Asian ERA |OT| We don't AGE

Deleted member 907 · Mar 20, 2018

Cybit said:
I think the idea that Trump got to where he is based on hate speech and "freedom to express" is one that is popular because it absolves a lot of people of responsibility and is an easy "they are bad we are good" narrative. I mean, I think last we heard it was about 30% of Trump voters were also Obama voters. It's folks who have lost all sense of hope - Obama was the optimistic / light choice, and Trump is the angry / dark choice. Moving from the Midwest to Seattle it is really apparent how policies from the 90s and 2000s were deliberately designed to move jobs and money from the industrial heart of the country to the cities, and moving towards service sector jobs is particularly convenient for areas without much space. Service sector jobs work best when servicing the products you already make - but we deliberately didn't go down that route. So I get why they're angry. I think it's crazy, and I think that enabling a narcissistic racist ignorant warmongerer is not worth the message they tried to send - but I get it.

(I could go into a soapbox about this, but I hate Trump too much to do so, lol)

Trump is shit, but I don't agree. You're assuming that vast swathes of the country aren't white supremacist to begin with. The fact that they may have voted for Obama doesn't change that and migrating to Trump reinforced that. Those people don't care about POC in the same economic class and want to reclaim their status as a racial class. They have enough class consciousness to know the difference; they just don't give a fuck.

Cybit · Mar 20, 2018

Power of Sparda said:
Trump is shit, but I don't agree. You're assuming that vast swathes of the country aren't white supremacist to begin with. The fact that they may have voted for Obama doesn't change that and migrating to Trump reinforced that. Those people don't care about POC in the same economic class and want to reclaim their status as a racial class. They have enough class consciousness to know the difference; they just don't give a fuck.

I mean, you can't be "white supremacist" and vote for a black guy over old white dudes twice, one who happens to be a war hero / reasonably decent human being by GOP standards. Maybe this is a function of growing up in a rural area, but white supremacists were the ones who taped those newsletters to our doors. Not people who voted for one of two parties. There's a huge difference between being a white supremacist and caring more about your economic status than race. I mean, there are a lot of views that Clinton took that I don't agree with, but for the issues that matter to me, she is way more in line than Trump was, so I voted for Clinton. In a two party system it is not particularly fair to assume that voting for a party means being 100% in line with all of their beliefs. The rural vs urban divide cuts way cleaner and lines up with the Obama / Trump dynamic (Obama being from kansas and living in IL helped, and hating the cubs basically brought the entire Midwest over to his side).

That said, I know my views are colored by my personal experiences in Seattle, where a lot of the "they're just all racist" conjecture is absolutely used to not have to think about the issues behind the election. (My views didn't change and I went from hardcore tree-hugging hippy liberal to conservative Democrat by moving to Seattle, lol).

cdyhybrid · Mar 20, 2018

Trump absolutely used hate speech to get where he is, but that's not a reason to restrict free speech.

The fact is that the government is only as good as the people that participate in it, and right now that includes a lot of shitty people.

I don't think the policy itself is the core problem - it's that the people tasked with enforcing the policy largely aren't willing or able to do it consistently.

Cybit · Mar 20, 2018

Which is why I am super protective of rights. The entire "growing up in an area where your political views are not the majority" thing shaped a lot of that for me. Most folks who argue for suppression of free speech can't fathom the idea of it being used against them, while simultaneously holding the belief that the core constructs of American law and government are racist and sexist. Those two ideas can't exist simultaneously.

Also, I figured out what bugs me about all those topics on ERA. When changes in rights gets used terribly against Asians or Jews, it's seen as a necessary consequence. Like, the racism and lack of humanity is baked into their world views. Reading that thread and seeing people call a jewish person anti-semitic for not being offended enough, or "we have to be safe and careful" when that was literally the justification for sending brown people to Gitmo makes me realize that they're just insanely racist, and clutch onto the idea that only systemic racism matters as their way of justifying their bigotry towards other groups.

cdyhybrid · Mar 20, 2018

I will say though that there is certainly a way to introduce more stringent hate speech laws that doesn't cross the line into infringing on free non-hate speech. I just don't trust those currently in power to make those distinctions fairly. Destroy the Republican party and everything it stands for and maybe we can have that conversation then.

Deleted member 907 · Mar 20, 2018

Cybit said:
I mean, you can't be "white supremacist" and vote for a black guy over old white dudes twice, one who happens to be a war hero / reasonably decent human being by GOP standards. Maybe this is a function of growing up in a rural area, but white supremacists were the ones who taped those newsletters to our doors. Not people who voted for one of two parties. There's a huge difference between being a white supremacist and caring more about your economic status than race. I mean, there are a lot of views that Clinton took that I don't agree with, but for the issues that matter to me, she is way more in line than Trump was, so I voted for Clinton. In a two party system it is not particularly fair to assume that voting for a party means being 100% in line with all of their beliefs. The rural vs urban divide cuts way cleaner and lines up with the Obama / Trump dynamic (Obama being from kansas and living in IL helped, and hating the cubs basically brought the entire Midwest over to his side).

