It’s only a matter of time, look at how it’s leaning…

Is that related to this post?

Same. Such a good deal.

As a connoisseur of all three, you in fact, cannot mix all three, but you can enjoy each separately, profoundly and with impeccable taste. ;)

I understand the point (in the context of the study referenced here) but as a teacher, I could never condone telling people to not ask questions. I spend so much time reassuring people (who have been trained to be judicious with their questions) that questions are good. Maybe relegate them to the nose-bleed section, but stop making people afraid to learn.
Moreover, in this context (assuming attendance is voluntary) many people who would greatly benefit may well be inclined to skip the event.
So, while I see the perspective of showing a group of people who enjoy privilege what it feels like to be on the other side, and that it may be important to filter questions that may be hurtful or denigrating (whether well-meaning or not), stifling the ability learn seems counterproductive.
But, maybe it’s not about teaching the privileged group. I also wonder, how are they deciding if you’re too white to ask a question?

(And I also apologize for saying something that came across as putting words in someone’s mouth)

You suggested my question was putting words in someone’s mouth. Note that I didn’t make a comment about how people need representation/people that look like [me]/race/blah blah… I asked, is the subtext of your statement [this].
So it seemed, that you saw my question as a challenge to the veracity of the original statement. You reiterated the statement, as if I had challenged it. By the same token that I have put words in another’s mouth, you have as well.
Now, it’s really all semantics. Because I don’t disagree with the statement, and we have both asserted that we have not intended to put words where they weren’t.
And, maybe it is just as simple as not realizing unintended subtext that some conversations gather. This is one of those conversations, and I can see how being well intentioned it would be easy to dismiss all the noise.

@cakelover @that_creepy_guy please don’t accuse me of putting words in your mouth and put words in mine.
I agree; humans can relate to a great many humans, objects, ideas. Just as dark skinned people can relate to light skinned characters, light skinned people can relate to dark skinned characters. Right? If the skin color doesn’t matter, why does it matter?
I have put no words in your mouth, but I did ask a question relevant to the topic. Yes, people can and do relate to figures that do not look to them, but my question stands—does it matter if people see figures that look like them?
Dark skinned girls were able to relate to light skinned Ariel, why can’t light skinned girls relate to dark skinned Ariel? She’s a mythical creature—there’s no ethnic heritage to portray. There’s no cultural background. The skin color is meaningless to the story.
So, what am I missing?

Is that to say that you don’t think it matters if people see characters in movies and TV that look like them?

Sorry, I missed your point above… I was awake in the middle of the night (and I guess not on my best thinking). I promise I read it, before arguing :)
You make a really good point about unskilled labor. I very much worry for all the people (who aren’t just kids in their first job). A lot of these jobs are already insufficient and to narrow the pool even further is going to create such a difficult situation for so many families and individuals. I live in a very rural area. I know a lot of people who work very hard, but can’t make a phone call at the end of the month because they are out of minutes, can’t afford to go to the doctor, or make home or vehicle repairs. I worry a lot about what happens next. I guess I’m just rambling. But I’m worried.

I think you’re correct that maybe people don’t see their privilege. And, even if you do see it, quantifying the impact on your life can be very difficult.

In 1920, the median cost of a house in the US was near $6,300, while the median household income was about $2,100 (about 33% of the cost of a home).
In 1980, the median cost of a house in the US was near $65,000, while the median family income was around $20,000 (about 31% of the cost of a home). The cost to deliver a baby was around $1,500.
Today, the median cost of a house is near $425,000, while the median family income is about $55,000 (about 13% of the cost of a home). The cost to deliver a baby is around $20,000 (with insurance).
It’s not about the rising cost, it’s about the rising disproportion. It’s not just housing, but housing is a great poignant example. When you consider that in 1920 and 1980, that family income was much likely to be generated by one person working out of home than it is today, that number seems a lot more stark.