Alan Jacobs

“A recent New York Times article showed that the rate of suicide among black children has increased substantially over the years. In contrast, the rates of suicide among white children has decreased, researchers suggested that the difference may lie in black children being more likely to be exposed to “violence and traumatic stress.” Kalief was exposed to violent and traumatic stress from the moment he was handcuffed for a crime he did not commit, to the time his parents could not afford his bail, to his unjustified imprisonment, to the physical abuse he suffered and the mental health resources he was denied. When we think about the kind of world we want our children and ourselves to live in we should not forget about Kalief Browden; his life and the circumstances of his death challenge us to reimagine and recreate a world in which this tragedy does not repeat itself.”

- Kalief Browder and Black Suicide | Faatimah Knight | First Things

via tumblr ift.tt/1Gz4fL4

From Bible Gateway. Note that the heading refers only to sexual immorality, while Paul refers to sexual immorality and greed and drunkenness and idolatry and reviling and robbery. So, my fellow Christians, when people accuse you of being unhealthily focused on sexual sins, this kind of thing is why.

[gallery] From Bible Gateway. Note that the heading refers only to sexual immorality, while Paul refers to sexual immorality and greed and drunkenness and idolatry and reviling and robbery. So, my fellow Christians, when people accuse you of being unhealthily focused on sexual sins, this kind of thing is why.

I will always be a sucker for Leica porn

[gallery] I will always be a sucker for Leica porn

I had both of these editions back in the day. Both books blew my mind, though in very different ways.

drawingarchitecture:

Anne Dessing

[gallery columns=“1” size=“full” ids=“18126,18125”]

I had both of these editions back in the day. Both books blew my mind, though in very different ways.

[gallery] drawingarchitecture:

Anne Dessing

In relatively recent debates over toleration, there has developed a view that says toleration is simply not enough. In tolerating others, we implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) communicate that what they do or believe is, in our view, morally disreputable. That can have serious effects, of course, on the tolerated’s sense of self-worth and ability to live her life as she sees fit. Instead of toleration, the argument goes, we should instead offer one another mutual respect or positive regard or, and this is the key move, recognition. We need not morally endorse others’ lives full stop, but we should go beyond a grudging indifference to something like a decently warm encouragement. And the reason, broadly speaking, we must do so is because the goods we thought we could secure via toleration are not enough. They still leave those being tolerated the object of social opprobrium and thus at some real disadvantage—or worse.

Hence, it is not enough for gays and lesbians to achieve a rough degree of legal and political equality. Nor is it enough for tender college students to hear criticisms that go to the heart of their own sense of identity. Unless their moral lives are, in some real way, recognized and affirmed not only by public (or university) authorities and unless their fellow citizens (or students or speakers) can be counted on to do the same, real, substantive equality will remain elusive.

But this makes for the obvious question: if recognition, not toleration, is the rule of the day, why can’t moral conservatives or others with unpopular views make similarly structured claims? Well, in my view, they should be able to and the fact that they can’t helps reveal an incoherence at the heart of the recognition claim. Given a certain range of moral and religious pluralism, it is principally and practically impossible to extend recognition to all or even most, especially once recognition extends into our everyday social lives. Recognition is, or at least can be, a zero-sum game. And so what is lurking behind the purported argument for recognition—and toleration, for that matter—is a set of moral judgments about what lives are in fact worth recognizing or tolerating, and here is where the misunderstandings of moral conservatives and free-speech liberals will continue to lead to loss after loss.