That said, I know my views are colored by my personal experiences in Seattle, where a lot of the "they're just all racist" conjecture is absolutely used to not have to think about the issues behind the election. (My views didn't change and I went from hardcore tree-hugging hippy liberal to conservative Democrat by moving to Seattle, lol).

Sure, but that's like saying liberals can't be white supremacists. Note that I used "white supremacist" instead of "racist" because I want to be deliberate in calling out what the real issue is. You only need to look at the Black Panther/China threads to see how this plays out. China has been trading with Africa for thousands of years and yet you have people calling Chinese people racist for cultural osmosis of white supremacist media. Chinese people didn't create those racist images of black people; whites did. Saying that were racist too is a deflectionary tactic.

Cybit said:
Which is why I am super protective of rights. The entire "growing up in an area where your political views are not the majority" thing shaped a lot of that for me. Most folks who argue for suppression of free speech can't fathom the idea of it being used against them, while simultaneously holding the belief that the core constructs of American law and government are racist and sexist. Those two ideas can't exist simultaneously.

Also, I figured out what bugs me about all those topics on ERA. When changes in rights gets used terribly against Asians or Jews, it's seen as a necessary consequence. Like, the racism and lack of humanity is baked into their world views. Reading that thread and seeing people call a jewish person anti-semitic for not being offended enough, or "we have to be safe and careful" when that was literally the justification for sending brown people to Gitmo makes me realize that they're just insanely racist, and clutch onto the idea that only systemic racism matters as their way of justifying their bigotry towards other groups.

Rights are worthless if they're not applied equally and in good faith. Tolerance is a social contract; not a suicide pact.

Cybit · Mar 21, 2018

Power of Sparda said:
Sure, but that's like saying liberals can't be white supremacists. Note that I used "white supremacist" instead of "racist" because I want to be deliberate in calling out what the real issue is. You only need to look at the Black Panther/China threads to see how this plays out. China has been trading with Africa for thousands of years and yet you have people calling Chinese people racist for cultural osmosis of white supremacist media. Chinese people didn't create those racist images of black people; whites did. Saying that were racist too is a deflectionary tactic.

Rights are worthless if they're not applied equally and in good faith. Tolerance is a social contract; not a suicide pact.

There are a lot of people who genuinely believe that because they are not white that they cannot be racist. Most of them tend to be anti-free speech and heavily liberal leaning. That's why there's a hefty dose of anti-semitism and anti-asian commentary allowed on GAF, as far as they are concerned, it is punching up, and they want to hurt people because they think they have the right to hurt others because they have been hurt themselves. Lets be honest - most of those people believe they are punching up. Hell, see the posts about people being bitter that there were reparations for internment.

As for rights - I think they are specifically designed to deal with the situations where good faith goes out the window, and I think that's a point most people don't understand. The reason rights are considered unalienable is because they need to be protected against a norm-breaking president like Trump. "Good faith" generally implies social norms and social contracts, and having your rights tied to the consistent goodness of people's hearts is a pretty quick way to lose them. I mean, people forget that there was a second rally planned for Boston after Charlottesville, and it got shut down not by government action, but by those who believe that white supremacy is abhorrent showing up and exercising their rights. The reason rights are so absolute is because they need to be able to outlast the whims of the people using them. Are there points of no return? Sure. We have them as well. (Hilariously, if you want to see who is not worth talking to about free speech, if they use the "fire in a theater" argument, it's an immediate sign that they are idiots who can't be bothered to read the internet.)

https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/...medias-coverage-of-free-speech-controversies/

Nearly 100 years ago Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., voting to uphold the Espionage Act conviction of a man who wrote and circulated anti-draft pamphlets during World War I, said"[t]he most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic."

That flourish — now usually shortened to "shout fire in a crowded theater" — is the media's go-to trope to support the proposition that some speech is illegal. But it's empty rhetoric. I previously explained at length how Holmes said it in the context of the Supreme Court's strong wartime pro-censorship push and subsequently retreated from it. That history illustrates its insidious nature. Holmes cynically used the phrase as a rhetorical device to justify jailing people for anti-war advocacy, an activity that is now (and was soon thereafter) unquestionably protected by the First Amendment.

But the exceptions to free speech are really well defined and seemed to have worked pretty darn well. Not going to a slippery slope of "offensive" speech, like the UK did. (Which is literally the charge the UK is bringing). Civil Rights movements often involve a lot of comments that can be seen as offensive to the group in power. Somehow I don't think giving the government, you know, the people who are screwing you, the right to throw you in jail for offending them, is particularly a good idea. If you don't think rights are applied equally and in good faith, isn't it a little odd to assume exceptions to free speech will some how magically be applied equally and in good faith?

Sometimes I think that a lot of the arguments for having gov't intervention on this shit are because people just don't want to be bothered to do more than shout on the internet.

Deleted member 907 · Mar 21, 2018

Cybit said:
There are a lot of people who genuinely believe that because they are not white that they cannot be racist. Most of them tend to be anti-free speech and heavily liberal leaning. That's why there's a hefty dose of anti-semitism and anti-asian commentary allowed on GAF, as far as they are concerned, it is punching up, and they want to hurt people because they think they have the right to hurt others because they have been hurt themselves. Lets be honest - most of those people believe they are punching up. Hell, see the posts about people being bitter that there were reparations for internment.

