Datasets:
Bingsu
/
openwebtext_20p

Dataset card Data Studio Files
xet
Community
text
stringlengths
1
100k
McShay: TE Eric Ebron
Beckham, histrionics aside, is a great player. No real arguing with this choice. Still, I expected the Giants to take Martin with this pick and I think you can still make the case that it would not have been wrong to do so. Martin, like Beckham, has been a Pro Bowler all three seasons of his career. He is also a two-time All-Pro. Little doubt the Giants would be better on the offensive line with Martin. Ebron? He went 10th to the Detroit Lions and has improved each season. His 61-catch 2016 was his best yet. Still, he will never be the impact player that Beckham is.
2015
Giants (Ninth overall): OT Ereck Flowers
Kiper: Flowers
McShay: OL Brandon Scherff
Well, neither Kiper nor McShay are any help here at all. The Giants took Flowers hoping he would be their left tackle of the future, and we know how that’s gone. Kiper would have made the same pick. McShay would have taken Brandon Scherff, who went four picks earlier to the Washington Redskins. For what it’s worth, I still believe Flowers was a consolation prize and that the Giants would have taken Scherff if he had still been on the board.
2016
Giants (10th overall): CB Eli Apple
Kiper: OT Jack Conklin
McShay: Conklin
You know the story. The Giants were widely expected to select either OLB Leonard Floyd or Conklin. Then, the Tennessee Titans moved up to No. 8 and grabbed Conklin and the Chicago Bears jumped to No. 9 to pick Floyd.
Apple had a pretty good rookie year and will be a good player. Conklin was an All-Pro right tackle as a rookie, and you know the Giants’ struggling offensive line could have benefited from that. Conklin was the fifth-highest graded tackle in the league, per Pro Football Focus.
Kiper/McShay/Giants Comparison Year Giants Mel Kiper Todd McShay Year Giants Mel Kiper Todd McShay 2010 DE Jason Pierre-Paul OLB Sean Weatherspoon MLB Rolando McClain 2011 CB Prince Amukamara OT Anthony Castonzo RB Mark Ingram 2012 RB David Wilson TE Coby Fleener OT Jonathan Martin 2013 OL Justin Pugh CB D.J. Hayden DE Bjoern Werner 2014 WR Odell Beckham Jr. OL Zack Martin TE Eric Ebron 2015 OT Ereck Flowers OT Ereck Flowers OL Brandon Scherff 2016 CB Eli Apple OT Jack Conklin OT Jack Conklin
[E-mail Ed at [email protected] | Follow Big Blue View on Twitter | 'Like' Big Blue View on Facebook]
Bolivian President Evo Morales warns that the US will have to pay a price if it launches an aggression against Venezuela, and demands that his US counterpart, Barack Obama, "apologize" to Venezuela for his "threats."
Last week President Obama signed an executive order declaring Venezuela a "national security threat" and ordered sanctions be imposed on seven officials from the Latin American country — a possible precursor to sanctions against the country itself, as previously seen in Iran and Syria.
© Sputnik / Mikhail Fomichev Hungarian, Croat Jailed in Bolivia Over Plot to Kill Morales
“Bolivia is the beloved child of Simon Bolivar and this country is prepared to fight to repel any aggression against Venezuela on the part of the United States,” the Noticias24 news portal quoted Morales as saying during an emergency meeting in Caracas of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA), an intergovernmental organization based on the idea of the social, political and economic integration of the countries of Latin America.
"This is a perfect moment for us to unite even closer in the face of any such threat,” the Bolivian leader said, adding that he would prefer seeing the US as a true defender of peace rather than a country trying to ensure its global dominion by force.
Morales said he wanted the US to be the "great defender of peace in the world", not a country which "dominates in a military way".
"I want to tell you that this unit [ALBA] should be strengthened, I really believe that America is afraid of the process of democratic, peaceful and economic liberation of Latin America and the Caribbean," he said.
There are many nauseating aspects of the new reality TV series, "America Picks a Prez," which airs around the clock on every single channel on earth: the cynical, open-air conspiracy between our Fourth Estate and Donald “Ratings Viagra” Trump. Ted Cruz uttering the word "prayerfully" while not exploding into a cloud of synthetic piety. Caucasian patriots heroically exercising their right to punch people of color.
