That's a different and completely unrelated [1] organization that happens to have a similar name (Black Lives Matter Foundation vs Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation).
BLMGN was a small group running a big scam. It was mostly a sink for corporate "blackwashing" PR spend, as megacorps rushed to fake "doing something woke" in 2020.
Both hijacked the hashtag #BlackLivesMatter for profit.
Yeah, it seems here that people are just getting confused about which organization is actually in charge due to two different organizations registering very similar names. I wonder if they trademarked the brand Black Lives Matter, and if so if they attempted to enforce it to prevent something like this from happening, or if they are in fact affiliated with each other.
Maybe there should be a BLM ETF with all the organizations in one bucket? Then you can spread out your risk in case one of them actually intends to be legitimate. Excuse the sarcasm.
Corporations are more concerned about the signal donating money sends than the actual effectiveness of the receiving organization. Did Amazon independently donate any money to this organization?
I have to say that video completely changed the level of my understanding about it. Especially the bit of visually intuitively understanding why the imaginary terms are the integration of the wrapping of the frequency component. Well worth watching.
That’s a super simplified model of the world. Investors put a lot of work into finding out information between earnings calls, including talking to suppliers and customers, acquiring data on sales (obtained via retailers, credit card companies, satellite data, etc), and observing external events that affect the market including regulatory changes and the earnings of peer companies. All of these bits of information can provide insight on the hidden information.
In response to your second edit, I disagree with your claim that choosing to use the term “mother” vs “momma” is neutral or symmetric. When you choose to use the common term “mother,” it implies nothing in particular. Intentionally choosing to use the word “momma” on the other hand is not a neutral decision. You specifically chose to use it to refer to Black mothers. And your statement about “denying black identity” just reinforces the argument that you associate Black people with a certain manner of speech.
I have no bias against you. I’m just trying to explain to you why some people find your original statement offensive. Instead of defending it, just try to consider how it may make your audience feel in the future.
As I said, I am not a native speaker, so I don't really know how momma is typically used (if at all). It was more of a spontaneous use on a whim. But I also haven't found any indication yet that it is a derogatory term.
Sorry I still think the "offense taken" is overblown. I am also not concerned about not offending anybody at all. Frankly I think many people who feel offended about certain things perhaps should just get over themselves. I mean in this case, is momma used in the real world? If so, then I think it should be OK to use it. I don't believe in censoring statements about the real world.
"Momma" is used much more frequently in AAVE than General American English. Your use of it in this context comes across as being mocking of black Americans. (Perhaps the missing bit of cultural context is that racists often use exaggerated AAVE to mock black Americans.)
So if it is so commonly used, why on earth should it be offensive to refer to it? In what way would you consider my statement "mocking"? I don't think it is very relevant what racists commonly do. I don't feel obliged to obtain knowledge about the lifestyle of racists, and neither should anybody else.
Even more interesting in the context of the original complaint of there not being enough books with black heroes. So if a white writer would write such a book, they wouldn't be allowed to use the word "momma" or refer to anything that PoC might do that is different from white people? You are creating an impossible world.
> I don't think it is very relevant what racists commonly do.
In an English-based discussion entirely around issues of race the ways racists commonly use the English language is very relevant. Using the word "momma" by itself is not offensive however in this context it is slightly offensive because the way you used it is exactly how a racist would use it to mock a black person.
I don't think people here are even taking a lot of offense at your use of the word so much as your extreme defensiveness over your use of it. Please take this opportunity to reflect on why you chose to be so defensive instead of taking a mea culpa (and, if you are genuinely confused by why people are offended, asking for clarification).
> So if a white writer would write such a book, they wouldn't be allowed to use the word "momma" or refer to anything that PoC might do that is different from white people?
This is, in fact, a complicated question. Generally the way to avoid being offensive in that situation is to write your characters respectfully as human beings first and foremost, to study portrayals written by members of the group you are portraying to see how they portray themselves, and to ask members of the minority group you are portraying to review your work for any unintentional offensiveness before publication.
"the way you used it is exactly how a racist would use it to mock a black person."
I still don't see what exactly is so mocking about it. Yes, I was perhaps "conjuring up" a stereotypical scenario. So what? Clearly, the stereotype exists. Even if it doesn't reflect reality, imo it would still be valid to refer to the stereotype, as the stereotype exists and is part of reality. The much celebrated Toni Morrison book also conjures a stereotype, about a black girl obsessing to become white. Somehow that is good - why?
And again, no - nobody should be forced to spend time learning about the behavior of racists. Why should they? Life is too short to spend it studying nasty people. I reject this as an attempt to control other people's life, with the power of being a minority.
"Generally the way to avoid being offensive in that situation is to write your characters respectfully as human beings, and to ask members of the minority group you are portraying to review your work for any unintentional offensiveness before publication."
Nope, and that is also why I am so defensive. I value freedom of thought and freedom of art higher than people's choice of being offended.
Of course any writer is free to make the choice to try to offend as few people as possible. But writers should also be allowed to write what they think.
I banned that account earlier, but posting like this is also a bannable offense. It's not ok to break the site guidelines, regardless of how badly another commenter did so. That way is a spiral down to hell—therefore please don't.
The portion of the book on the history of money has very few references for its claims and makes numerous factual errors. If you’re looking for a well referenced book on the history of money, this is not the book.
I haven’t noticed this in my travels. I have seen that the subway and train systems in some countries are leaps and bounds ahead of anything I’ve seen in the US, but what have you noticed beyond that?
Peterson and Rubin are starting this because Patreon banned Yiannopoulos and Benjamin. Benjamin got banned for saying, among other things, “Maybe you're just acting like a n....r, mate? Have you considered that? Do you think white people act like this? White people are meant to be polite and respectful to one another, and you guys can't even act like white people, it's really amazing to me." Portraying Patreon’s action as being anti-conservative is pretty disingenuous unless “conservative” was suddenly redefined to mean “racist.”
Have you often seen adversarial training used for sequence labeling to improve generalization across domains? The LSTM-CRF model appears to be the same model proposed by Lample et al (2016). I’d agree that it is common now to use that architecture.
I think context is important for understanding the response. From what I recall at the time, the article that first broke this news and defined the narrative was this article from the Daily Beast: https://www.thedailybeast.com/palmer-luckey-the-facebook-nea...
Describing it as a $10K donation for a single anti-Hillary billboard misses the parts of the story that caused controversy at the time. The controversial aspects included his connection to Milo Yiannopoulos and moderators of r/The_Donald, and their connections to abusive online behavior and white supremacist rhetoric.
[1] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanmac/black-lives-mat...