As for rights - I think they are specifically designed to deal with the situations where good faith goes out the window, and I think that's a point most people don't understand. The reason rights are considered unalienable is because they need to be protected against a norm-breaking president like Trump. "Good faith" generally implies social norms and social contracts, and having your rights tied to the consistent goodness of people's hearts is a pretty quick way to lose them. I mean, people forget that there was a second rally planned for Boston after Charlottesville, and it got shut down not by government action, but by those who believe that white supremacy is abhorrent showing up and exercising their rights. The reason rights are so absolute is because they need to be able to outlast the whims of the people using them. Are there points of no return? Sure. We have them as well. (Hilariously, if you want to see who is not worth talking to about free speech, if they use the "fire in a theater" argument, it's an immediate sign that they are idiots who can't be bothered to read the internet.)

https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/...medias-coverage-of-free-speech-controversies/

But the exceptions to free speech are really well defined and seemed to have worked pretty darn well. Not going to a slippery slope of "offensive" speech, like the UK did. (Which is literally the charge the UK is bringing). Civil Rights movements often involve a lot of comments that can be seen as offensive to the group in power. Somehow I don't think giving the government, you know, the people who are screwing you, the right to throw you in jail for offending them, is particularly a good idea. If you don't think rights are applied equally and in good faith, isn't it a little odd to assume exceptions to free speech will some how magically be applied equally and in good faith?

Sometimes I think that a lot of the arguments for having gov't intervention on this shit are because people just don't want to be bothered to do more than shout on the internet.

I subscribe to racism=prejudice+power like those people you're talking about. Because of the way most people use that term, I take it to the next level. Here's the thing though: even when they're making anti-Asian statements, they're still utilizing white supremacist ascriptions, so when they say Chinese people killed off the rhinos to have boners, it's actually spreading white supremacy because that was a white invention, which is why I'm loathe to call PoC racist. I also don't look at it in terms of punching up because there's really only one race that you can punch up to.

There is nothing unalienable about unalienable rights though. Trump "breaking norms" is the system working as intended; not in terms of unalienable rights, but who is allowed protection under them. You will absolutely not see an Isis or black supremacist rally compared to all KKK/Nazi ones. That rally in Boston still happened. Maybe a dozen people showed up and they were outnumbered 1000:1, but they were still given a platform. While I agree that rights shouldn't be at the whims of the zeitgeist, that's just not the reality and nothing new. I don't assume protection or enforcement in good faith even if it were put in the books, BUT since these things DO follow the zeitgeist, there will be a time where it be more egalitarian. And no, Nazism isn't egalitarian based, so speech promoting it would be censored.

I just don't see why a one size fits all policy needs to be protected in case it might bite us in the ass in the future when it already does bite us in the ass now.

Cybit · Mar 21, 2018

Power of Sparda said:
I subscribe to racism=prejudice+power like those people you're talking about, but because of they way most people use that term, I take it to the next level. Here's the thing though: even when they're making anti-Asian statements, they're still utilizing white supremacist ascriptions, so when they say Chinese people killed off the rhinos to have boners, it's actually spreading white supremacy because that was a white invention, which is why I'm loathe to call PoC racist. I also don't look at it in terms of punching up because there's really only one race that you can punch up to.

There is nothing unalienable about unalienable rights though. Trump "breaking norms" is the system working as intended; not in terms of unalienable rights, but who is allowed protection under them. You will absolutely not see an Isis or black supremacist rally compared to all KKK/Nazi ones. That rally in Boston still happened. Maybe a dozen people showed up and they were outnumbered 1000:1, but they were still given a platform. While I agree that rights shouldn't be at the whims of the zeitgeist, that's just not the reality and nothing new. I don't assume protection or enforcement in good faith even if it were put in the books, BUT since these things DO follow the zeitgeist, there will be a time where it be more egalitarian. And no, Nazism isn't egalitarian based, so speech promoting it would be censored.

I just don't see why a one size fits all policy needs to be protected in case it might bite us in the ass in the future when it already does bite us in the ass now.

The racism = prejudice + power thing is valid for discussion in academia (and has a more appropriate term in systemic racism), but it's not a valid colloquial use IMO. Only a tiny subset of people use racist as "prejudice + power", and I think it's used disingenuously and frankly as a cover for overt racism from one minority group towards another on the whole. PoC can absolutely be racist, and frankly, at least in many asian cultures (including Indian), our parents / relatives / folks who didn't grow up in the US are super fucking racist, and we all know it. The only people who have ever commented on me and my wife or me and a white date were asians. I honestly think that the entire concept of PoC not being racist is rooted in a really hefty dose of denial (which, as the recovering alcoholic, I am totally guilty of and can unfortunately see. The entire Yoda quote of "failure is the best teacher" in TLJ brought me to fucking tears.) and wanting to keep the moral high ground because things are portrayed (especially online) in only absolutes. As for the "only one race you can punch up to", at least in ERA, Jews and Asians are definitely "appropriate" targets (I can remember a recent post where someone was complaining that Japanese-Americans got reparations and so that they were privileged)

The big thing about Charlottesville that people either miss or don't want to admit is that it caused the white supremacist movement in the US to start falling apart at the seams. Had the rally not happened, they would still be on the upswing. Without Charlottesville, FB and Twitter and CloudFlare and whoever don't take action.