Among these, let me nominate one more: listening to Hillary partisans explain to those of us who support Bernie Sanders just how naive we are. Only Hillary, we are told, has a real shot at winning in November. She’s the only one with a realistic grasp of how Washington works, whose moderate (and modest) policy aims might, realistically, be enacted. It often sounds as if Clinton’s central pitch to voters isn’t that she has a moral vision for the country, but that she owns the franchise on realism.
Advertisement:
Bernie, meanwhile, is just a sweet-shouting rube whose quarter-century as a congressman and senator has somehow failed to instill in him an appreciation for the twin plagues of grift and gridlock.
For us benighted hippies, the standard counter-argument at this point is that our man understands all too well the magnitude of Washington’s dysfunction, which is why he’s calling for a political revolution: to obliterate the most heinous aspects of the status quo, starting with corporate-sponsored elections.
I happen to agree with this. But there’s a sadder and more pointed response to Hillary’s reality brigade. Namely, that they need to face the reality of what the 2016 election is going to be like with Hillary at the top of the ticket.
Before I outline that particular shitstorm, let me issue a few sure-to-be-ignored (and therefore pointless) caveats. First, I myself was a Hillary supporter until Sanders entered the race. (More precisely, until I read his policy positions.)
Second, I will enthusiastically support Hillary when and if she is nominated. Years ago, I interviewed the secretary and I say now what I said then: She is a brilliant and compassionate public servant. If presidential elections in this country were based on policy positions and moral intention, on how each candidate hopes to solve common crises of state, Clinton would win going away.
Alas, the reality is that Hillary is among the most hated politicians in America. There is, to begin with, her dismal favorability rating, which stands at 53 percent, with a net negative of 12 percent. (Sanders has a net positive of 12 percent.)
Advertisement:
But even more important is the intensity of the animus against her, and the sad mountain of baggage she carries with her as a candidate.
No matter who the GOP nominee is, the battle plan against Hillary will be the same: a tawdry and unrelenting relitigation of all the phony scandals cooked up by the “vast, right-wing conspiracy” that she identified nearly two decades ago.
Cue up the Pearl Jam, folks, because we’re going all the way back to the '90s: Whitewater, Travelgate, Troopergate, Lewinskygate, with a little Vince Foster Murdergate, for a dash of blood. But wait—those are just the golden oldies! You’ll also be hearing about the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Pardons. Of course, what respectable slander campaign would be complete without the new material? Benghazi, the private email server, the Wall Street speeches?
The dark corporate money and talented propagandists aligned against Hillary will make the Swift Boat Veterans look like toy soldiers.
Advertisement:
And because our Fourth Estate is driven at this point almost entirely by the desperate promotion of scandal narratives and conflict, every one of these paid attacks will be amplified by so-called free media, or what us starry-eyed hippies used to call journalism.
I’m not blaming Hillary for this sad state of affairs. I’m just trying to be—what’s the word I’m looking for? Ah yes, here it is—realistic about how it’s going to go down.
Republicans tend to lose when they have to talk in specific terms about policies, priorities and solutions. They win when elections are reduced to brawls and/or personality contests. (See Reagan/Carter, Bush/Kerry, et al.)
Advertisement:
But if Donald Trump is the nominee, as seems most likely right now, he will also enjoy two genuine lines of attack against Hillary.
The first is the same one Bernie just used to upset her in Michigan: the fact that free trade pacts are wildly unpopular with many Americans. Trump has been full-throated (and, as usual, somewhat full of shit) in his condemnation of free trade, and it has been one of his most successful pitches. You can bet your bottom yen that he’ll hammer Hillary on this, as if she personally whipped votes for NAFTA. He’ll excoriate various forms of crony capitalism (deals cut with big pharma, bogus military contracts, etc.) that Democrats such as Hillary either endorsed or enabled through timidity. And he’ll blast her for backing our trillion-dollar boondoggle in Iraq, too.
These accusations will be framed in terms of a larger narrative: that Hillary represents business as usual in Washington, that she’s just another career pol beholden to the donor class and to the Wall Street swells who paid her millions to deliver her secret speeches.
Advertisement:
Trump may be a sexually insecure adolescent with a penchant for inciting racial violence, but the one undeniable aspect of his appeal is that he recognizes the toxic nature of the status quo and will, by sheer force of personality, bring it down.
This promise is about as flimsy as a Trump University diploma. But it’s resonating with voters who feel Washington’s carnival of corruption is beyond redemption.
