But I wasn’t born in 2014. I was a whole teacher, executive, policy person, speaker, arts and culture lover, reader, writer, woman of faith, fashion and more before 4 yrs ago 🤷🏾♀️
We should stop confusing what someone was doing when we became aware of them with all they are capable of, interested in, or ever hope to be
Let folks have their many talents, interests and gifts. Life is far more fun with variety, loves.
But I wasn’t born in 2014. I was a whole teacher, executive, policy person, speaker, arts and culture lover, reader, writer, woman of faith, fashion and more before 4 yrs ago 🤷🏾♀️
But we internalize and transfer our oppression daily. It’s a smog. We all breathe it in & act it out.
And then tell WoC “girl ain’t you supposed to be a _______? Why you doing ____?”
Can I live?
I’ve just been observing that behavior more and more lately. Especially when it comes to marginalized folks.
“Can’t knock the hustle” should be our anthem.
As long as someone isn’t bringing active and continual harm, why can’t they explore their many sides?
I am discovering that people want to keep you in the box they have for you because they’re too afraid to step out of their own.
Living outside your box will give other people permission to do the same.
And that’s freedom, too. Of the personal variety.
Being miserable on purpose takes entirely too much energy, anyway.
More from Society
1/OK, data mystery time.
This New York Times feature shows China with a Gini Index of less than 30, which would make it more equal than Canada, France, or the Netherlands. https://t.co/g3Sv6DZTDE
That's weird. Income inequality in China is legendary.
Let's check this number.
2/The New York Times cites the World Bank's recent report, "Fair Progress? Economic Mobility across Generations Around the World".
The report is available here:
3/The World Bank report has a graph in which it appears to show the same value for China's Gini - under 0.3.
The graph cites the World Development Indicators as its source for the income inequality data.
4/The World Development Indicators are available at the World Bank's website.
Here's the Gini index: https://t.co/MvylQzpX6A
It looks as if the latest estimate for China's Gini is 42.2.
That estimate is from 2012.
5/A Gini of 42.2 would put China in the same neighborhood as the U.S., whose Gini was estimated at 41 in 2013.
I can't find the <30 number anywhere. The only other estimate in the tables for China is from 2008, when it was estimated at 42.8.
This New York Times feature shows China with a Gini Index of less than 30, which would make it more equal than Canada, France, or the Netherlands. https://t.co/g3Sv6DZTDE
That's weird. Income inequality in China is legendary.
Let's check this number.
2/The New York Times cites the World Bank's recent report, "Fair Progress? Economic Mobility across Generations Around the World".
The report is available here:
3/The World Bank report has a graph in which it appears to show the same value for China's Gini - under 0.3.
The graph cites the World Development Indicators as its source for the income inequality data.
4/The World Development Indicators are available at the World Bank's website.
Here's the Gini index: https://t.co/MvylQzpX6A
It looks as if the latest estimate for China's Gini is 42.2.
That estimate is from 2012.
5/A Gini of 42.2 would put China in the same neighborhood as the U.S., whose Gini was estimated at 41 in 2013.
I can't find the <30 number anywhere. The only other estimate in the tables for China is from 2008, when it was estimated at 42.8.
Two things can be true at once:
1. There is an issue with hostility some academics have faced on some issues
2. Another academic who himself uses threats of legal action to bully colleagues into silence is not a good faith champion of the free speech cause
I have kept quiet about Matthew's recent outpourings on here but as my estwhile co-author has now seen fit to portray me as an enabler of oppression I think I have a right to reply. So I will.
I consider Matthew to be a colleague and a friend, and we had a longstanding agreement not to engage in disputes on twitter. I disagree with much in the article @UOzkirimli wrote on his research in @openDemocracy but I strongly support his right to express such critical views
I therefore find it outrageous that Matthew saw fit to bully @openDemocracy with legal threats, seeking it seems to stifle criticism of his own work. Such behaviour is simply wrong, and completely inconsistent with an academic commitment to free speech.