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2018/2017-year-hate-and-extremism

In terms of the unalienable rights things - people are conflating social pressure with government pressure when it comes to the black supremacist rally. The government wouldn't do a darn thing, because they are forbidden from doing so. Other people might. The line is when the government steps in, I promise you 1960s America would not have let the Black Panthers speak anywhere. 1980s America sure as hell wouldn't have let anyone promoting the idea of gay marriage speak anywhere. There are far, far more instances of groups who were shunned being proven right than proven wrong. So that's why it's important. Rights aren't at the whim at the zeitgeist, because a bunch of more people would still be in Gitmo if it were. It is easy to be OK with things following the zeitgeist when you are aligned with it. I ain't worried about that part. I'm worried about when the pendulum swings back and all of a sudden it is in fad to hate a group. The next time there's a big Chinese espionage situation, you think any american born chinese scientists / engineers would be getting anywhere near a DoD project? That's why they are protected so fiercely.

.

cdyhybrid · Mar 21, 2018

Trump is still in the Oval Office and the House and Senate are still red, white supremacy still seems to be doing fine.

PoC can certainly be racist, but that's not really a unique phenomenon - prejudice exists everywhere, and honestly, you're never going to completely snuff it out at the ground level. It's when prejudice gets enshrined in law and policy and society at large that it A) becomes exponentially more destructive, and B) becomes attackable. You can end systemic prejudice by changing the system.

I think if you're trying to fight racism from your neighbor at the expense of fighting white supremacy as a whole, you're not only wasting your time, you're missing the big picture.

You can fix a broken system that was constructed and is maintained by people. You can't fix the guy across the street being a shit head.

This is not to say that if you see some shit that needs calling out you shouldn't call it out, to be clear. People just need to keep things in perspective.

Deleted member 907 · Mar 21, 2018

Cybit said:
The racism = prejudice + power thing is valid for discussion in academia (and has a more appropriate term in systemic racism), but it's not a valid colloquial use IMO. Only a tiny subset of people use racist as "prejudice + power", and I think it's used disingenuously and frankly as a cover for overt racism from one minority group towards another on the whole. PoC can absolutely be racist, and frankly, at least in many asian cultures (including Indian), our parents / relatives / folks who didn't grow up in the US are super fucking racist, and we all know it. The only people who have ever commented on me and my wife or me and a white date were asians. I honestly think that the entire concept of PoC not being racist is rooted in a really hefty dose of denial (which, as the recovering alcoholic, I am totally guilty of and can unfortunately see. The entire Yoda quote of "failure is the best teacher" in TLJ brought me to fucking tears.) and wanting to keep the moral high ground because things are portrayed (especially online) in only absolutes. As for the "only one race you can punch up to", at least in ERA, Jews and Asians are definitely "appropriate" targets (I can remember a recent post where someone was complaining that Japanese-Americans got reparations and so that they were privileged)

The big thing about Charlottesville that people either miss or don't want to admit is that it caused the white supremacist movement in the US to start falling apart at the seams. Had the rally not happened, they would still be on the upswing. Without Charlottesville, FB and Twitter and CloudFlare and whoever don't take action.

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2018/2017-year-hate-and-extremism

In terms of the unalienable rights things - people are conflating social pressure with government pressure when it comes to the black supremacist rally. The government wouldn't do a darn thing, because they are forbidden from doing so. Other people might. The line is when the government steps in, I promise you 1960s America would not have let the Black Panthers speak anywhere. 1980s America sure as hell wouldn't have let anyone promoting the idea of gay marriage speak anywhere. There are far, far more instances of groups who were shunned being proven right than proven wrong. So that's why it's important. Rights aren't at the whim at the zeitgeist, because a bunch of more people would still be in Gitmo if it were. It is easy to be OK with things following the zeitgeist when you are aligned with it. I ain't worried about that part. I'm worried about when the pendulum swings back and all of a sudden it is in fad to hate a group. The next time there's a big Chinese espionage situation, you think any american born chinese scientists / engineers would be getting anywhere near a DoD project? That's why they are protected so fiercely.

.

I noticed that a huge road block in discussions is the semantics around calling it "racism." Personally, I give less of a fuck now about it than I used to after I transitioned to "white supremacy." If we're using stereotypes created by whites on fellow PoC, we're doing the work of white supremacists for them, right? Does promoting it help PoC as a whole? Absolutely not, but that still doesn't mean that we can be ignorant of who or how people are impacted and our place in it. Saying that everyone is racist is a dead end up when people are more concerned about being called racist rather than how they are acting racist. By reframing it as white supremacy since whites are the beneficiaries of racism, we can begin to push the issues outwards to them as opposed to inwards at eachother. I also wouldn't be so wary of academic uses as academia is where we get the tools for the fight.