All of which brings us back to that credulous waif from Brooklyn, by way of Ben and Jerry’s. Donald Trump can holler all he wants about how Crazy Bernie is a socialist. But he (and the super Pacs) won’t be able to distract voters by digging up scandals in his past. Nor will Trump be able to portray him as a corporate stooge.
In fact, the shocking success of the Sanders campaign is predicated on many of the same essential frustrations Trump is exploiting: corporate influence, wage stagnation, trade. This is why polls consistently show Sanders beating Trump more convincingly than Clinton does.
Advertisement:
The right wing knows how to go after Hillary, because they’ve been doing so for 30 years. Within the media and a significant portion of the electorate, the neural pathways have already been carved out. Hillary is defensive, programmed, ethically suspect.
They are going to have a more difficult time smearing a candidate whose biggest liabilities are his “extreme” policy positions, most of which sound more like a common sense corrective to the excesses of capitalism. Higher taxes on corporations and the super-wealthy? Healthcare as a right? A higher minimum wage? Increased funding for education and infrastructure? Good luck demonizing those positions, Big Donald.
None of this is to suggest that Hillary won’t beat Trump, if they wind up as the nominees. Nor that she won’t be a great president. But if Hillary supporters want to claim the mantle of realism, they should start by accepting very real liabilities of their candidate.
It happens hundreds of times a day: We press snooze on the alarm clock, we pick a shirt out of the closet, we reach for a beer in the fridge. In each case, we conceive of ourselves as free agents, consciously guiding our bodies in purposeful ways. But what does science have to say about the true source of this experience?
In a classic paper published almost 20 years ago, the psychologists Dan Wegner and Thalia Wheatley made a revolutionary proposal: The experience of intentionally willing an action, they suggested, is often nothing more than a post hoc causal inference that our thoughts caused some behavior. The feeling itself, however, plays no causal role in producing that behavior. This could sometimes lead us to think we made a choice when we actually didn’t or think we made a different choice than we actually did.
But there’s a mystery here. Suppose, as Wegner and Wheatley propose, that we observe ourselves (unconsciously) perform some action, like picking out a box of cereal in the grocery store, and then only afterwards come to infer that we did this intentionally. If this is the true sequence of events, how could we be deceived into believing that we had intentionally made our choice before the consequences of this action were observed? This explanation for how we think of our agency would seem to require supernatural backwards causation, with our experience of conscious will being both a product and an apparent cause of behavior.
In a study just published in Psychological Science, Paul Bloom and I explore a radical—but non-magical—solution to this puzzle. Perhaps in the very moments that we experience a choice, our minds are rewriting history, fooling us into thinking that this choice—that was actually completed after its consequences were subconsciously perceived—was a choice that we had made all along.
Though the precise way in which the mind could do this is still not fully understood, similar phenomena have been documented elsewhere. For example, we see the apparent motion of a dot before seeing that dot reach its destination, and we feel phantom touches moving up our arm before feeling an actual touch further up our arm. “Postdictive” illusions of this sort are typically explained by noting that there’s a delay in the time it takes information out in the world to reach conscious awareness: Because it lags slightly behind reality, consciousness can “anticipate” future events that haven’t yet entered awareness, but have been encoded subconsciously, allowing for an illusion in which the experienced future alters the experienced past.
In one of our studies, participants were repeatedly presented with five white circles in random locations on a computer monitor and were asked to quickly choose one of the circles in their head before one lit up red. If a circle turned red so fast that they didn’t feel like they were able to complete their choice, participants could indicate that they ran out of time. Otherwise, they indicated whether they had chosen the red circle (before it turned red) or had chosen a different circle. We explored how likely people were to report a successful prediction among these instances in which they believed that they had time to make a choice.
Unbeknownst to participants, the circle that lit up red on each trial of the experiment was selected completely randomly by our computer script. Hence, if participants were truly completing their choices when they claimed to be completing them—before one of the circles turned red—they should have chosen the red circle on approximately 1 in 5 trials. Yet participants’ reported performance deviated unrealistically far from this 20% probability, exceeding 30% when a circle turned red especially quickly. This pattern of responding suggests that participants’ minds had sometimes swapped the order of events in conscious awareness, creating an illusion that a choice had preceded the color change when, in fact, it was biased by it.