I am not embroiling myself in the various other cases Matt lists because, unlike him, I think attention to the detail matters and I don't have time to research each of these cases in detail.
1. There is an issue with hostility some academics have faced on some issues
2. Another academic who himself uses threats of legal action to bully colleagues into silence is not a good faith champion of the free speech cause
How about Selina Todd, Kathleen Stock, Jo Phoenix, Rachel Ara, Sarah Honeychurch, Michele Moore, Nina Power, Joanna Williams, Jenny Murray, Julia Gasper ...
— Matt Goodwin (@GoodwinMJ) February 17, 2021
Or is it only Eric you pop at?
Are they all making it up too Rob?
Are they "beyond parody"? https://t.co/drQssTD0OL
I have kept quiet about Matthew's recent outpourings on here but as my estwhile co-author has now seen fit to portray me as an enabler of oppression I think I have a right to reply. So I will.
I consider Matthew to be a colleague and a friend, and we had a longstanding agreement not to engage in disputes on twitter. I disagree with much in the article @UOzkirimli wrote on his research in @openDemocracy but I strongly support his right to express such critical views
I therefore find it outrageous that Matthew saw fit to bully @openDemocracy with legal threats, seeking it seems to stifle criticism of his own work. Such behaviour is simply wrong, and completely inconsistent with an academic commitment to free speech.
I am not embroiling myself in the various other cases Matt lists because, unlike him, I think attention to the detail matters and I don't have time to research each of these cases in detail.
I've seen many news articles cite that "the UK variant could be the dominant strain by March". This is emphasized by @CDCDirector.
While this will likely to be the case, this should not be an automatic cause for concern. Cases could still remain contained.
Here's how: 🧵
One of @CDCgov's own models has tracked the true decline in cases quite accurately thus far.
Their projection shows that the B.1.1.7 variant will become the dominant variant in March. But interestingly... there's no fourth wave. Cases simply level out:
https://t.co/tDce0MwO61
Just because a variant becomes the dominant strain does not automatically mean we will see a repeat of Fall 2020.
Let's look at UK and South Africa, where cases have been falling for the past month, in unison with the US (albeit with tougher restrictions):
Furthermore, the claim that the "variant is doubling every 10 days" is false. It's the *proportion of the variant* that is doubling every 10 days.
If overall prevalence drops during the studied time period, the true doubling time of the variant is actually much longer 10 days.
Simple example:
Day 0: 10 variant / 100 cases -> 10% variant
Day 10: 15 variant / 75 cases -> 20% variant
Day 20: 20 variant / 50 cases -> 40% variant
1) Proportion of variant doubles every 10 days
2) Doubling time of variant is actually 20 days
3) Total cases still drop by 50%
While this will likely to be the case, this should not be an automatic cause for concern. Cases could still remain contained.
Here's how: 🧵
One of @CDCgov's own models has tracked the true decline in cases quite accurately thus far.
Their projection shows that the B.1.1.7 variant will become the dominant variant in March. But interestingly... there's no fourth wave. Cases simply level out:
https://t.co/tDce0MwO61
Just because a variant becomes the dominant strain does not automatically mean we will see a repeat of Fall 2020.
Let's look at UK and South Africa, where cases have been falling for the past month, in unison with the US (albeit with tougher restrictions):
Furthermore, the claim that the "variant is doubling every 10 days" is false. It's the *proportion of the variant* that is doubling every 10 days.
If overall prevalence drops during the studied time period, the true doubling time of the variant is actually much longer 10 days.
Simple example:
Day 0: 10 variant / 100 cases -> 10% variant
Day 10: 15 variant / 75 cases -> 20% variant
Day 20: 20 variant / 50 cases -> 40% variant
1) Proportion of variant doubles every 10 days
2) Doubling time of variant is actually 20 days
3) Total cases still drop by 50%