You might want to re-read that link though. It says that while individual affiliation and new groups might be on the decline, acceptance of those views are becoming more mainstream.

Ultimately, fighting white supremacy is the goal. If their speech in service of it needs to be censored a little, then it is what it is. If it bites us in the ass later, then we'll fight that fight too.

Cybit · Mar 21, 2018

Power of Sparda said:
I noticed that a huge road block in discussions is the semantics around calling it "racism." Personally, I give less of a fuck now about it than I used to after I transitioned to "white supremacy." If we're using stereotypes created by whites on fellow PoC, we're doing the work of white supremacists for them, right? Does promoting it help PoC as a whole? Absolutely not, but that still doesn't mean that we can be ignorant of who or how people are impacted and our place in it. Saying that everyone is racist is a dead end up when people are more concerned about being called racist rather than how they are acting racist. By reframing it as white supremacy since whites are the beneficiaries of racism, we can begin to push the issues outwards to them as opposed to inwards at eachother. I also wouldn't be so wary of academic uses as academia is where we get the tools for the fight.

You might want to re-read that link though. It says that while individual affiliation and new groups might be on the decline, acceptance of those views are becoming more mainstream.

Ultimately, fighting white supremacy is the goal. If their speech in service of it needs to be censored a little, then it is what it is. If it bites us in the ass later, then we'll fight that fight too.

But not all of it is white supremacy. The dynamics of South Asia and SE Asia with each other have ZERO to do with white people. My parents still struggle with Chinese folks - because they grew up in India when China and India were at war with each other. Koreans, Japanese, and Chinese still often have racist attitudes towards each other because of WWII (and other things as well). South Africans and Indians have weird dynamics because they were both major colonies of the British. Which is the trap I see some folks go down, where they use it as an excuse to try to blame white people for their own crappy beliefs, lol. (Not the case with you, but other folks in my life for sure).

As for the academia thing, my wife is in humanities academia and so I've heard the horror stories involved in how "tools" are developed, so I'll take a pass on that shitshow lol.

So, acceptance of those views isn't necessarily becoming more mainstream. The huge missing data point in that statement is "what was it before?" Because they don't have that data, and seeing as where we were even just 40 years ago with racial attitudes in this country, I would bet a whole lot of money that all non two to three data point trends indicate that the number of people who are OK with folks having neo-nazi / white supremacist views under different names has dropped dramatically in the last two decades. It just "feels" like it, because we see it more in the news and in the places we frequent because we have an interest in it. It's kind of how people thought crime and school shootings keep increasing, because the coverage of it did. Or, to put it other context, 16% think the moon landings were faked, and I think 10% of french nationals believe that the earth is flat. So if the amount of people who believe neo-nazi / white supremacy is OK is under the number of people who think the earth is flat - I think we're in a pretty good spot compared to the beginning of my life.

As for censoring their speech, Europe is pretty powerful proof that censoring it in a world with the internet is a fool's errand, and if anything, popularizes it far more. Ultimately, hiding it in the shadows is what allowed 2016 to happen. Letting it shoot itself repeatedly in the face by having platforms and exposing its idiocy and depravity in unabashed glory in public seems to have done a far, far better job than anything else of turning the tide.

Deleted member 907 · Mar 21, 2018

Cybit said:
But not all of it is white supremacy. The dynamics of South Asia and SE Asia with each other have ZERO to do with white people. My parents still struggle with Chinese folks - because they grew up in India when China and India were at war with each other. Koreans, Japanese, and Chinese still often have racist attitudes towards each other because of WWII (and other things as well). South Africans and Indians have weird dynamics because they were both major colonies of the British. Which is the trap I see some folks go down, where they use it as an excuse to try to blame white people for their own crappy beliefs, lol. (Not the case with you, but other folks in my life for sure).

As for the academia thing, my wife is in humanities academia and so I've heard the horror stories involved in how "tools" are developed, so I'll take a pass on that shitshow lol.

So, acceptance of those views isn't necessarily becoming more mainstream. The huge missing data point in that statement is "what was it before?" Because they don't have that data, and seeing as where we were even just 40 years ago with racial attitudes in this country, I would bet a whole lot of money that all non two to three data point trends indicate that the number of people who are OK with folks having neo-nazi / white supremacist views under different names has dropped dramatically in the last two decades. It just "feels" like it, because we see it more in the news and in the places we frequent because we have an interest in it. It's kind of how people thought crime and school shootings keep increasing, because the coverage of it did. Or, to put it other context, 16% think the moon landings were faked, and I think 10% of french nationals believe that the earth is flat. So if the amount of people who believe neo-nazi / white supremacy is OK is under the number of people who think the earth is flat - I think we're in a pretty good spot compared to the beginning of my life.

As for censoring their speech, Europe is pretty powerful proof that censoring it in a world with the internet is a fool's errand, and if anything, popularizes it far more. Ultimately, hiding it in the shadows is what allowed 2016 to happen. Letting it shoot itself repeatedly in the face by having platforms and exposing its idiocy and depravity in unabashed glory in public seems to have done a far, far better job than anything else of turning the tide.

