Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Addendum to the Post story says they've decided on SWW (apologies if this was already known amid the silly amount of thread-jacking that has gone on here).

They were always going to do that.

Saw it coming a million miles away.

David Grosso has my permission to stand on Weedon's coffee table in his Birkenstocks and call him a racist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Addendum to the Post story says they've decided on SWW (apologies if this was already known amid the silly amount of thread-jacking that has gone on here).

They were always going to do that.

Anonymous wrote:Addendum to the Post story says they've decided on SWW (apologies if this was already known amid the silly amount of thread-jacking that has gone on here).

Anonymous wrote:Ablution: the rinsing of the priest's hand and the sacred vessel following the Communion with, depending on rite, water or a mix of it and wine, which may then be drunk by the priest. (Wiktionary)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Addendum to the Post story says they've decided on SWW (apologies if this was already known amid the silly amount of thread-jacking that has gone on here).

Ha, I don’t think this was ever really a question.

Anonymous wrote:Addendum to the Post story says they've decided on SWW (apologies if this was already known amid the silly amount of thread-jacking that has gone on here).

Anonymous wrote:Addendum to the Post story says they've decided on SWW (apologies if this was already known amid the silly amount of thread-jacking that has gone on here).

Anonymous wrote:Please start a different thread on the definition of “illegal”. It is not appropriate here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m one of the PPs^^ and I’ve never felt insecure about the decisions I made for my kids for school. What I’ve said - and others have too - is that Joe was so smug, sure of his viewpoint, clear-eyed, and judgmental about our decision-making. I think I used the word “disdain” about his negativity in those circumstances. What goes around, come around. Now he’s not so clear-eyed or sure when it’s his own kid. The article is his way of pretend, self-flagellation. They had already decided Malia is going to Walls.

Evidence to the contrary. What you are writing comes off as very personal. Why on earth do you care? Why spend a minute carrying that much emotion or feeling his disdain? If you were my kid I'd be telling you that you are responsible for giving others power over you. Also, your certainty regarding what his ultimate decision was or is makes you no different or better than the smugness disdain or certainly that you so disliked coming from him.

Were you not so emotionally invested in this Wheedon character you might be able to see that.

I don't know Wheedon and my kid goes to a strong IB school, so I have no direct or indirect go in this fight. But I really don't get your logic that being annoyed at hypocrisy shows insecurity about choices others have made. That doesn't make sense to me.

I can very easily see why someone would be annoyed by someone who sanctimoniously criticized acted like anyone who went charter was doing something wrong and now, when faced with the same dilemma others had before, he realizes the choice isn't so easy and he does it in a very public forum.

I am annoyed at some friends who are very outspoken about immigrant rights and $15/hr living wage who turn around and higher a nanny here illegal under the table at $10/hr. My annoyance at their hypocrisy doesn't mean that I am insecure about my decision to hire a legal nanny for $20/hr. One simply doesn't follow from the other.

People aren’t illegal, they are undocumented.

I agree with the PP's post you are responding to. And if you read carefully, they didn't call anyone illegal. The adjective referred to the work status, not the person.

Right, it says "here illegall[y]." That clearly refers to their status in the country, not their status as a human being.

I just got a visa for a foreign trip. If I either entered without a visa or overstayed my visa, I would be "there illegally" and it is no different than someone here in the US.

If you are going to try to be the word police, please have the decency to read the post you are trying to correct.

It’s not being “word police” it’s the fact that you’re too ignorant to understand that it is a slur. Do I also have to explain why the n word is wrong and why we don’t refer to asian Americans as Orientals?

Because those are even remotely equivalent. Describing someone's immigration status in the context of legal or illegal simply is not a slur, and you calling now ignorant for not agreeing with you doesn't mean you are right. And screaming that everyone must use your precise word choice, which is far from universally accepted, or be labeled ignorant is a paradigmatic example of the word police.

They are the same. I’m sorry you’re an ignorant person that doesn’t seem to understand the depersonalization of why it’s xenophonic and racist to call a person ILLEGAL, but hopefully your children are less disgusting. White immigrants are not called this slur- Latinos are. It’s repellent and so are you.

I hope your children are able to think critically rather than to simply spout trite slogans without regard to facts. No one is calling a person illegal. People are describing a person's immigration status as illegal. An illegal immigrant/alien does not lose his personhood. In fact, he can cure his illegal immigration status by returning home OR gaining legal status here. If illegal referred to something that went to someone's innate personhood, that status could not so easily be changed.

And you are wrong that it only applies to Latinos. Someone in the country illegal from Canada, Western Europe, or Asia or Africa for that matter, is every bit as much an illegal immigrant/alien as someone from Central America. As I said before, I would be an illegal immigrant if I entered a country illegally or overstayed my visa.

The fact that the majority, or maybe plurality, of illegal immigrants today are Latino does not in any way mean that it only applies to them.

NP, this. PP was clearly using illegal/legal as an adjective and not a noun. You're taking this too far.