Importantly, participants’ reported choice of the red circle dropped down near 20% when the delay for a circle to turn red was long enough that the subconscious mind could no longer play this trick in consciousness and get wind of the color change before a conscious choice was completed. This result ensured that participants weren’t simply trying to deceive us (or themselves) about their prediction abilities or just liked reporting that they were correct.
In fact, the people who showed our time-dependent illusion were often completely unaware of their above-chance performance when asked about it in debriefing after the experiment was over. Moreover, in a related experiment, we found that the bias to choose correctly was not driven by confusion or uncertainty about what was chosen: Even when participants were highly confident in their choice, they showed a tendency to “choose” correctly at an impossibly high rate.
Taken together, these findings suggest that we may be systematically misled about how we make choices, even when we have strong intuitions to the contrary. Why, though, would our minds fool us in such a seemingly silly way in the first place? Wouldn’t this illusion wreak havoc on our mental lives and behavior?
Maybe not. Perhaps the illusion can simply be explained by appeal to limits in the brain’s perceptual processing, which only messes up at the very short time scales measured in our (or similar) experiments and which are unlikely to affect us in the real world.
A more speculative possibility is that our minds are designed to distort our perception of choice and that this distortion is an important feature (not simply a bug) of our cognitive machinery. For example, if the experience of choice is a kind of causal inference, as Wegner and Wheatley suggest, then swapping the order of choice and action in conscious awareness may aid in the understanding that we are physical beings who can produce effects out in the world. More broadly, this illusion may be central to developing a belief in free will and, in turn, motivating punishment.
Yet, whether or not there are advantages to believing we’re more in control of our lives than we actually are, it’s clear that the illusion can go too far. While a quarter-of-a-second distortion in time experience may be no big deal, distortions at longer delays—which might plague people with mental illnesses like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder—could substantially and harmfully warp people’s fundamental views about the world. People with such illnesses may begin to believe that they can control the weather or that they have an uncanny ability to predict other people’s behavior. In extreme cases, they may even conclude that they have god-like powers.
It remains to be seen just how much the postdictive illusion of choice that we observe in our experiments connects to these weightier aspects of daily life and mental illness. The illusion may only apply to a small set of our choices that are made quickly and without too much thought. Or it may be pervasive and ubiquitous—governing all aspects of our behavior, from our most minute to our most important decisions. Most likely, the truth lies somewhere in between these extremes. Whatever the case may be, our studies add to a growing body of work suggesting that even our most seemingly ironclad beliefs about our own agency and conscious experience can be dead wrong.
Cards Against Humanity, before it became go-to entertainment for a generation raised on the Internet and saddled with a backward idea of political correctness, began as a crowdsourced, printable game created by a group of old high school friends. A 2011 Kickstarter campaign produced the actual cards. In the promotional video, we’re introduced to half a dozen white guys who explain that it’s for “horrible people,” or at least the type of people who like to jokingly describe themselves as such. Recently, for a Black Friday promotion, they sent 30,000 people boxes of actual bullshit. It’s that sort of thing.
The concept is simple: One person throws out a fill-in-the-blank prompt card, and the rest of the players have to supply the missing words with cards bearing phrases like “pooping back and forth forever” and “not giving a shit about the Third World.” The founders promise that the game is “as despicable and awkward as you and your friends.”
Their success is startling: Cards Against Humanity is the No. 1 bestseller in Amazon Toys & Games, with five expansion sets to date, three holiday packs, and bundles with themes like “nostalgia” and “science.” There are more than 14,000 five-star reviews on Amazon. “That’s a level of devotion that can’t be explained by shock value alone,” wrote Nick Summers in Business Insider, as “the humor is calibrated to startle without being outright offensive.”
Well, that’s not exactly true.
The first time I played Cards Against Humanity, I couldn’t remember having ever laughed so hard. It was at a friend’s engagement party, with 10 people I knew better than just about anyone, our faces turning red and streaming with tears as we envisioned a mopey zoo lion, a frolicking gassy antelope, and Micropenises: The Musical. The hilarity lived in the shock, and each card had us doubled over almost before we could read it.
You’re the “horrible person” who played the cards in the first place. It’s not the game’s fault.
