inclusion

There's no beauty without difference and diversity. Love unconditionally.

Food-sharing is an innate way that we show our love for people we care about. Including others in times of celebration is an act of kindness.

At present we are on the outside_ the wrong side of the door. We discern the freshness and purity of morning, but they do not make us fresh and pure. We cannot mingle with the pleasures we see. But all the pages of the New Testament are rustling with the rumor that it will not always be so. Someday, God willing, we shall get __n__ We will put on glory_ that greater glory of which Nature is only the first sketch.We do not want to merely __ee_ beauty -- though, God knows, even that is bounty enough. We want something else which can hardly be put into words__o be united with the beauty we see, to pass into it, to receive it into ourselves, to bathe in it, to become part of it.

Imagine a young Isaac Newton time-travelling from 1670s England to teach Harvard undergrads in 2017. After the time-jump, Newton still has an obsessive, paranoid personality, with Asperger__ syndrome, a bad stutter, unstable moods, and episodes of psychotic mania and depression. But now he__ subject to Harvard__ speech codes that prohibit any __isrespect for the dignity of others_; any violations will get him in trouble with Harvard__ Inquisition (the __ffice for Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion_). Newton also wants to publish Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, to explain the laws of motion governing the universe. But his literary agent explains that he can__ get a decent book deal until Newton builds his __uthor platform_ to include at least 20k Twitter followers _ without provoking any backlash for airing his eccentric views on ancient Greek alchemy, Biblical cryptography, fiat currency, Jewish mysticism, or how to predict the exact date of the Apocalypse.Newton wouldn__ last long as a __ublic intellectual_ in modern American culture. Sooner or later, he would say __ffensive_ things that get reported to Harvard and that get picked up by mainstream media as moral-outrage clickbait. His eccentric, ornery awkwardness would lead to swift expulsion from academia, social media, and publishing. Result? On the upside, he__ drive some traffic through Huffpost, Buzzfeed, and Jezebel, and people would have a fresh controversy to virtue-signal about on Facebook. On the downside, we wouldn__ have Newton__ Laws of Motion.

Critical interventions around race did not destroy the women's movement; it became stronger . . . It shows us that no matter how misguided feminist thinkers have been in the past, the will to change, the will to create the context for struggle and liberation, remains stronger than the need to hold on to wrong beliefs and assumptions.

Our homes travel with us. They are wherever we feel loved and accepted.

The conundrum of the twenty-first (century) is that with the best intentions of color blindness, and laws passed in this spirit, we still carry instincts and reactions inherited from our environments and embedded in our being below the level of conscious decision. There is a color line in our heads, and while we could see its effects we couldn__ name it until now. But john powell is also steeped in a new science of __mplicit bias,_ which gives us a way, finally, even to address this head on. It reveals a challenge that is human in nature, though it can be supported and hastened by policies to create new experiences, which over time create new instincts and lay chemical and physical pathways. This is a helpfully unromantic way to think about what we mean when we aspire, longingly, to a lasting change of heart. And john powell and others are bringing training methodologies based on the new science to city governments and police forces and schools. What we__e finding now in the last 30 years is that much of the work, in terms of our cognitive and emotional response to the world, happens at the unconscious level.

If you build a wall to separate people, there will be those who find a way around the wall, or over it, or under it, or through it. We humans are not meant to be contained, and neither are our thoughts.

As with everything else, the more we separate ourselves from each other, the weaker we become.

We need more inclusion, partnerships over partisanships in politics to solve man-made problems to be better off and in order to change the world

_αθ_ανθ___ία = _ο να __ν~κα_α~λέγε_αι λαθ_α_ _ __μ/α, __ο εἲδο __ν νθ_ῶ_ν.~ Lathranthropia = the smuggled inclusion of a person or persons within the Human species. neology by Ale3ia

If the surprise outcome of the recent UK referendum - on whether to leave or remain in the European Union - teaches us anything, it is that supposedly worthy displays of democracy in action can actually do more harm than good. Witness a nation now more divided; an intergenerational schism in the making; both a governing and opposition party torn to shreds from the inside; infinitely more complex issues raised than satisfactory solutions provided. It begs the question 'Was it really all worth it' ?

I think that overall, the position - on a whole host of issues - should always be toward inclusion and equality.

It's funny that being human means so many things, man made divisions counter our judgements towards being wary of the "other", this is worrying because the thing that unites us is being human that is what we all are and without lament but with joy we should embrace everybody we would then live in utopia of diversity.

Let__ talk about __oexist_ bumper stickers for a second. You__e definitely seen them around. They__e those blue strips with white lettering that assemble a collection of religious icons and mystical symbols (e.g., an Islamic crescent, a Star of David, a Christian cross, a peace sign, a yin-yang) to spell out a simple message of inclusion and tolerance. Perhaps you instinctively roll your eyes at these advertisements of moral correctness. Perhaps you find the sentiment worthwhile, but you__e not a wear-your-politics-on-your-fender type of person. Or perhaps you actually have __oexist_ bumper stickers affixed to both your Prius and your Beamer. Whatever floats your boat, man; far be it from us to cast stones. But we bring up these particular morality minibillboards to illustrate a bothersome dichotomy. If we were to draw a Venn diagram of (a) the people who flaunt their socially responsible __oexist_ values for fellow motorists, and (b) the people who believe that, say, an evangelical Christian who owns a local flower shop ought to be sued and shamed for politely declining to provide floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding, the resulting circles would more or less overlap.The coexist message: You people (i.e., conservatives) need to get on board and start coexisting with groups that might make you uncomfortable. It says so right here on my highly enlightened bumper sticker. But don__ you dare ask me to tolerate the __ntolerance_ of people with whom I disagree. Because that__ different.

Don't let anyone tell you, ever, that this is a zero-sum game. Your genius does not threaten me. It delights and inspires me.

Those who are weak have great difficulty finding their place in our society. The image of the ideal human as powerful and capable disenfranchises the old, the sick, the less-abled. For me, society must, by definition, be inclusive of the needs and gifts of all its members. How can we lay claim to making an open and friendly society where human rights are respected and fostered when, by the values we teach and foster, we systematically exclude segments of our population? I believe that those we most often exclude from the normal life of society, people with disabilities, have profound lessons to teach us. When we do include them, they add richly to our lives and add immensely to our world.

If they don't give you a seat at the table, bring a folding chair.