Quantcast
Danzig!

Danzig!

Small town dude moves to big city.

By stinapag on Cancel "What Americans Will Look Like in 2050"

The headline is also ridiculously misleading in that the National Geographic article doesn't say anything about how "we" will look in 2050. (Well, I'll look like half anglo/half Tejana 77 year old, because that's who I am, but that's not exactly the point.) The article is about how the constructs of "black or white" don't work any more because there are a lot of people who have to check more than one box or don't fall into either category. Additionally, people who don't really fall into a category go through life with people trying to shoehorn them in somewhere. As someone who has a hard time picking which of the sub categories of Hispanic I am when the demographic questions get granular, I appreciate the issue that the article is trying to highlight, and I know that my kids will have the same problem later on down the line. The photos are to illustrate what SOME people of mixed race/ethnicity look like, not what the population as a whole will look like 35 years from now.

The only thing the National Geographic article says about the future is that Anglos will not be the majority after 2060. Since I live in Houston, and that ship has long since sailed here*, it's not that big of a deal when you're actually living in such a world. But diversity certainly doesn't break down social constructs of race and ethnicity. I imagine that the people living in less diverse areas are a little more alarmist and/or idealist about such a world.

I've seen at least one de-friending over a dumb comment about this article, and I expect that there are a few more.

*I've read several places that we're the most diverse city in the country. Apparently NYC has more ethnicities, but we're more diluted across the board. I don't really notice it until I go someplace where the population isn't as demographically varied.

Posted on April 11, 2014 at 8:46 pm 3

By stinapag on Cancel "What Americans Will Look Like in 2050"

The headline is also ridiculously misleading in that the National Geographic article doesn't say anything about how "we" will look in 2050. (Well, I'll look like half anglo/half Tejana 77 year old, because that's who I am, but that's not exactly the point.) The article is about how the constructs of "black or white" don't work any more because there are a lot of people who have to check more than one box or don't fall into either category. Additionally, people who don't really fall into a category go through life with people trying to shoehorn them in somewhere. As someone who has a hard time picking which of the sub categories of Hispanic I am when the demographic questions get granular, I appreciate the issue that the article is trying to highlight, and I know that my kids will have the same problem later on down the line. The photos are to illustrate what SOME people of mixed race/ethnicity look like, not what the population as a whole will look like 35 years from now.

The only thing the National Geographic article says about the future is that Anglos will not be the majority after 2060. Since I live in Houston, and that ship has long since sailed here*, it's not that big of a deal when you're actually living in such a world. But diversity certainly doesn't break down social constructs of race and ethnicity. I imagine that the people living in less diverse areas are a little more alarmist and/or idealist about such a world.

I've seen at least one de-friending over a dumb comment about this article, and I expect that there are a few more.

*I've read several places that we're the most diverse city in the country. Apparently NYC has more ethnicities, but we're more diluted across the board. I don't really notice it until I go someplace where the population isn't as demographically varied.

Posted on April 11, 2014 at 8:46 pm 3

By missedconnections on "I said you could snuggle. That doesn’t mean/ your cold feet all over my dick"

Dear god I get so pissed when a bed guest makes the cat jump off the bed.

Posted on March 24, 2014 at 5:38 pm 2

By sluts4ever on "I said you could snuggle. That doesn’t mean/ your cold feet all over my dick"

Ohhhhh, Louise. I read Meadowlands in high school while I was also reading The Odyssey and I fell in love. I used to leave voice mails on my friend's phones with her poems. One of my favorites is "The Edge"

Time and again, time and again I tie
My heart to that headboard
While my quilted cries
Harden against his hand. He's bored-
I see it. Don't I lick his bribes, set his bouquets
In water? Over Mother's lace I watch him drive into the gored
Roasts, deal slivers in his mercy... I can feel his thighs
Against me for the children's sake. Reward?
Mornings, crippled with this house,
I see him toast his toast and test
His coffee, hedgingly. The waste's my breakfast.

Posted on March 24, 2014 at 12:23 pm 1

By summeranne on Talking to Anne Helen Petersen About Leaving Academia for BuzzFeed

@Danzig! I care about hairpin comments more than most things, so I feel the need to pipe up and say that anyone who thinks we use "no haters" as some kind of editorial policy against critiquing things intelligently just hasn't been paying attention. Haters are reflexively nasty, snarky people whose favorite activity is telling people they're wrong and dumb. They proliferate on the internet and we don't like them. They are not intelligent, useful critics. BuzzFeed has been building an investigative team led by a Pulitzer winner, we hired Ayesha Siddiqi from the new inquiry to run our opinions section, and we just contributed to getting a xenophobic ABC Family pilot canned by getting ahold of the pilot script and ripping it to shreds. And Anne Helen's own piece for us was a thoughtful critique of the "cool girl" image that makes J. Law (a BuzzFeed audience favorite) so popular. I am happy to hear real critiques of what we do and learn from them, but people who repeat the "no haters" line as if they have never heard the slang "haters" or have any idea what it really means are not that.

Posted on March 23, 2014 at 3:50 pm 2

By Lauren_O'Neal on Friday Open Thread

Thank you all for these suggestions, except @Danzig!.

Posted on March 14, 2014 at 7:28 pm 1

By OhMarie on Friday Open Thread

@Danzig! GREAT WORK TEAM!

Posted on March 14, 2014 at 3:25 pm 3

By Lauren_O'Neal on Your Trusty Guest Bloggers

@Danzig! how dare u

Posted on March 10, 2014 at 5:41 pm 1

By mlle.gateau on A Certain Amount of Suffering: On the Women of True Detective

@Michelle H. Sellars@facebook I have been in the "It was Marty" camp off and on--not in the sense that I want to be him, but in the sense that I feel like he's implicated in it. Having read the Pizzolato interview on Buzzfeed, I realize that Pizzolato on some level wants you to think that it at least could be Marty. Marty is implicated by his inability to conceive of women as fully fledged, autonomous human beings. This contrasts with his efforts to solve the crime, which sort of redeem him, along with the fact that his ideas about women have led him to a place of such deep (and not undeserved) unhappiness. So I mean... yeah, it kind of is Marty, in the sense these crimes take place in a world where Marty's view of women is sadly common among men and enables these kinds of crimes to go unchecked. But is it Marty who's actually killing women? Nope.

Posted on March 8, 2014 at 9:06 pm 2

By j-i-a on Ask Us Anything

@j-i-a final answer

Posted on February 12, 2014 at 3:59 pm 1