NP: but actually the correct term is undocumented immigrant, not illegal immigrant. Definitely better than using illegal as a noun but still not ideal. Just FYI. I don’t think it’s worth a huge fight on an unrelated thread. But illegal is a loaded and also slippery term in this context so better to stick to the more neutral wording. FWIW in the original post the person had meant legal to work which is actually totally different; one can be very much legally in the country but not have work permission.

Actually, the term "illegal alien" is found in the US Code. And the terms illegal or illegally are all over the place, when referring to immigrants and immigration. So while I agree that there are better terms to use, they still are technically correct, at least in some instances.

No. ALIEN is found in US code. Illegal is not. Illegal is a slur used towards Latinos. It is unspeakably ignorant and only a SLUR.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m one of the PPs^^ and I’ve never felt insecure about the decisions I made for my kids for school. What I’ve said - and others have too - is that Joe was so smug, sure of his viewpoint, clear-eyed, and judgmental about our decision-making. I think I used the word “disdain” about his negativity in those circumstances. What goes around, come around. Now he’s not so clear-eyed or sure when it’s his own kid. The article is his way of pretend, self-flagellation. They had already decided Malia is going to Walls.

Evidence to the contrary. What you are writing comes off as very personal. Why on earth do you care? Why spend a minute carrying that much emotion or feeling his disdain? If you were my kid I'd be telling you that you are responsible for giving others power over you. Also, your certainty regarding what his ultimate decision was or is makes you no different or better than the smugness disdain or certainly that you so disliked coming from him.

Were you not so emotionally invested in this Wheedon character you might be able to see that.

I don't know Wheedon and my kid goes to a strong IB school, so I have no direct or indirect go in this fight. But I really don't get your logic that being annoyed at hypocrisy shows insecurity about choices others have made. That doesn't make sense to me.

I can very easily see why someone would be annoyed by someone who sanctimoniously criticized acted like anyone who went charter was doing something wrong and now, when faced with the same dilemma others had before, he realizes the choice isn't so easy and he does it in a very public forum.

I am annoyed at some friends who are very outspoken about immigrant rights and $15/hr living wage who turn around and higher a nanny here illegal under the table at $10/hr. My annoyance at their hypocrisy doesn't mean that I am insecure about my decision to hire a legal nanny for $20/hr. One simply doesn't follow from the other.

People aren’t illegal, they are undocumented.

I agree with the PP's post you are responding to. And if you read carefully, they didn't call anyone illegal. The adjective referred to the work status, not the person.

Right, it says "here illegall[y]." That clearly refers to their status in the country, not their status as a human being.

I just got a visa for a foreign trip. If I either entered without a visa or overstayed my visa, I would be "there illegally" and it is no different than someone here in the US.

If you are going to try to be the word police, please have the decency to read the post you are trying to correct.

It’s not being “word police” it’s the fact that you’re too ignorant to understand that it is a slur. Do I also have to explain why the n word is wrong and why we don’t refer to asian Americans as Orientals?

Because those are even remotely equivalent. Describing someone's immigration status in the context of legal or illegal simply is not a slur, and you calling now ignorant for not agreeing with you doesn't mean you are right. And screaming that everyone must use your precise word choice, which is far from universally accepted, or be labeled ignorant is a paradigmatic example of the word police.

They are the same. I’m sorry you’re an ignorant person that doesn’t seem to understand the depersonalization of why it’s xenophonic and racist to call a person ILLEGAL, but hopefully your children are less disgusting. White immigrants are not called this slur- Latinos are. It’s repellent and so are you.

I hope your children are able to think critically rather than to simply spout trite slogans without regard to facts. No one is calling a person illegal. People are describing a person's immigration status as illegal. An illegal immigrant/alien does not lose his personhood. In fact, he can cure his illegal immigration status by returning home OR gaining legal status here. If illegal referred to something that went to someone's innate personhood, that status could not so easily be changed.

And you are wrong that it only applies to Latinos. Someone in the country illegal from Canada, Western Europe, or Asia or Africa for that matter, is every bit as much an illegal immigrant/alien as someone from Central America. As I said before, I would be an illegal immigrant if I entered a country illegally or overstayed my visa.

The fact that the majority, or maybe plurality, of illegal immigrants today are Latino does not in any way mean that it only applies to them.

NP, this. PP was clearly using illegal/legal as an adjective and not a noun. You're taking this too far.

NP: but actually the correct term is undocumented immigrant, not illegal immigrant. Definitely better than using illegal as a noun but still not ideal. Just FYI. I don’t think it’s worth a huge fight on an unrelated thread. But illegal is a loaded and also slippery term in this context so better to stick to the more neutral wording. FWIW in the original post the person had meant legal to work which is actually totally different; one can be very much legally in the country but not have work permission.

Actually, the term "illegal alien" is found in the US Code. And the terms illegal or illegally are all over the place, when referring to immigrants and immigration. So while I agree that there are better terms to use, they still are technically correct, at least in some instances.

Anonymous wrote:Why has this thread been taken over non school discussions?