Inter-ethnic conflict is different from racism and that doesn't mean that an Asian ethnic group that was colonized didn't absorb white supremacist ideals and ideas. I'll need an example of those excuses.

I know a bunch of grad and doctoral professors in academia as well and the "tools" I'm talking about are analytical frameworks as well as the vocabulary to convey very specific ideas and concepts. I have no idea what "tools" you're talking about.

Hate crimes are on the rise and self-identified white supremacists are getting airtime on mainstream outlets to push their propaganda. It has nothing to do with "feels" and all about observable events. These people aren't on tv as sideshow freaks, but given legitimacy. That's the difference. Are things better? Depends on how you define it.

Hiding in the shadows is not what allowed 2016 to happen. Lots of people knew Trump had a decent chance to win; I was one of them. I was honestly not surprised despite living in a liberal bubble. Giving an air of legitimacy to these platforms is what people are arguing when it comes to normalizing white supremacy. Some liberals will point their fingers and laugh at the yokel haram, but those poisonous ideas are still gaining traction. If those horrible ideas do so well, how do you think casual racism is doing? Even better. Moon landing deniers and flat earthers are treated very differently from, let's say Richard Spencer in the media.

We have some pretty big philosophical differences to say the least. Not saying this to be mean of course.

Cybit · Mar 22, 2018

I am gonna be quick since I wanna get some Monster Hunter in tonight, but wanted to respond. :)

First things first, lol, no worries. People are different, grow up different places, go through different shit. I don't tend to assume anyone is defined (even like 5%) by just their political views on a couple of issues, even if they are important issues. :D Hell, I'm coming to LA next week for work, and if you want to grab dinner and shoot the shit some more, I'm totally game. :)

Also, So Cal - Asian ERA, I AM IN YOU NEXT WEEK. Time for me to see all these fucking dishes you have been taunting us with for years. :D

I guess I'm not differentiating between inter-ethnic conflict that leads to racist beliefs and racism? As for the excuses, next time I hear one from someone locally I'll remember to keep note, lol.

Ah - the tools I've been exposed to tend to be trying to co-opt existing language and make it more general and ultimately useless. Situations where people want to use the most extreme version of something as a definition for all behavior in that spectrum in a way to provoke moral shame and moral superiority. I've seen a lot of p-hacking with studies and comments by authors that indicate they believe they have a moral obligation to prove certain connections, which leads to correlation / causation fallacies that perpetuate. (In what the missus showed me, it tended to revolve around gender type stuff since that was closer to her area of expertise).

So, I guess the big difference to me is two-fold

A) I do not believe "coverage" of something means it is happening more often. (See: School shootings, crime in the US, etc). Considering what the coverage priorities of the media was during the 2016 election, I'm going to propose that what gets coverage is simply what drives more outrage / more views, and has nothing to do with the seriousness or increase in hate crimes. In fact, I believe hate crimes have been on the consistent long-term decline since statistics were started to be taken in 1996. (https://ucr.fbi.gov/ucr-publications#Hate).

(I'll pull the numbers from the PDF at a later point, Monster Hunter calllllllsss)

B) Having grown up in the areas where it is being "newly legitimized", I have issue with people thinking that only in the last like 5 years has it been legitimized. It was legitimized to a much higher degree when I was growing up than it is now. It is only finally now that anyone has decided they should pay attention to this. There's no "legitimization" going on, it's always been there. But the internet and social media have revealed it to everyone who didn't live in those areas. (Note that all the times it talks about an "increase" in actual belief as opposed to an increase in coverage, no one seems to have data going back more than like 4 years about those questions.) Add on top of it that the ability to reach people via the internet is now a thing and is only a recent thing, people are confusing with "seeing it for the first time" with "it's new".

And I think that's where the fundamental difference lies. I think for the first time, a lot of folks who grew up in serious bubbles are finally being exposed to what has always been there. I remember an anecdote that the year Columbine happened, was the year with the least amount of students killed in school shootings at the time. (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/03/there-is-no-epidemic-of-mass-school-shootings.html). But it is new and scary and crazy to everyone who never knew what was going on.

Ok, back to food pictures y'all. :)

cdyhybrid · Mar 22, 2018

Cybit said:
I am gonna be quick since I wanna get some Monster Hunter in tonight, but wanted to respond. :)

First things first, lol, no worries. People are different, grow up different places, go through different shit. I don't tend to assume anyone is defined (even like 5%) by just their political views on a couple of issues, even if they are important issues. :D Hell, I'm coming to LA next week for work, and if you want to grab dinner and shoot the shit some more, I'm totally game. :)

Also, So Cal - Asian ERA, I AM IN YOU NEXT WEEK. Time for me to see all these fucking dishes you have been taunting us with for years. :D

I guess I'm not differentiating between inter-ethnic conflict that leads to racist beliefs and racism? As for the excuses, next time I hear one from someone locally I'll remember to keep note, lol.

