Yeah, that information was not on the page you linked me. I didn't realize it was reasonable to expect people to go spelunking in your links to find the actual information you're trying to gesture vaguely at without laying it out explicitly in the first place for some reason.
Also, other than vague 'political and ethical issues' none of that has anything to do with racism, which was your initial claim.
So they were OK with their products being used to kill Palestinians but not okay with some bad press? Yeah, those seem like healthy priorities.
I was speaking more broadly about billionaires giving a tiny portion of their wealth away, not this specific example.
First I couldn't read the full article because I don't subscribe to the NYT, but...
I don’t think the response is providing cover. It encourages the question-asker to use this rental income for lobbying against ICE.
It's providing cover in exactly the same way that billionaires use philanthropy to launder their image: by asserting that giving a tiny portion of one's ill-gotten gains to 'good causes' somehow ameliorates the ethical implications of acquiring it in the first place.
It does not.
Oh I'm well aware that this is not new, they've just taken shilling for the elite in the guise of being 'about the people' to new heights with this one.
Two things.
It's important to understand his reaction before you try to address the issue though. 'Traitor' is a rather specific accusation, who does he believe you have betrayed? Sounds like he has never known his mother so I dunno how he could imagine you're betraying her. Does he feel betrayed because he is an only child and now will have to share your attention with a baby? Is this a situation where you've not had a lot of time for him, especially lately? Understanding this will help you guide the conversation when you have it, to address his specific concerns. Make sure to ask lots of questions rather than making assumptions, and don't take 'I don't know' for an answer. This is a rather extreme reaction to something he should've realized was at least a possibility for a long time, something is driving it, and until you understand what that is you will be walking in a minefield.
As for how to broach the subject.. my suggestion is to find something you normally like doing together and do that. Don't make it about the conversation, just make it about spending time with him, and as long as the activity itself isn't too distracting the conversation will surely come up on its own. If it doesn't you can raise it gently at the end of the activity or whatever.
Well, I see the NYT has certainly evolved with the changing times. Where once it pretended to talk about issues faced by us all it has now apparently retreated to the much more financially-secure world of providing ethical cover for landlords who profit from human suffering. If this is a 'war on immigration' these guys are literally war profiteers. Definitely 'speaking for the people' there, NYT. No, in case you were wondering, the word 'rich' does not in fact belong inside those quotes.
Er, evolutionary psychology is a whole field of study with its own journal with hundreds of published studies. If you're going to claim that a whole branch of psychology is racist you're going to need to provide some evidence to back those claims up, because that wikipedia article has nothing more damning in it than the following suggestion that there are critics who think there might be some ethical problems with how it's sometimes used, but that's not a condemnation of the value of the science itself.
Critics have argued that evolutionary psychology might be used to justify existing social hierarchies and reactionary policies. It has also been suggested by critics that evolutionary psychologists' theories and interpretations of empirical data rely heavily on ideological assumptions about race and gender.
But that's like saying a wrench is a weapon because it can be thrown at someone's head; that's problem with the user, not a problem inherent in the tool.
Yeah, I love their covers too, and I'm normally not much of a cover fan.
Hm, I generally had a decently positive opinion of Pinker. Is this a case of him not knowing what this was and getting ambushed? Or did he know what was up going in?
I'm not normally a big flute fan, but the flute solo in Locomotive Breath by Jethro Tull is fire.
Sooo, the point of this conference was to recognize Palestine, but now before it's even started they've already sabotaged it by deciding that they're not going to recognize Palestine, and instead they're going to 'outline steps' to recognition. Uh-huh. Please tell me more about the bullshit hoops you want a people to jump through before you decided that they are worthy of your bullshit.