to stop being so hard on men. I mean they have feelings too!

Get that weak shit out of here.
Real talk, you can be upset over rejection, but you're not allowed to be a dick. If you developed a meaningful friendship with the girl and end it because you wanted to have her romantically, you're a dick. If you led a girl to believe you truly cared about her future and now you're bailing because she doesn't want to be romantic with you, you're a dick. If you think your sexual frustration and natural "animal instinct" justifies passive aggressive tendencies, then you're also a dick.

I had a dude today justify men and their saltiness with Maslow's hierarchy. First, this use of pseudoscience in order to justify sexist behavior is not unprecedented.  Men do this stupid shit all the time. But Raymond, the hierarchy says sex is a need that comes far before, who the fuck cares? Even if we ignored the fact that Maslow's hierarchy has been disproven or viewed as outdated in countless studies for countless scenarios, the fact of the matter is a girl saying no to you isn't an assault on your ability to get off. I just don't understand how people think this shit is justified? Oh man if I don't get off I'm going to get blue balls! Sounds like a personal problem, better get your laptop up my dude. I don't know I just find it ridiculous that people make excuses for dudes who are bitter as fuck. My new recommendation for salty dudes ( including myself) is consult your right hand (or left hand if you're left handed).

But she was flirty! I'm going to call her... Stop! Consult your right hand.
We talked for so long and she said we would go on a date, but she kept cancelling. Stop! Consult your right hand.
She just likes frat boys. I don't care if I'm a nerd, I'm going to show her by posting... Stop! Consult your right hand.

And when you're done doing that admit that you're a piece of shit. It shouldn't take sexual relief to realize you have no right to act like a dick because a girl wouldn't get with you.

I can't say I'm perfect. I'm not. But I've gotten way better. Here are some appropriate ways to respond to rejection .

Antecedent: Girl says she's not interested in Ok cupid!
Response: Move on to the next girl

Antecedent: Girl says she's going to go on a date with you, but cancels and cites lack of interest for cancelling.
Response: Express how it makes you feel (in a cordial manner, for example: Wow, that sucks, I'm disappointed) and then stop talking.

Antecedent: Girl goes on date with you, but is not interested in second date.
Response: Thank her for the date and wish her luck.

Being honest solves most of this shit. Read my first friendzone post if you want to know about honesty and avoiding games. But real talk, I'm tired of this explaining for men. Women have no obligation to date and if you're the type of dude who likes every girl friend you have that is kind of annoying. I suggest you stop. It not only annoys the women in your life (it works both ways too be fair), but it also cheapens you. Your affection shouldn't be aimlessly tossed around. It should be something that needs to be earned.