The second time I played, I still laughed a lot, though I started recognizing all the cards. The third time, I realized that some made me uncomfortable. The fifth time I played, I was thankful that my friend had brought an expansion pack, because there are only so many times I can cackle at the idea of Glenn Beck balls-deep in a squealing hog. I’ve played it about a dozen times, and now I’m starting to make a conscious effort to avoid it.
The problems with the game are obvious and two-pronged. On the innocuous side, shock value is a large part of the draw, and it gets old fast—hence all the expansion packs you’re encouraged to buy, each promising further blows to the “easily offended.” The white cards are designed as punchlines to the black cards’ setups. What may be a straightforward concept on its own (“The Trail of Tears”) only transforms into something questionable when paired with “Instead of coal, Santa now gives bad children _______.”
This folds into the other issue: the bar for acceptable crudeness is set by college-educated white guys. “A big dick” would be a funny enough response card, but CAH opts for “a big, black dick” (and, in the expansion pack, “a bigger, blacker dick”). Blackness is what’s supposed to send it over the top. Other white cards considered hilarious include “roofies,” “a sassy black woman,” “praying the gay away,” and “two midgets shitting into a bucket.” The plausibly deniable punchlines of rape culture, anti-blackness, homophobia, and ableism are visible just below the gauze, but hey, you’re the “horrible person” who played them in the first place. It’s not the game’s fault.
“I think the game perpetuates a pretty nasty culture: ‘Hey, look how enlightened I am because I’m beyond race/religion and can make nasty jokes about it!’” said Adrienne Ciskey, a game designer. “It comes across as a game for overly privileged hipsters who believe they are entitled to this lifestyle where everyone worships them to feel ‘in’ on the joke.” She also introduced me to the phrase “Real Wheaton’s Law”: “Don’t be a dick, unless it’s being a dick in certain pre-sanctioned-by-us situations.”
The line about comedy is that no topic should be taboo, and I agree with that. But the more “controversial” the subject, the more carefully it needs to be handled. A good comedian can make a joke about a celebrity, but a great comedian is the one who can gracefully craft a joke about something darker without making the subject the butt of the joke. CAH lets us become the comedians, giving us the setups and the punchlines to mix and match. The trouble is that we’re not great comedians.
The game relies on the concept of the equal-opportunity offender, someone who makes fun of all religions, races, sexes, and anything else. Instead of punching up, they’re ready to just punch. It also relies on a bit of bullying over the idea of being “easily offended.” It is “not for the easily offended.” It is a “political-correctness-free zone.” If you’re the easily offended type, you shouldn’t even look at the cards. And you wouldn’t want to be one of those, would you?
Cards Against Humanity has literally abandoned all chill. 💀 pic.twitter.com/2eJbAhzGEM — Jacks (@JackkieMarrie) December 17, 2014
A quick look at the illustrations of the Cards Against Humanity team still shows a primarily male, primarily white group.
Cards Against Humanity
According to David Munk, one of the game’s designers, the team is aware of the cultural power they hold, and their own privileged viewpoints. “When we find that our game has bullied or marginalized people in a way that we didn’t expect, we apologize and amend the game,” he told the Daily Dot. “We do our best to make jokes about people and institutions in positions of cultural power, and not to bully people.” Which is a good thing, for sure, but spot-fixing things only gets you so far.
“It’s embarrassing to me that there was a time in my life [when] that was funny.”
That policy also differs from what “core team member” Ben Hantoot said in 2011: “Several times, [in testing the game], people have left the room crying. But we’re OK with that. That means the game works!” He suggested removing cards if they’re upsetting, placing the burden on those playing, as if anticipating possible outrage is a waste of the CAH cabal’s time. It’s the sorry if you were offended of card games. It’s entirely possible that in the three years since Hantoot was interviewed, the designers have internalized that fewer people should leave the room crying when playing the game, but the plan still seems to be to see what they can “get away with” before enough people speak up.
So what makes the cut? This year’s holiday pack, titled “Ten Days or Whatever of Kwanzaa,” was a sort of advent calendar where people were mailed daily CAH-themed gifts (including that line mentioned above) for 10 days. I admit it gave me pause, as Kwanzaa is certainly not in the position of cultural power that Christmas occupies. “The joke to us is that we (the white authors of the game) didn’t bother to research that there are actually seven days of Kwanzaa,” said Munk. “It’s a joke that we meant to poke fun at white privilege, ignorance, and laziness.” CAH has also done its part to use the campaign for good. The profits from that box of bullshit were donated to Heifer International, and last year they gave more than $100,000 to DonorsChoose to fund public schools.