Ah - the tools I've been exposed to tend to be trying to co-opt existing language and make it more general and ultimately useless. Situations where people want to use the most extreme version of something as a definition for all behavior in that spectrum in a way to provoke moral shame and moral superiority. I've seen a lot of p-hacking with studies and comments by authors that indicate they believe they have a moral obligation to prove certain connections, which leads to correlation / causation fallacies that perpetuate. (In what the missus showed me, it tended to revolve around gender type stuff since that was closer to her area of expertise).

So, I guess the big difference to me is two-fold

A) I do not believe "coverage" of something means it is happening more often. (See: School shootings, crime in the US, etc). Considering what the coverage priorities of the media was during the 2016 election, I'm going to propose that what gets coverage is simply what drives more outrage / more views, and has nothing to do with the seriousness or increase in hate crimes. In fact, I believe hate crimes have been on the consistent long-term decline since statistics were started to be taken in 1996. (https://ucr.fbi.gov/ucr-publications#Hate).

(I'll pull the numbers from the PDF at a later point, Monster Hunter calllllllsss)

B) Having grown up in the areas where it is being "newly legitimized", I have issue with people thinking that only in the last like 5 years has it been legitimized. It was legitimized to a much higher degree when I was growing up than it is now. It is only finally now that anyone has decided they should pay attention to this. There's no "legitimization" going on, it's always been there. But the internet and social media have revealed it to everyone who didn't live in those areas. (Note that all the times it talks about an "increase" in actual belief as opposed to an increase in coverage, no one seems to have data going back more than like 4 years about those questions.) Add on top of it that the ability to reach people via the internet is now a thing and is only a recent thing, people are confusing with "seeing it for the first time" with "it's new".

And I think that's where the fundamental difference lies. I think for the first time, a lot of folks who grew up in serious bubbles are finally being exposed to what has always been there. I remember an anecdote that the year Columbine happened, was the year with the least amount of students killed in school shootings at the time. (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/03/there-is-no-epidemic-of-mass-school-shootings.html). But it is new and scary and crazy to everyone who never knew what was going on.

Ok, back to food pictures y'all. :)

Don't need to rely on vague definitions of "coverage":

https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/13/politics/hate-crimes-fbi-2016-rise/index.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...urge-rise-latest-figures-police-a8055026.html
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41975573
https://www.splcenter.org/news/2017...i-muslim-violence-soars-amid-president-trumps

Cybit · Mar 22, 2018

Ah, k, gotcha. Went up 2015 and 2016, no news yet on 2017, and around 6000 in 2016 vs 8800 in 1996.

Ok, so went ahead and pulled the numbers from 1996 till now

1996 8759
1997 8050
1998 7755
1999 7876
2000 8063
2001 9730
2002 7462
2003 7489
2004 7649
2005 7163
2006 7722
2007 7624
2008 7783
2009 6604
2010 6628
2011 6222
2012 5796
2013 5928
2014 5479
2015 5850
2016 6121

Holy shit, after Obama got elected hate crimes fell off a fucking cliff. With the exception of 2001, it's a steady decrease downward, and then it drops 15% in that year. The average is a 1 yr drop with a st dev of 8%, so anything within 8% one way or the other is not statistically going to tell you anything. (the 2001 increase and 2008 decrease is 2+ std dev)

cdyhybrid · Mar 22, 2018

Cybit said:
Ah, k, gotcha. Went up 2015 and 2016, no news yet on 2017, and around 6000 in 2016 vs 8800 in 1996.

Ok, so went ahead and pulled the numbers from 1996 till now

1996 8759
1997 8050
1998 7755
1999 7876
2000 8063
2001 9730
2002 7462
2003 7489
2004 7649
2005 7163
2006 7722
2007 7624
2008 7783
2009 6604
2010 6628
2011 6222
2012 5796
2013 5928
2014 5479
2015 5850
2016 6121

Holy shit, after Obama got elected hate crimes fell off a fucking cliff. With the exception of 2001, it's a steady decrease downward, and then it drops 15% in that year. The average is a 1 yr drop with a st dev of 8%, so anything within 8% one way or the other is not statistically going to tell you anything. (the 2001 increase and 2008 decrease is 2+ std dev)

Yeah, funny how once an unabashed white supremacist became the face of the country they started going up again ;)

Cybit · Mar 22, 2018

I am super curious now what the projected numbers would have been in 2001 pre 9-11

cdyhybrid · Mar 27, 2018

Seductivpancakes · Mar 27, 2018

I tell my non Asian friends we do judge them.

meph · Mar 27, 2018

Even if staff don't judge, I do.

Deleted member 907 · Mar 27, 2018

Lolz...damn right I am, but I couldn't care less when asking for myself if it's to cut food for the kids.

Deleted member 2779 · Mar 28, 2018

ngl I've been handed a fork a few times.

Cow Mengde · Mar 28, 2018

cdyhybrid said:

I bet Pet wrote this article.

Pet · Mar 28, 2018

Cow Mengde said:
I bet Pet wrote this article.

*attempts indignant pout

Knight613 · Mar 28, 2018

I judge people that still don't know how to hold chopsticks correctly.