But what was meant as a commentary on the type of person who would dismiss Kwanzaa can simply turn into yet another way to dismiss Kwanzaa, as evidenced by the number of people who rephrased the title as “Kwanzaa or Whatever” on Twitter. Are the jokes too smart for their target audience, or are the CAH boys just too cavalier with material that can be quickly misconstrued?
I get why Cards Against Humanity can ‘get away’ with a joke like this. None of them & a lot of us, don’t know anyone who celebrates Kwanzaa. — Isaiah T. Taylor (@Bboy_Izilla) November 12, 2014
(Sorry, this embed was not found.)
CAH does seem to understand that comedy still requires social responsibility, especially as people speak out more about the cards they find disturbing. In June, Max Temkin said he had pulled the “passable transvestites” card after Jonah Miller, a transgender player, posted a photo of himself burning it—with the caption “DEATH TO TRANSPHOBIA”—on his Tumblr. Temkin admitted that he regretted the card and called it a “mean, cheap joke.” “It’s embarrassing to me that there was a time in my life [when] that was funny,” he wrote.
White cards still include “copping a feel” and “surprise sex!”
Meanwhile, Miller faced backlash from around the Web. Many criticized his choice to burn a transphobic card but continue playing with other cards that are arguably racist, sexist, or otherwise offensive. Miller eventually wrote a follow-up post, admitting, “I was only looking at the issues which affected me personally, and I was allowing myself to find everything else funny because I wasn’t the person to whom it’s directed.”
Presumably, Cards Against Humanity should be thinking like Miller, anticipating the pain of seeing a card directed at you and empathizing with that, parsing which cards provide a light tease and which are actually hurtful, instead of waiting for fans to force their removal. The list of changes to the lineup is extensive, and includes many justified deletions. But an equal number of harmless cards fall by the wayside, and for every “dwarf tossing” we’ve lost, there’s a “robust mongoloid” or “chunks of dead prostitute” that stays or gets added.
Complicating matters further is an accusation of sexual harassment against co-creator Max Temkin. In a blog post addressing the topic, Temkin writes like a considerate, understanding person about sexual assault and rape culture. He said his lawyer told him he’d have a strong libel case, but he won’t take legal action because he’s “not wild about the precedent that sets for other women to come forward in cases of actual sexual assault.” It’s hard to tell if he’s a legitimate ally or just looking for feminist brownie points. Most women I know lose the ability to distinguish, having been burned too many times.
In the end, he vowed to keep being a “feminist” and hiring women, and reminded us that “We removed all of the ‘rape’ jokes from Cards Against Humanity years ago. We’ll continue to use the game as best we can to ‘punch up’ and not ‘punch down.’”
As of this writing, white cards still include “copping a feel” and “surprise sex!”
When I first began to notice the issues with the game’s humor, I remember purposefully, smugly not playing the “my black ass” card. I figured I wouldn’t play it in front of a black person, so there was no reason for me to play it in a room full of white people. Later that summer, a black friend told me how much she loved the game, and how she always picked the “sassy black woman” card as a winner. I was reminded that I should never make assumptions—that she wouldn’t like that card, or that any other black person would. I was also reminded that it’s as easy to ignore sexism and racism as it is to overzealously take up a controversy on behalf of people who don’t need you to speak for them.
In an essay about the rise of the “Not All Men” meme, Time‘s Jess Zimmerman wrote of the stages men must go through to overcome sexism. Her insights can be applied to other forms of discrimination by those in privileged positions. Once you’ve acknowledged that these power structures exist, you can learn how you’ve been socialized to accept them and benefit from them, and then take active steps to work against them.
The Cards Against Humanity team is stalled in the middle of that narrative: understanding that there is a cultural hierarchy that disenfranchises people, making it clear they’re aware of the privilege they hold, attempting to use their humor to separate themselves from those who don’t get it, and apologizing for their mistakes when they’re called out. And they’ve faced minimal criticism, because, well, those steps are where most fail.
People will apologize once they know they’ve done something wrong, but many won’t try to avoid wronging in the first place—by actively seeking diverse viewpoints and hires, for example. We’ve accepted the offense, as long as the apologies are good enough. Dismantling privilege doesn’t matter, as long as you’ve checked yours.