Particularly the older Asian people. :P

Septimus Prime · Mar 28, 2018

Knight613 said:
I judge people that still don't know how to hold chopsticks correctly.

Particularly the older Asian people. :P

I think a lot of Asians around my (our?) age can't use chopsticks the proper way because of the easy way we were taught as children.

But anyway, a friend recently posted a video on Facebook of her less-than-2 year old daughter using chopsticks. Meanwhile, I can't even get my son to use a spoon.

Riley · Mar 28, 2018

I can use chopsticks (correctly? idk), but I prefer forks. Come at me bruhs.

robox · Mar 28, 2018

cdyhybrid said:

the article solidifies a feeling i've always had, and it's that i much prefer the austere asian style service than the "coddling" but inscrutable customs of american service. like why do you ask about my day? it's stupid light banter, you don't care what i actually have to say, and i'm don't care to explain it either. if i need anything, it won't only be limited to the time right after food arrives; it can be any time and when i need you, i'll you. and that's when the little table bell is a godsend. otherwise, american servers then seem to disappear from food delivery until nearly done, so when you want them, you can't even find them. asian places have the mindset that people are just interested in the food and eating it and there's less expectation of "good" service. i'm perfectly happy with adequate service, because beyond that, it's obnoxious territory, where they're interrupting me or my conversation to ask if need anything.

i don't judge people if they ask for fork/spoon over chopsticks. and it depends on the demographics of the resto. i used to live in a more ghetto area and i can see the neighbourhood chinese resto handing fork and spoons to everyone. hell i use a spoon to eat rice at home, because 1) i use a soup/cereal bowl instead of the rice bowl, and they're slightly unwieldy to hold and 2) spoon is just more efficient at shovelling rice in.

BLOODED_hands · Mar 28, 2018

Prefers a fork here but I can make use of chopsticks.

cdyhybrid · Mar 28, 2018

Some white nonsense

SRG01 · Mar 29, 2018

I hold my chopsticks improperly, and I still prefer them over fork and knives.

I even prefer to eat pasta with them.

Septimus Prime · Mar 29, 2018

Oh, also, I give zero fucks about it now. I just had soup with a fork. Fuck it.

cdyhybrid · Mar 29, 2018

Septimus Prime said:
I just had soup with a fork.

You ate soup with a fork?

Knight613 · Mar 29, 2018

cdyhybrid said:
You ate soup with a fork?

I uh...imagine you use the fork to grab the ingredients in the soup and then just drink directly from the bowl?

Deleted member 2779 · Mar 29, 2018

Septimus Prime said:
Oh, also, I give zero fucks about it now. I just had soup with a fork. Fuck it.

If the soup fits!

Deleted member 907 · Mar 29, 2018

cdyhybrid said:
Some white nonsense

Rock on!

Cybit · Mar 29, 2018

If folks are in Long Beach / close by and want to say hi, I am here till tomorrow morning. :)

Deleted member 1287 · Mar 30, 2018

I prefer a fork for noodle soup, but I won't ask for one.

When my son was little they'd always give him a fork or those rubber-band chopsticks, and they'd be so pleased when he would ask for a real pair.

Deleted member 4452 · Mar 30, 2018

I eat chips with chopsticks.

Deleted member 2585 · Mar 30, 2018

Llyranor said:
I eat chips with chopsticks.

No better way to eat them.

BLOODED_hands · Mar 30, 2018

I still haven't tried that yet, but I enjoy the licking of the fingers though.

Miletius · Apr 2, 2018

Best way to eat soup will always be to just dump it all down your mouth at once. No need to get utensils involved.

Deleted member 2779 · Apr 2, 2018

BLOODED_hands said:
I still haven't tried that yet, but I enjoy the licking of the fingers though.

I'd argue you're not really even eating chips if you don't lick your fingers by the end.

Knight613 · Apr 2, 2018

Miletius said:
Best way to eat soup will always be to just dump it all down your mouth at once. No need to get utensils involved.

I know I look at a waiter weird when they give me a spoon for miso soup.

BLOODED_hands · Apr 2, 2018

I thought everybody was butt chugging things instead of actually eating or drinking anything?

cdyhybrid · Apr 3, 2018

Bluesteel · Apr 4, 2018

Shit, it's been a while guys. Had some health scare and job-related issues. How's everyone doing?

BLOODED_hands · Apr 4, 2018

Same old same old Bluesteel

We been lacking in the food pics lately though.

Deleted member 2779 · Apr 4, 2018

Doing so-so, uni back in full swing.

cdyhybrid said:

Overwatch is doing good on the diversity front in general but could be a lot better. I know it's not meant to be an in-depth piece but all too often the discussion seems to stop at patting ourselves on the back.

Asian ERA |OT| We don't AGE

User requested account closure

User requested account closure

User requested account closure

User requested account closure

User requested account closure

user requested ban

User requested account closure

User requested account closure

More helpful than the IRS

EA

EA

User requested account closure

User requested account closure

user requested account closure

User requested account closure

User requested account closure

User requested account closure

User requested account closure